Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

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.  – Check TFAR nominations for dead links  – Alt text

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

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 July 1 to July 31.

The TFAR requests page is currently accepting nominations from July 1 to July 31. Articles for dates beyond then can be listed here, but please note that doing so does not count as a nomination and does not guarantee selection. Before listing here, please check for dead links using checklinks or otherwise, and make sure all statements have good references. This is particularly important for older FAs and reruns. view • • history • watch
Date	Article	Reason	Primary author(s)	Added by (if different)
early July	Alpine ibex	Why	LittleJerry	Dank
July 1	Flag of Canada	Why	Gary	Dank
July 3	Maple syrup	Why	Nikkimaria	Dank
July 4	Statue of Liberty	Why	Wehwalt	Dank and Wehwalt
July 18	John Glenn	Why	Hawkeye7, Kees08	Dank
July 19	John D. Whitney	Why	Ergo Sum
July 21	Ernest Hemingway	Why	Victoriaearle	Dank
July 29	SMS Bodrog	Why	Peacemaker67
August 11	Yugoslav torpedo boat T2	Why	Peacemaker67
August 19	Battle of Winwick	Why	Gog the Mild
August 26	Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347	Why	Gog the Mild
August 31	Rachelle Ann Go	Why	Pseud 14
September	Avenue Range Station massacre	Why (rerun, first TFA was September 3, 2018)	Peacemaker67
September 6	Liz Truss	Why	Tim O'Doherty	Sheila1988 ... but see below, July 26, 2025
September 21	Artur Phleps	Why (rerun, first TFA was November 29, 2013)	Peacemaker67
October 1	The Founding Ceremony of the Nation	Why	Wehwalt
October 4	Olmec colossal heads	Why	Simon Burchell	Dank
October 11	Funerary art	Why	Johnbod	Dank
October 14	Brandenburg-class battleship	Why	Parsecboy	Parsecboy and Dank
October 15	Battle of Glasgow, Missouri	Why	HF
October 19	"Bad Romance"	Why	FrB.TG
October 21	Takin' It Back	Why	MaranoFan
October 22	The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes	Why	Your Power, ZooBlazer
October 25	Fusō-class battleship	Why	Sturmvogel_66 and Dank	Peacemaker67
October 25	Katy Perry	Why	SNUGGUMS	750h+
October 29	1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game	Why	PCN02WPS
October 30	Cucurbita	Why	Sminthopsis84 and Chiswick Chap	Dank
October 31	The Smashing Pumpkins	Why	WesleyDodds	Dank
November	Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana	Why	Peacemaker67
November 3	1964 Illinois House of Representatives election	Why	Elli
November 11	Mells War Memorial	Why	HJ Mitchell	Ham II
November 17	SMS Friedrich Carl	Why	Parsecboy	Peacemaker67
November 18	Donkey Kong Country	Why	TheJoebro64, Jaguar	TheJoebro64
November 21	MLS Cup 1999	Why	SounderBruce
November 22	Donkey Kong 64	Why	czar
November 27	Interstate 182	Why	SounderBruce
November 28	Battle of Cane Hill	Why	Hog Farm
December 3	PlayStation (console)	Why	Jaguar	Dank
December 13	Taylor Swift	Why (rerun, first TFA was August 23, 2019)	Ronherry	FrB.TG, Ticklekeys, SNUGGUMS
December 20	Sonic the Hedgehog 2	Why	TheJoebro64	Sheila1988
December 25	A Very Trainor Christmas	Why	MaranoFan	Sheila1988
2025:
January 8	Elvis Presley	Why	PL290, DocKino, Rikstar	Dank
January 9	Title (album)	Why	MaranoFan
January 22	Caitlin Clark	Why	Sportzeditz	Dank
March 18	Edward the Martyr	Why	Amitchell125	Sheila1988
March 26	Pierre Boulez	Why	Dmass	Sheila1988
April 12	Dolly de Leon	Why	Pseud 14
April 25	1925 FA Cup Final	Why	Kosack	Dank
May 5	Me Too (Meghan Trainor song)	Why	MaranoFan
June 1	Total Recall (1990 film)	Why		Harizotoh9
June 1	Namco	Why		Harizotoh9
June 8	Barbara Bush	Why		Harizotoh9
June 26	Donkey Kong Land	Why		Harizotoh9
June 29	Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347	Why		Harizotoh9
July 7	Gustav Mahler	Why	Brianboulton	Dank
July 14	William Hanna	Why	Rlevse	Dank
July 26	Liz Truss	Why	Tim O'Doherty	Tim O'Doherty and Dank
August 23	Yugoslav torpedo boat T3	Why	Peacemaker67
August 30	Late Registration	Why		Harizotoh9
August 31	Japanese battleship Yamato	Why		Harizotoh9
September 5	Peter Sellers	Why		Harizotoh9
September 30 or October 1	Hoover Dam	Why	NortyNort, Wehwalt	Dank
October 3	Spaghetti House siege	Why	SchroCat	Dank
October 10	Tragic Kingdom	Why	EA Swyer	Harizotoh9
October 16	Angela Lansbury	Why	Midnightblueowl	MisawaSakura
October 18	Royal Artillery Memorial	Why	HJ Mitchell	Ham II
November 20	Nuremberg trials	Why	buidhe	harizotoh9
December 25	Ho Ho Ho (album)	Why		harizotoh9

Date	Article	Points	Notes	Supports†	Opposes†
Nonspecific 1	Fertilisation of Orchids			1	0
Nonspecific 2
Nonspecific 3	Ace Books			1	2
Nonspecific 4
Nonspecific 5	Monadnock Building			2	0
October 5	Appaloosa	6	1 year FA, nothing similar 6 mo, date relevance, wide coverage.	9	0
October 8	Little Butte Creek (Rogue River)	5	2 year FA, nothing similar 6 mo., date relevance	1
October 10	Allegro (musical)	4	65th anniversary of opening, 1 year FA, nothing similar 6 mo.	10	0
October 14	Southern Cross Expedition	2	>2 year FA.	4	0
October 15	SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)	9	100th anniversary of commission; promoted 2011; no battleships for nearly 6 mos	4	0
October 18	Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough	3	Date relevance, 2 year FA.	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

Fertilisation of Orchids

Fertilisation of Orchids is a book by Charles Darwin published on 15 May 1862 under the full explanatory title On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing. Darwin's previous book, On the Origin of Species, had briefly mentioned evolutionary interactions between insects and the plants they fertilised, and this new idea was explored in detail. Darwin tapped into a contemporary vogue for growing exotic orchids.

The book was his first detailed demonstration of the power of natural selection, and explained how complex ecological relationships resulted in the coevolution of orchids and insects. It influenced botanists, and revived interest in the neglected idea that insects played a part in pollinating flowers. Although the general public showed less interest and sales of the book were low, it established Darwin as a leading botanist. (more...)

Influential book by Darwin. We missed the day of the 150th anniversary but could "catch" the year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment—TFA blurbs are supposed to be a single paragraph of roughly 1200 characters or fewer. The blurb needs to be revised to conform to those and other requirements before I can consider it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Those “instructions” are mere suggestions. Conformity is *not* required. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  This is a just first suggestion, by no means final, to give an idea of what is suggested. Typically the author knows better what to stress and what to drop. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  @Br'er Rabbit: I would say that conformity with the instructions about blurb presentation is required. The idea of this page is that we present a ready-made blurb for Raul or Dabomb to copy into the TFA queue; if the blurb is too long or (in this case, at about 930 characters) too short, or incorrectly formatted, then it messes up the balance of sections on the main page, so Raul or Dabomb have to do more work than they should to get the TFA blurb in good shape.

  @Gerda Arendt: the primary author of the author may well know best but that doesn't excuse you from trying. In any case, as you haven't yet notified Dave souza (talk · contribs) of your nomination, how is he meant to know to edit your draft? By reading your mind? Bencherlite^Talk 11:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  No, see above; it's labelled “Suggested formatting”. And wikis don't have firm rulz, anyway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps try reading more than just the heading: "The request should have a blurb that uses the same formatting as the ones used on the main page... Specifically [one para, no alternative names, 1200 characters etc]." Perhaps "Suggested formatting" should be changed to "Required formatting" to avoid such nit-picking. And I fail to see how ignoring teh rulz helps the schedulers, for reasons I've already explained. Bencherlite^Talk 11:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Ha, maybe I'm psychic or perhaps just spending too much time browsing my watchlist when meaning to get on with other urgent editing. Will aim to write a suitably concise blurb, sometime. On timing, oops we have indeed missed the anniversary, perhaps November would be good as On the Origin of Species was published on 24 November 1859. . dave souza, talk 11:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  The whole thing is mere suggestion. Perhaps we should be ignoring a whole lot more of teh antiquated raulz foisted on this process. Main page is up for redesign and my proposal just got me a barnstar as the best yet. As Jorm said, the place needs a serious kick in the head. The points don't matter, a paragraph break doesn't matter, none of it matters except getting good, and diverse, articles queued up for the main page, which is a collaborative process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 3

Ace Books

Ace Books is the oldest active specialty publisher of science fiction and fantasy books and issued many of the best known science fiction writers of the 1950s and 1960s. The company was founded in New York City in 1952 by Aaron A. Wyn, and began as a genre publisher of mysteries and westerns. It soon branched out into other genres, publishing its first science fiction (sf) title in 1953. Ace became known for the tête-bêche binding format used for many of its early books, although it did not originate the format. Most of the early titles were published in this "Ace Double" format, and Ace continued to issue books in varied genres, bound tête-bêche, until 1973. These have proved attractive to book collectors, and some rare titles in mint condition command prices up to $1,000. Ace, along with Ballantine Books, was one of the leading S.F. publishers for its first ten years. With the death of owner A. A. Wyn in 1967, however, the company's fortunes began to decline. Two prominent editors, Donald A. Wollheim and Terry Carr, left in 1971, and in 1972 Ace was sold to Grosset & Dunlap. Ace became an imprint of Penguin Group (USA). (more...)

early publisher of science fiction, founded in 1952 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

...About the time that Authentic Science Fiction was founded, which was TFA on 3rd September. Too soon for another TFA on the same theme. Oppose. Bencherlite^Talk 06:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—per Bencherlite. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  It should run this year, for the 60th anniversary. December? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 5

Monadnock Building

The Monadnock Building is a skyscraper in the south Loop community area of Chicago, Illinois. The north half of the building was built in 1891, and its decorative staircases represent the first use of aluminum in building construction. The south half, constructed in 1893, is similar in color and profile to the original, but the design is more traditionally ornate. When completed, it was the largest office building in the world. The building was remodelled in 1938 in one of the first major skyscraper renovations ever undertaken. It was sold in 1979 and thereafter restored to its original condition. The north half is an unornamented vertical mass of purple-brown brick, flaring gently out at the base and top. The south half is vertically divided by brickwork at the base and rises to a large copper cornice at the roof. Projecting window bays in both halves allow large exposures of glass, giving the building an open appearance despite its mass. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1970. Modern critics have called it a "triumph of unified design" and "one of the most exciting aesthetic experiences America's commercial architecture has produced". (more...)

Looks different to me, and singular. The blurb is too long, I will call the author's attention, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• A Fine Example. There's is still a dead link that needs tending; might be in teh wayback machine. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  dealt w/it… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  This is date relevant on both November 14 and November 20. Why not wait for one of those dates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  I see those dates as rather trivial; they're just the dates of NRHP and CL status, which would be committees and paperwork. I'm no fan of much of the "date relevance" for insignificant dates (of course, I think in base 2;). That said, I'd not fuss with date-tagging this; 20 Nov makes more sense to me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blurb trimmed to 1,190 characters including spaces, as per the instructions. Next time, Gerda Arendt, please write a proper-length blurb from the outset rather than making work for someone else. Bencherlite^Talk 23:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  I intentionally left the blurb longer, to give the author a chance for accenting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  Your reliance on the author to tidy up after you was perhaps misplaced, since Nasty Housecat (talk · contribs) has logged just one edit in the last six months. Bencherlite^Talk 11:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Specific date nominations

October 5

Appaloosa

The Appaloosa is a horse breed best known for its colorful leopard-spotted coat pattern. There is a wide range of body types within the breed, stemming from the influence of multiple breeds of horses throughout its history. The color pattern of the Appaloosa is of great interest to those who study equine coat color genetics, as it and several other physical characteristics are linked to the leopard complex mutation (LP). Artwork depicting prehistoric horses with leopard spotting existed in cave paintings. The Nez Perce people of the United States Pacific Northwest developed the original American breed. It is best known as a stock horse used in a number of western riding disciplines, but is also a versatile breed with representatives seen in many other types of equestrian activity. The Nez Perce lost most of their horses after the Nez Perce War in 1877. A small number of dedicated breeders preserved the Appaloosa as a distinct breed until the Appaloosa Horse Club (ApHC) was formed as the breed registry in 1938. (more...)

One point for age, 2 points for widely covered, two points nothing similar six months. Oct 5 is the 135th anniversary of the end of the Nez Perce War.--PumpkinSky talk 02:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support, good move, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support A featured article that deserves to be on the main page.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support As one of the lead editors on the piece, we'd be honored to have it appear. But can you chop this sentence from the blurb? "Appaloosas are prone to develop equine recurrent uveitis and congenital stationary night blindness; the latter has been linked to the leopard complex" It's accurate, and in the lead, but given its prevalence (8%), may be undue weight for the main page blurb. Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  Done. And thanks!PumpkinSky talk 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  You (everybody) can change the blurb yourself, that's part of the quality discussion here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Can we have a close up rear view to show the world?  :)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  If we find one, sure!PumpkinSky talk 20:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  The article already contains File:Appaloosa46-2.jpg a ways down the page (see "blanket with spots") LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  OH YEA forgot about that one! PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, albeit another US “out-west” article ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  (slaps Br'er) Hey! Spots go back to Ice Age Europe, nothing out west about that! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support- Nothing wrong here. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• This may go on teh main page, now ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - quite a fascinating breed with a long and varied history - article seems very complete. Great selection. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

October 8

Little Butte Creek (Rogue River)

Little Butte Creek is a 17-mile (27 km) long tributary of the Rogue River located in the U.S. state of Oregon. Its drainage basin consists of approximately 354 square miles (917 km²) of Jackson County, and another 19 square miles (49 km²) of Klamath County. The north fork of the creek begins at Fish Lake, while the south fork begins near Brown Mountain. The two forks flow generally west until they meet near Lake Creek. The creek then flows through the communities of Brownsboro, Eagle Point, and White City, finally emptying into the Rogue River about 3 miles (5 km) west of Eagle Point. Little Butte Creek's watershed was originally settled by the Takelma, and possibly the Shasta tribes of Native Americans. In the Rogue River Wars of the 1850s, most of the Native Americans were either killed or forced onto Indian reservations. (more...)

Two points for age, 1 for date relevance, two points nothing similar six months. Oct 8 is the 157th anniversary of battle at mouth of river.PumpkinSky talk 00:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: the blurb would not make me click. The date relevance is not visible, but the snow is. In October, I would like to see a different image ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  I replaced the snowy image with a greener one. LittleMountain5 02:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – I think a river is nice, but another article about the American West/Northwest. Needs some spreading out imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Referencing mechanism is incredibly old-school; not an example of best practice. <br /> 23:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha, probably incredibly two-and-a-half years ago, when it passed. Out of curiosity, do you know of an article that follows the "best practice?" LittleMountain5 01:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That'd be {{harvnb}} or {{sfn}}, which do literally the same thing except with a template. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And they do more, such as facilitate WP:V and ease maintenance. <br /> 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, [[#blah|reference]] isn't much more than {{sfn|author|date|pages}}. Same with <ref name="Source" group=Note/> versus {{refn|name=Source|group=Note}}. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

/yeah/, really ;) You're just missing it. A pity… <br /> 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The old school refs aren't longer in wikitext and look the same. Good enough for me. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not the only concerns, though… <br /> 02:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I know quite a few of them ;) this was unimpressive. <br /> 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

...An example would be nice. What are your other concerns? LittleMountain5 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Allegro (musical)'s handy, just below. You not making any effort to restore the edits I'd made that you stepped on is still of concern ;) <br /> 06:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since two-thirds of the references are online sources, I feel that the method already in use is better in this case. But the sfn template does clean up the code a bit, so I might try using that. Thanks! Is the coding the problem here, or the general layout? I've long sought after a viable alternative to the reference layout... it feels clunky to me.

I apologize for the edit stomp. I fully intended to restore your changes, and was in the process of doing so when you restored them yourself. Cheers, LittleMountain5 14:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I converted all the references to sfn, although I'm not sure what to do with the multiple undated USGS and Topoquest sources... LittleMountain5 02:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's looking better. See: here, where I used some abbreviations to de-clutter the reference section, and here, where I expanded some of the 'a', 'b' qualifiers to make the footnotes more meaningful. The idea is to take control of the footnote that so that it is useful to readers (and other editors;). Another push in that direction and Bob's your uncle. <br /> 05:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I tweaked the footnotes some more; I think it's looking pretty nice now. LittleMountain5 15:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• A battle that doesn't even get mentioned in the blurb is far too tenuous a link to merit a date relevance point, IMHO. Bencherlite^Talk 08:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

October 10

Allegro

Allegro is a musical by Richard Rodgers (music) and Oscar Hammerstein II (book and lyrics), their third collaboration for the stage, which premiered on Broadway on October 10, 1947. After the immense successes of the first two Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals, Oklahoma! and Carousel, the pair sought a subject for their next play. Hammerstein had long contemplated a serious work which would deal with the problems of an ordinary man in the fast-moving modern world. He and Rodgers sought to create a work which would be as innovative as their first two stage musicals. To that end, they created a play with a large cast, including a Greek chorus. After a disastrous tryout in New Haven, Connecticut, the musical opened on Broadway to a large advance sale of tickets, and very mixed reviews. The Broadway run, directed by Agnes de Mille, ended after nine months; it had no West End production, and has rarely been revived. (more...)

One point for age, one point for anniversary of Broadway opening, two points nothing similar six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: a piece with an interesting story. I would like to see the date mentioned rather early in the blurb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Sure. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: looks good to me.--Chimino (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support...Modernist (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support – because of the article's subject and despite my view of the idiotic "date relevance" of October 10. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  now I get it. October 10 is important and really ties in! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Lucky102 (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  Note: user is a blocked sock. --Rschen7754 06:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

October 14

Southern Cross Expedition

The Southern Cross Expedition, officially known as the British Antarctic Expedition 1898–1900, was the first British venture of the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration, and the forerunner of the more celebrated journeys of Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. The brainchild of the Norwegian-born, half-British explorer and schoolmaster Carsten Borchgrevink, it was the first expedition to over-winter on the Antarctic mainland, the first to visit the Great Ice Barrier since James Clark Ross in 1839–43, and the first to effect a landing on the Barrier's surface. It also pioneered the use of dogs and sledges in Antarctic travel. The expedition was privately financed by the British magazine publisher Sir George Newnes. Taken south in the ship Southern Cross in August 1898, Borchgrevink's party spent the winter of 1899 at Cape Adare, the north-west extremity of the Ross Sea. (more...)

Promoted between over 2 years ago +2, date relevance, under represented +1 = 4, Oct 14 is date of death of the expedition zoologist. PumpkinSky talk 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support, great article on heroic topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 points the date relevance is far too tenuous and this is an article within the history category at WP:FA, not one of "underrepresented" categories. Bencherlite^Talk 08:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support for any date there would be more appropriate dates than this e.g. 19 December when the ship finally sails from Australia for the Antarctic, but (subject to any preference from the primary author, who I've just notified as per the instructions above) this could just run on any date the TFA scheduler wants. Bencherlite^Talk 15:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

October 15

SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)

SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) (His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great) was the second vessel of the Kaiser class of battleships of the German Imperial Navy. She was commissioned into the fleet on 15 October 1912. Assigned to the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of World War I, she served as fleet flagship from her commissioning until 1917. The ship participated in all the major fleet operations of World War I, including the Battle of Jutland on 31 May – 1 June 1916, where she emerged from the battle completely unscathed. After Germany's defeat and the signing of the armistice in November 1918, Friedrich der Grosse and most of the capital ships of the High Seas Fleet were interned by the British Royal Navy in Scapa Flow. On 21 June 1919, days before the Treaty of Versailles was signed, Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter ordered the fleet to be scuttled to ensure that the British could not seize the ships. Friedrich der Grosse was raised in 1936 and broken up for scrap metal. (more...)

100th anniversary of commission to the fleet; promoted to FA over a year ago; no battleships for nearly six months. That's about nine points. -- Dianna (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Make-it-so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Battlecruiser operational - Er, support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support -although I'll note for the record that the last warship TFA was USS New Ironsides a month ago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Meh; I suppose I should have remembered ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Can we think about the fact that the ship was likely named "Friedrich der Große", which is not prominantly mentioned in the article, I just see a little footnote behind an English name, saying "or" as if both could be used the same. "Gross" would be pronounced differently in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  As, for example, de:SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  It was there, once upon a time ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  It's an FA on vi:wp, too:

  • vi:SMS Friedrich der Große (1911)

  and they moved it to the proper spelling:

  • diff of vi:SMS Friedrich der Große (1911)

  I'm quite sure that “ß” is not actually part of the Vietnamese language, but they named their article properly… This really is an issue specific to English language cultures.

  Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, the ship was named Friedrich der Große, but the policy on the English Wikipedia is to follow established English usage. In the vast majority of English-language sources, the name is rendered without the eszett, which is why the article is titled as it is. As for the note, we determined over the course of several ACRs/FACs that it was the best way to handle the alternative spelling issue without unduly cluttering the lead section.

  I was not part of those discussions, but as a German native speaker can tell you that it looks wrong. If the name is given in German, I think it should be given in correct German, and a name is a name. I don't go and call you Parsecboi because I lack a letter, - which would be the only reason to say "Grosse" instead of "Große". It sounds like "grossly insulting", pun intended. I was told that polite is irrelevant, but politely disagree and think it would be polite to honour the ship by calling it its name ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2012‎ (UTC)

  That's all well and good, but WP:UE is policy; we need a pretty good reason to ignore a long-standing policy. Parsecboy (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  To my understanding this policy would apply if the article would call the ship a common English name, such as "His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great" (example: "Bayreuth Festival" instead of "Bayreuther Festspiele"). But it doesn't, it uses German, at least it seems to try to do so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  Read the first line of the section: the choice is between local spellings and Anglicized variants - for instance, one of the examples is Besançon (the Anglicized version would omit the cedilla). But since the city is commonly referred to it in English with the cedilla, it is appropriate to keep it. For German words in English usage, umlauts are commonly retained (so Karl Dönitz, not Karl Doenitz or Donitz) but the eszett is usually converted into the double "s". In some specialist sources, the original spelling is used, but in most general sources, this ship is referred to as Friedrich der Grosse in English. Parsecboy (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  I am unable to understand why the umlaut would be kept, which doesn't sound different, but not the "ß", which sounds completely different, long vowel vs. short vowel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know why English uses what it does, but the umlaut does sound different than simply dropping it (Donitz would not sound the same as Dönitz). It's presumably because the umlaut is somehow easier to reproduce than the eszett. All I can tell you is what is common English usage in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  You said Doenitz above, that would sound the same as Dönitz, whereas "Grosse" sound grossly wrong. The reason that "ß" was not available on keyboards (the reason why those sources simplified to ss) is no longer valid, so why not use it. We night eventually correct a "long-standing" error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  ps: the article on the person after which the ship ad others are name knows only "Große".

  To be honest, I don't really care one way or the other, apart from following what policy prescribes. If you or others want to attempt to change it, that's fine, but to simply ignore it in this case, we need a better reason than saying we don't like it or it's wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  I say then that it's wrong. My proposal for the blurb would be:

SMS Friedrich der Große (1911) was the second vessel of the Kaiser class of battleships of the German Imperial Navy. Named after Frederick the Great, she is also known as "His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great". She was commissioned into the fleet on 15 October 1912. Assigned to the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of World War I, she served as fleet flagship from her commissioning until 1917. The ship participated in all the major fleet operations of World War I, including the Battle of Jutland on 31 May – 1 June 1916, where she emerged from the battle completely unscathed. After Germany's defeat and the signing of the armistice in November 1918, Friedrich der Große and most of the capital ships of the High Seas Fleet were interned by the British Royal Navy in Scapa Flow. On 21 June 1919, days before the Treaty of Versailles was signed, Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter ordered the fleet to be scuttled to ensure that the British could not seize the ships. Friedrich der Große was raised in 1936 and broken up for scrap metal.

The articles lead might mention "Older sources give the name as Friedrich der Grosse". Other than that, I see no reason to promote wrong German (it's "groß" even after our last orthography reform) and disrespect to the common name of a German king ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The ship has never been known as Frederick the Great; that's just a translation of the name... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Surprised, where does "His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great" come from, then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple translation of the name. Seiner Majestät Schiff Friedrich der Große = His Majesty's Ship Frederick the Great. (note that the ruler's name has been anglicized, but the ship name has not, aside from replacing the eszett) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Now I got "SMS", finally, that is the abbreviation of the German, interesting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I feel that the lead image is a much cleaner photo than the one used in the blurb (and thus a better choice). Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I found that at 180px the lead image doesn't work as well. Here they are side by side. The various darker shades on the image I chose give it some nice contrast. In the lead image, the water is choppy, which makes the ship kinda disappear at this resolution.-- Dianna (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point - I hadn't looked at the lead image at that resolution. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

October 18

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough (1660–1744) was one of the most influential women in British history as a result of her close friendship with Queen Anne of Great Britain. By the time Anne became queen in 1702, Sarah had become a powerful friend and a dangerous enemy, the last in the long line of Stuart favourites. A strong-willed woman who liked to get her own way, Sarah tried the Queen's patience whenever she disagreed with her on political, court or church appointments. Sarah enjoyed an unusually close relationship with her husband, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, whom she married in 1677. When Anne came to the throne, the Duke of Marlborough, together with Sidney Godolphin, rose to head the government, partly as a result of his wife's friendship with the queen. Sarah campaigned on behalf of the British Whig Party, while also devoting time to building projects such as the construction of Blenheim Palace. The money she inherited from the Marlborough trust made her one of the richest women in Europe. (more...)

Promoted between over 2 years ago +2, Date relevant to article topic +1, total = 3.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This blurb needs work. Should be one paragraph, and the date is generally year only. Looks a little short, but that could just be me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I have re-written the blurb. See what you think -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  From a technical aspect it's better, but I don't think it needs the dates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support this excellent article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, interesting (and another woman), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support- I really like this page; might need a bit of tidying. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• 2 points - death dates, by longstanding convention on this page, do not get a date relevance point unless the death itself was notable (e.g. the death of John Lennon gave his article a date relevance point). Bencherlite^Talk 08:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This page is changing. The point math seems only relevant if there is "competition" about a specific day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so why do we need points at all any more? Nominate an article for a slot, explain why it deserves it and let supports/opposes/"prefer the competing article" decide, rather than artificial discussions about whether a previous recent TFA is sufficiently similar to a nominated one to impose a points penalty. It would make this page far less complicated. In the meantime, let's get the points right, rather than claiming date relevance points on spurious grounds or incorrectly claiming "underrepresented" or "widely covered" points. Bencherlite^Talk 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you place that valid thought - which I would support - on the talk rather than here where it will disappear without even an archive when the Lady will be scheduled, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think any Date relevance should be used.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note: if Lady Grange (nominated above) runs soon, this will suffer a three point penalty - or, in non-point terms, we ought to spread our 18th-century British women out a bit, not run two in very close proximity. Bencherlite^Talk 08:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• The other lady will wait until May, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)