Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/April 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of discussions about contested featured article candidates that were nominated in April 2004. Warning: not in perfect chronological order.

April 2004[edit]

History of Baseball[edit]

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

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

Blackadder[edit]

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

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

U.S.-led occupation of Iraq[edit]

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

  • Object: Needs pictures of American soldiers. When that's done, I retract objection, because it's otherwise a very meaty and well-sectioned page. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:35, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: This article is far from complete. Until the recent additions about events in the last 2 weeks it gave the impression that it hadn't been touched since the third quarter of 2003, ie no mention of the capture of Uday, Qussay or even Sadam. No mention of the apparent change of tactics to the targeting of Iraqi's who are co-operating with the US. No mention of the rotation of US troops. There is just too much missing from this article still. I do agree that it is relatively NPOV for a very controversial topic, but I don;t believe it is quiet up to featured status yet. Steven jones 14:02, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: I've just had a quick read through the article and most of it is not very well written. ChicXulub 16:02, 11 Apr 2004 (GMT)
  • Object: decent enough article but not worth featuring yet. Plus has bunch of statements about what is "currently" happening with each country's troops that are not dated and either no longer true or unverifiable (and, really, irrelevant for the purposes of this article). Mdchachi|Talk 16:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: It's actually not a very good article, certainly not Featured article quality. Moncrief 17:38, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Since this article is about a current event, the quality of the information will decrease quickly with time.

StarCraft[edit]

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

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

Legend tripping[edit]

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

  • Interesting and well written. Exploding Boy 01:08, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Object, simply because of "in the [...] United States, and probably elsewhere". This is a US-centric, and too vague, statement. Needs clarification as to whether legend tripping actually exists elsewhere. Fredrik 01:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: There is much more material available outside of the States than within. Recognize that this is a little myopic.--LordSuryaofShropshire 16:15, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • NEUTRAL: I was reading it over and over again and considering the ramifications of the article. It lies primarily within the realm of Americana, especially with the concerns of those 'legend tripping,' and other cultures often tie religious beliefs more strongly into the fabric of midnight or occult ventures. So I withdraw objection, remaining neutral. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:35, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, is it called by some other name elsewhere? From what I have been able to determine, it seems to be mostly a US and Canadian phenomenon, and most sites I have been able to learn of are in the Midwest. Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, the ancient Greeks & Romans would travel considerable distances just to witness the Colossi of Memnon sing to the rising sun -- or at least they did until Septimius Severus rebuilt the sculptures. I seem to remember that there are other examples from Classical Literature, but I can't remember any of them well enough to mention here. -- llywrch 21:09, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • I have added a paragraph to the article that explains what I feel is the key differences between legend tripping and other kinds of supernatural tourism --- the element of a supposed danger, the undertaking of the trip on a dare, and the ritual nature of the trip. I have not yet received any reports of legend tripping outside of the USA and Canada. Smerdis of Tlön 15:55, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • Okay, I withdraw my objection. Fredrik 16:03, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, provided the article satisfies Fredrik's and LordSuryaofShropshire's comments. - Kesava 08:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now, a lot of sentences don't seem to be linked together (lots of them starting with 'the' and 'there' and the article is a bit centered on the US, I'd like a paragraph on legend tripping outside the US added. With a minor edit and an added paragraph, I'll remove the objection. -- MGM 07:33, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've expanded the information given about possible British antecedents. FWIW, legend tripping as I know it does seem to be almost entirely a US phenomenon, centered in the lower Midwest and upper South. This may suggest some kind of Scottish/North English/Celtic origin of the practice, given what I know about Colonial settlement patterns. The seeming parallel with Tam Lin may make that more likely. At this point that would be speculating. It may also be a function of population density: the more people there are around, the less likely the custom can be maintained. It more or less requires an isolated and vacated rural location to summon the right atmosphere. Smerdis of Tlön 02:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Public house[edit]

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

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


Google[edit]

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

Jim Thorpe[edit]

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

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

Kylie Minogue[edit]

I founf this article very useful and comprehensive. I often use it to show my american friends who Kylie is. 131.111.250.45 14:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Object on copyright grounds only. I like the article itself. Would hate to see the images removed, but maybe a couple should be. There are links to websites - so photos are available for anyone that wants to look further. Rossrs 03/05/04
  • Support. I think it has come a long way, and is now a great article, with comprehensive information, such as recent albums, pictures, singles, plus a great biography of her life. A lot of knowledgable people have worked on this page recently, and I support it as a featured article candidate.Earl Andrew 14:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I love this page. I use many Kylie sites and none compare to Kylie's wikipedia pages. It is fully comprehensive and shows what can be produced when many fans collaborate through a wiki. Dmn 14:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object on copyright grounds. Two untagged images and one fair use image. This is excessive - fair use should be an exception, and only used when no alternatives exist. I suggest removing all images except one (possibly the portrait shot) and going through the process at Wikipedia:Fair use. If a Kylie fan has a photo of her which they can donate under the FDL, that would be even better.--Eloquence* 20:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article. To the nominator: Which of your American friends don't know who Kylie is? Mate, she's quite popular over here too. Moncrief 03:34, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • I would never have heard of her if she hadn't appeared in a Nick Cave record, and as the absinthe Tinkerbell in Moulin Rouge. Neutral on the article; does she have any opinions or "significance" like Madonna tries to have? Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • LOL. Nick Cave is a lot more obscure than Kylie, so I think the route of your discovery is a pretty personal one. Moncrief 02:19, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
        • "significance" like Madonna? hmmm, in most places - the USA being an exception - there is probably no female artist with Kylie's profile. Meanwhile Madonna is fast becoming "Madonna who?"
          • I feel I should point out that all of Kylie's original albums, all her compilation albums and her live album, have extensive Wikipedia pages now -unlike a certain Madonna Dmn 14:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's good, but there's some significant issues. I left (hopefully helpful) suggestions at Talk:Kylie Minogue -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:25, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Kaihsu 20:09, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)

Baseball[edit]

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

  • Could we standardise the punctuation? We use for em dashes both "--" and " - " We also have a usage of the second person that could be eliminated. -- Emsworth 23:59, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Although the writing is good, the article mostly touches upon the rules of play, and how a game is played, save one section on Pro baseball. Maybe this page could better be organized like the country pages, with the main article briefly explaining all the aspects (including history, culture, etc.) and with separate articles dedicated to the subtopics. A minor objection is that all measures are only given in imperial units; metric units should also be given. Jeronimo 10:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellently written article. Not a word about college baseball, but given how long the article is already, I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. Isomorphic 05:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper[edit]

Comprehensive article that gives clear overview of the most notorious criminal of the 19th century. Also has great external link at the end. - MGM 22:42, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Second. I rather like the Ripper article, and I'm kinda ashamed I didn't nominate it myself. Gentgeen 21:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly comprehensive and highly encyclopedic with fascinating theories for good measure. - Lucky 6.9 22:34, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Far too short and incomplete. Just kidding! Support! Exploding Boy 13:22, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. (Disclosure: I am a reformed Ripperologist.) Not a bad basis for an article, but lots of improvements could be made.
    1. The biggest problem is the "Further theories about the Ripper" section, which just seems to be a mish-mash of things that didn't fit elsewhere, along with a sounding board for people to advocate their favourite theories. It reads as a meandering stream-of-consciousness with contradictions with the rest of the article and no logical structure; for example Sickert is introduced as a suspect twice with almost identical text, once presenting the theory neutrally, and once observing that it is implausible! Further, this very long section ends up devoting a substantial fraction of the article's text to just one theory - a theory that an earlier section had already dismissed (rightly, IMHO) as exceedingly unlikely. I believe this whole section could simply be deleted, but then the rest of the article would be rather short for such a large topic. The recovered space could perhaps be used for: deeper exploration of the media issues (currently just eight sentences); the political ramifications (currently not mentioned, although the scandal nearly brought down the government); and the related matter of the classification, recent declassification, and publishing of police files on the case (also not mentioned).
    2. The article could do with some pictures. I believe there are plenty of public domain ones available; I'll hunt some up.
    3. I'm happy with most of the rest though! I think the lead section is a good example of how to do one. Securiger 04:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. As an encyclopedia entry, it's a mess. Other than a tiny amount of information on the accepted victims and corpulously excessive amounts of information on suspects and generally whacky theories it has next to no information on the case. The mutilations and locations that make the killings so memorable are barely mentioned at all. Very important topics like the Graffiti, the Ripper letters, Lusk Kidney and controversy, how the public reacted (riots, Vigilance Committees, response of high class to the lower class area), the police involved in investigating and how they did, authors on the case, publications, etc. all got glossed over. Long excessive details on the Royal conspiracy, Lewis Carroll, etc. should be trimmed or moved elsewhere, much like Cornwell's Sickert theory finally was (although that is now on a page for Sickert and a page for Cornwell with conflicting info on each). The main article should really be an overview of the actual case, not the push to try to fit square peg suspects in round holes.

9:06 am CST 28 Apr 2004

Shroud of Turin[edit]

Sort of a self-nomination (others have written much more of it). User JamesMLane just did a fine overhaul of the History section and the article is ready for FA I think. JDG 14:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I like it very much (just made a couple minor edits to it) -- I am a little concerned that the article concentrates too much on establishing the cloth as an actual relic (and I say this as a Christian who actually has been fairly convinced by Ian Wilson that it is a relic) and not enough time balancing that argument, but I think it does generally lay out all the important ideas, and the article does not allow any assertion to be made without noting a critic's response. I'd say it's worthy of featured status, but I'd like to hear from someone who thinks the Shroud isn't authentic to see what they think of it. Jwrosenzweig 16:07, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - There is a mention of a BBC documentary which I have not been able to find any reference for. I do not believe that Encyclopaeida articles should be posing questions, so I don't like the conclusion. I would like more critical analysis and presentation of what is fact, what is legend, what is supposition and what is just fantasy. For example I would like some references for the claim about coins in the eyes and the claims of André Marion and Anne-Laure Courage. Mintguy (T) 17:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • References on the web to this particlar BBC documentary are pretty scarce, but if you read the comments on the BBC magazine site here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3624753.stm (search within page on "Da Vinci"), you will see a reference to it. I believe it aired over 4 years ago and the BBC's newer stuff on the Shroud has replaced it throughout their websites... Jwrosenzweig removed the question you disliked. As for your other points, I think the article will grow in those directions but it's probably quality enough even now for FA. Do you withdraw objection? JDG
      • I first asked this question about the BBC documentary on the Talk page in November of 2003. I hadn't found any ref to it at all back then. But I did find some reference to a National Geographic channel programme. The suggestions about the shroud being a photograph were made by a South African researcher called Nicholas P.L. Allen. his website can be found at http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/nature.htm. I would like to see this information included in the article, rather than to some unspecified BBC documentary that may or may not have actually been broadcast. Mintguy (T) 10:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly object. Still quite incoherent in its presentation of the various theories, does not sufficiently distinguish scientific and theological theories (e.g. mentions resurrection as a "theory of image formation" right after photography), does not properly cite its research (e.g. "many others with as impressive or more impressive scientific credentials have identified it .."), does not describe external links, biased in favor of a "Oh, what a great mystery this shroud is" POV. Moreover, there is an ongoing dispute as to which language should be used to describe the nature of the shroud.--Eloquence* 02:10, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll withdraw the nomination. The article could use some touching up, but those driven by reflexive hostility to organized religion won't get outside their POV enough to let it by even with perfect prose. JDG

Kim Jong-il[edit]

A very thorough, interesting piece on North Korea's leader. This is a topical article as well. Nice photos to boot. Moncrief 18:08, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Minor objection. The article's good, but needs explicit references, especially when these contradict the official sources (no matter how questionable these are in North Korea). Otherwise good, although it could use a copyedit. Jeronimo 09:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - a one sentence lead simply will not do. --mav 09:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the article as a whole- I'm not very happy with the balance between fact and fiction- but I think the lead is fine. It tells you who the guy is, and the table of contents is a sufficient guide to the content of the article. Markalexander100 09:40, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • No - a lead section requires at least one paragraph and a single sentence is not that. What you refer to is the definition - that is just the first sentence of the first paragraph in a lead section. --mav
      • I know you think that mav, but not everyone is a news style zealot. Wikipedia:lead section gives a suggested maximum length and a proposal, that's all. Markalexander100 10:47, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm not a news style zealot. I'm a proponent of making articles useful for the largest number of people. To do that at least one paragraph is needed for the lead section. A definition alone will not do. --mav
  • Object - While a well-balanced article is necessary, reports from reputable sources (including Amnesty International) explicitly state that the North Korean government regularly engages in a campaign of terror designed to keep its own people in line. Kim Jong-Il’s social and political policies are brutal (ahem, deadly prison camps, anyone?), regardless of whether he’s a brilliant strategist or a madman. This aspect of his leadership is barely touched upon in the article, though. There’s a fine line between objectivity and…well…what this article does. User:Kael

Japanese tea ceremony[edit]

good article. -- Taku 05:40, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Japanese_tea_ceremony#Tea_ceremony_and_calligraphy doesn't go into quite enough detail. Markalexander100 09:43, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Having written most of the article, I'm really happy to see it nominated :) I happen to think it's a pretty damn good article actually, even in its present state, and I'd like to see it as a featured article at some point, but I think it's not yet complete enough. I'd like to see the Types of ceremony section expanded a bit, and the sections on Tea ceremony and calligraphy and Tea ceremony and flower arranging (both quite important aspects of the tea ceremony) really need to be written before the article's ready. There also needs to be a section on kaiseki ryōri, another important thing. Unfortunately, I'm far less knowledgeable about those parts than other aspects of tea ceremony, so it may take a little while. I'd also really like to see some photos of people performing tea ceremony, and maybe some other images as well. I guess this makes this a reluctant objection... I hope someone nominates the article again when it's a bit more complete. Exploding Boy 13:49, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object until it's finished, then support! There are two sections listed as "To be written". Obviously these need to be finished. Other than that, superb work! Well written, detailed, easy to read, good layout, nice pictures, good lead section. Can't comment on accuracy as I don't know enough about it, but a couple of spot checks looked good. Also, it seems to be far more comprehensive than most other articles on the topic. Great work so far! Securiger 04:51, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It's fine so far, but I agree with the comments above. Additionally, I think any article about a ceremony should have a photo of the ceremony itself (including the participants and location) and not just the (admittedly very nice) photos of the ceremonial equipment. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Enlargement of the European Union[edit]

May the 1st is an excellent occasion to promote this article about a subject that is important to many people living in Europe. Unfortunately the article must be expanded to include missing issues such as the language problem and transitional measures to make it a good article. I hope this can be done this weekend. See talk: Enlargement of the European Union Andries 08:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Please note that I will withdraw the candidature of this article unless the article is expanded with the transistional measures for new EU members and the language problems. If somebody else wants to submit its candidature then feel free. Andries 19:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. It misses also the job market consequences. This affects the lives of many people. Unfortunately mine too. There is not enough time to fix all this before May 1st. I will withdraw the nomination. Andries 20:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. I'd like to see some further information on turkey's human rights issues. I seem to recalled certain french declarations concerning turkey and armenian genocides Dmn 13:14, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for the same reason as Dmn, and because (conversely) there is no mention of any problems in the matter of Cyprus, which has been in the news lately because of the EU's approach of "You two agree on a settlement or we'll only let one of you into the club." Dandrake 19:40, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I support this nomination. As Andries says, 1 May would be an auspicious time to feature it. Turkey's human rights record is mentioned, but not gone into detail; this is appropriate because the article isn't about human rights in Turkey, it's about enlargement of the EU. Turkish human rights issues are an important subject that should be in Wikipedia, but in another article. The same is true regarding Andries' point about language issues. (self-nomination: I created the article, although it's been improved by a lot of people since then). -- Cabalamat 14:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Kaihsu 19:22, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • Object at this time, for a number of reasons:
    • Poor copyeditting. Yes, yes, I know, if you don't like it, you're supposed to copyedit it yourself. The problem is that the article has been frequently and heavily editted by folks with poor english skills over the past week; nearly all of the copyeditting I've done has been obsolesced within a day.
    • Frequent POV slant; for example, the "FY" of "FYROM" tends to mysteriously disappear, countries are frequently given overly-optimistic dates for inclusion, and countries get moved randomly higher in the heirarchy, which ties into...
    • Poor structure. Very many one-line sections, and the article as a whole reads like a checklist.
    • And I think it's pretty inappropriate for the statistics to be in terms of US dollars instead of euros. Again, I'd fix this myself if I could find primary statistics to fix it with, as opposed to running the numbers through a converter. --Korath 15:21, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Vampire Lifestyle[edit]

Excellent detail and a number of links. Falcon 05:31, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. (1) The neutarily is disputed, (2) it should have at least a picture, and (3) some of the formatting isn't correct. →Raul654 05:44, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not add a picture yourself? - MGM 07:36, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Sounds like nonsense, needs citations to be credible.--Eloquence* 12:38, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. For the same reasons as Eloquence Andries 21:56, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. What is discussed in this article is both exceedingly rare and generally considered pathological. Beyond that, parts of the article are exceedingly poorly written. There is a warning message that contains! far! too! many! exclamation marks! (the message is also repeated three times). There is such a thing as the vampire subculture (which has an article somewhere already, if I recall correctly), but generally these people do not truly believe themselves to be vampires. Exploding Boy 12:57, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for similar reasons. --Woggly 18:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


The Sixties[edit]

good overview of the era --Jiang 06:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I have made some requests for additional information, and I also have some NPOV problems with the article that I will be raising on its talk page. DanKeshet 17:25, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Tea house[edit]

  • good article. -- Taku 05:40, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've worked on this article too, but I'm not sure it's ready. It is a bit short, which is not necessarily a problem in itself, but I'm not so sure it's close enough to being complete to be a featured article. I think there's probably a lot more that could be said about tea houses. Exploding Boy 13:08, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree - nice article but too short for FA status. --mav 06:29, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree as well, but that last sentence could only be written here. Meelar 06:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba[edit]

Self-nomination. Well referenced article about one of India's most popular (and controversial) gurus. The article is long but the subject is quite complex. Andries 19:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Second. Sam Spade 23:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • This article is not only intensely informative and balanced, it is also careful of the contentious and disturbing allegations against this controvercial man, who is both loved and hated internationally. Sam Spade 23:24, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Redundancy, spelling and grammatical mistakes, littered with subheadings, unexplained terminology, unencyclopaedic writing style, use of abbreviations like "can't", and more. What this page desperately needs is someone knowledgeable about the subject to edit the entire article. Exploding Boy 13:36, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Exploding Boy, I had the article proofread and made major edits to the article to deal with your objections. Could you please re-consider your decision? Thanks in advance. Andries 13:10, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
      • I see some improvements, but I still just don't think it's very well written. Sorry. Exploding Boy 13:27, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9[edit]

Another self-nominated attempt on my part, and I'm lucky to have one of these, hence the screen name. Hope you like, and if anyone can uncover some fair use photos, go for it. - Lucky 6.9 21:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Since this recieved no votes supporting or objecting, I am cycling it back to the top of the no-objections section →Raul654 03:15, May 5, 2004 (UTC))
  • Object (for now). I don't know much about the subject, but it seems pretty well researched, and certainly meets most of the other criteria for being featured. But I have three problems, two small and one larger:
    1. It could do with more wiki links, especially to technical or jargon terms. I just added a dozen or so myself, but more are needed. This shouldn't be hard to fix, just a bit of hunting around Wikipedia for links.
    2. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the section "High price of admission" - beginning "Not only was this badge..." - seems to be endorsing illegal street racing. I'm sure that wasn't the intention, and you will easily amend it.
    3. A bit more problematic is that the tone throughout is altogether too gushing, almost promotional. Lucky 6.9, I'm sure you love your car, but phrases like "Not only was this badge the last thing most other drivers saw" lack an objective tone, while phrases like "...most journalists testing the car saw speeds approaching..." (why not just say quote the top speed seen?) and excessive use of adjectives like "whopping", "incredible", "smooth, supple ride", "gruelling" sound almost like marketese. Securiger 07:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, support now. Securiger 01:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Since a good portion of my job is devoted to marketing, it's easy to fall into that trap and a fresh viewpoint is often necessary. Thanks for the excellent tips. I acted on each objection that you raised and I hope the revisions satisfy them. - Lucky 6.9 18:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Aviation history[edit]

Self Nominated. I and a bunch of others have worked hard on this article, and would appreciate having the entire community take a look!Theon 17:51, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral, until a blurb about (the path to) mechanical/modern aviation is woven into the intro paragraph; I have a feeling that that is needed to give readers a more immediate 'lead-in' to the rest of the article. As for the subject itself: Resounding support! :-) --Wernher 02:14, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, sadly. The article is missing some important topics. For example, where is the information on flight during World War I? Manfred von Richthofen, Eddie Rickenbacker, the Sopwith Camel and all that? The article jumps from early history straight into the interwar period. Also, the post-WWII section needs some rewriting and cleanup. I made one pass, more needs to be done. Other innovations and changes that are missing include VTOL, stealth aircraft, the changing (increasing) use of the helicopter through the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Rutan Voyager, the rise of airlines in the 1950s (and their later deregulation), etc., etc. RADICALBENDER 16:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I think there should be more about the flying boat and the jet engine. I also believe an honorable mention should be made to Italy for its own development of the jet engine. Revth 09:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. There has been a big conflict going on about Gustave Whitehead, a whole section about him has been deleted after being there for many years. The role the Wright brothers is also unresolved. Should they be mentioned as the first inventors who flew a motorized airplane and the fathers of aviation, or as the biggest obstacle to the development of American aviation industry? Their constant litigations and patent wars hindered and delayed the development of an American aviation industry with 16-18 years, so that when USA entered WWI in 1917 there were no American airplanes available, so all allied pilots, including American pilots had to use British and French airplanes. Roger491127 (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Death (personification)[edit]

I could've sworn I saw this featured already, but I don't see it in the logs. Although it covers a large topic, it is an interesting and detailed article. Wmahan. 03:54, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

  • Good article, but in the early sections many characters in people's names and references appear as open squares in my browser (MS IE 6.0.2800.1106) -- possible Hebrew characters? Anyway, they need to be cleared up before I could support the article unreservedly. Arwel 10:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I see how those characters could be a problem. What would clearing them up entail? It looks like that section was copied straight from the Jewish Encyclopedia, specifically [1]. So unfortunately I don't think I can get in touch with the original author.
    • Those characters show up in my browser, but in an ugly, non-matching sans-serif font. They are mostly h's and s's with several sorts of diacriticals. I might try and remove them, but I suspect this is a job for someone who knows Hebrew. Smerdis of Tlön 15:34, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Wmahan. 15:41, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

  • Object: I believe this is a very myopic look at personified death with overplayed Christian history, which is certainly rich, while ignoring vast amounts of culture outside of Europe. What about the very famous, (West and East) dialogue between Death and a young teenager in the Katha Upanishad in which Death instructs the boy as to life, liberation, and conduct? Perhaps even some glancing mentions of African indigenous religions, which surely have personified death (if not then mention) this. I don't support this because its title implies a broad look at Death (personified) whereas it only really deals with one single culture of the world. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:26, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. I suppose more should be added about Death in non-Western culture. Wmahan. 22:16, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Smerdis of Tlön, I usually run Netscape 7.0, but I launched IE5 (shudder - I'm totally POV WRT computers/browsers) just to check the character thing. Under Netscape, the mystery characters are all standard roman consonants with a small dot under them). IE, on my Mac, just renders them as question marks. So Mac + Netscape = okay, Mac + IE ≠ okay, and no idea what happens with PC + browser. Denni 05:49, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
    • Added stub headers for subsections on death in other non-european cultures Theon 22:01, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • support. Please add info about subsections on death in other non-european cultures to become excellent! Pedro 13:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Lots of stress on death in the Judeo-Christian tradition as it currently stands. Also, should have a caption on that nice painting, and maybe even some explanation (is that a female Death?) Isomorphic 20:41, 14 May 2004 (UTC)