Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bettie Page[edit]

A bit of a self-nom: I wrote the first version over a year ago, but many other people have made changes, & added more material to make it more than I could. I have sent this thru RfC, although this only received one comment, I made the changes suggested there. So now I ask: shall we label this a Featured Article? -- llywrch 23:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead section should be re-written so that it encapsulates the most important points of the overall article. As it is now, half of the lead section is about the early party of Betty's life, which really isn't among the most noteworthy things about her. ike9898 01:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review As was said above, the lead needs to be expanded upon, but also the Revival section is a little short. (As an offside note, putting an article through RfC isn't enough when it comes to feature articles; Peer review can also help people review, comment on and expand the article, and thus is a very helpful tool when it comes to FAC) --JB Adder | Talk 10:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • When I wrote "RfC", I meant peer review. Here is the response I received. More undoubtedly would have been useful -- & still would be -- but I worked what I had. -- llywrch 02:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. I still, however, stand by my statement about the extremely short Revival section. Expand it please, if you can. --JB Adder | Talk 04:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Query What's the basis for claiming "fair use" on the Dave Stevens illo? N. Caligon 03:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that fair use does not apply in this context. Were the article a review of Dave Stevens work, it would probably fit fair use criteria. In this context, it seems much closer to a true copy-vio. I'm going to take it out of the article as a precaution. Feel free to replace if you clearly articulate why it is not a copyvio. ike9898 18:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Eric Heffer[edit]

This is a complete self-nom - as of now, no-one else has edited the article. It's a biography of a left-wing Labour Member of Parliament from Britain. The article is comprehensive and one of the longest biographies of British politicians. It has an extensive list of references. David | Talk 21:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I haven't read the entire article but have a couple of suggestions to bring it up to standard: the prose needs to be cleaned up and, less importantly, it could do with a few more pictures. --Oldak Quill 22:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the pictures but they would almost certainly have to be fair use and I don't think my good friend Carnildo would like that. David | Talk 11:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks good and certainly seems comprehensive. I would like to know why Image:Ericheffer.jpg is considered PD. There are also more sections then there need be, especially at the beginning where there is a section per paragraph. - SimonP 22:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can answer the image question quickly: the image in question is an official publicity photo which was given out c. 1975 to those who wanted a picture of Heffer to print. Such images are, certainly in the UK, considered as free of copyright by implication: if you ask for someone to send a photo to print in your book or magazine, and they send you one, they are consenting to its publication. A few years ago I was involved in compiling a book of biographies of current MPs and sending out letters asking for photos, which we were advised did not need to inquire into copyright status. David | Talk 22:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • An official publicity photo in 1975 was presumably a good sharp paper copy? Is it possible to get a better-quality scan of it? This is really blurry. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems like it should be tagged {{PD-release}}. Alternatively the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} might be more appropriate if someone still does own the copyright, but will not, or cannot, enforce it. Either way it would do no harm to add the explanation of why the image is free to use to the image description page. - SimonP 00:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • It does say it's a publicity photo in the image description page. David | Talk 08:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from a quick skim over it, the table of contents is overwhelming, and many of the section headings are totally uninformative, so I think it could be organised better. There are also lots of terms that could be Wikilinks. The lead is missing a couple of things, who described him as one of the best read MPs? Which left-dominated city council? Is it known what illness killed him and where he is burried?--nixie 23:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a go at tackling these objections. The TOC is now cut down to headings and subheadings and the lead is rewritten. The article already explained that he had cancer. David | Talk 11:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The images Image:Heffer'slastspeech.jpg and Image:Heffer1985walkout.jpg are listed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia. As such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. If they must be used, the source of the image must be given, and a rationale for why the image can be used under "fair use" needs to be given for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 07:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I move to strike out this objection. The article is what is being featured, not the pictures. David | Talk 08:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the pictures aren't a part of the article, then I assume you wouldn't object to them being removed? --Carnildo 19:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoah there Neddy! If this article wasn't up for FAC would you have similarly objected? The fair use images do now have justifications in commented-out text, and perhaps you will consider whether this is enough to withdraw your objection. David | Talk 11:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, on condition that "He was rated as one of the most effective of the large 1964 intake of Labour MPs" is explained (rated by whom?)Deus Ex 17:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This statement is partly my impression given that Heffer is almost always named among examples of MPs from the 1964 intake, but also on the offer of a job which he got in 1967 (one of the first of that intake to be offered something). I've tracked down one direct reference though. David | Talk 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very impressive stuff. Mark1 03:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think maybe this is not important enough of article. 內布拉斯加 00:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Not important enough" is not suitable grounds for objection. You need to specify fixable problems with the article that keep it from being suitable for featured status. --Carnildo 03:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you missed the question I asked above about the quality—the blurriness—of the top image? Is it possible to do something about it? I do find this article very interesting, and I'm not about to object because of a blurry image, but it is the first impression a reader gets. If you've scanned it from a less-than-good print in a book, I suppose the quality can't be helped, though. (I've wikified the Lead suitably, I think, please see if you agree.) Bishonen | talk 03:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm working on it but it will take some time. Thanks for your work on the lead, which was written after the rest of the article. David | Talk 23:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very impressed. Well structured and appears thorough to my limited knowledge of Eric Heffer. Rwendland 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gallipoli[edit]

This is an well-written article on one of the most important battles in WWI, and marked turning points in Australian, British and Turkish history. edgeworth 11:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment References? If references are added, I'm likely to support. WegianWarrior 12:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object- no references, the lead section is a little too short, and the "Aftermath" section, with a bullet point list of "What if..."s, seems out of place. Otherwise a comprehensive and well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: A potentially excellent article on a subject of great significance, However, it still needs work, and should probably be referred to peer review.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: No matter what the campaign is referred to in Britain, Ireland, France, Turkey, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, India or Nepal (some of the forces of which participated), in NONE of these is it referred to as the 'Battle of Gallipoli'. Even the Turkish name does not translate as 'battle'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaman (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stanley Weir[edit]

I created this article about the lyricist for O Canada. It compiles research from several sources and, if I may be immodest, is the most complete biography I have found on the man. It also corrects a common error perpetuated by and often copied from the Government of Canada's biography that he was an MLA for Quebec, which was actually his brother, William Alexander Weir. This article has already been peer reviewed but I welcome any further criticism or contributions to the article. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild object Change the dating format; we're not using that ISO whatever international format in main article texts yet. Daniel Case 04:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's your settings, dude. You can change how you see the dates on your end. They show up as "January 1, 2001" to me. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Not everyone who reads Wikipedia has an account with settings that can be changed. That format can be used, of course, but I've noticed, when just reading, that most articles follow the (month , year) form or the (day month, year) form, not YEAR-MO-DAY. I just think it makes it easier on visitors even if it is in the manual of style.Daniel Case 23:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course that would be an simple change to make but I don't understand the objection. The format is approved in Manual of Style and I like the fact that it follows international standards better and is easily formatted to user preferences by MediaWiki software. If you could be more precise about what you mean by we're not using that ISO yet, I would appreciate it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's an ISO standard that gives that format. I can't remember what number it is. As for other comments, see above response.Daniel Case 23:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Date format changed by User:Dbiv. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object, the content is fine, but the sectioning is really distracting for such a short article. Tweak the format and it'll be fine.--nixie 04:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I was indeed having some trouble formulating a more reasonable sectioning format as was noted in the peer review. I strongly prefer the section formatting changes that User:Harro5 has now made. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks heaps better, from your reading on the subject, do you know the cause of death and where he was burried? The sentence on his death is lonley there on its own.--nixie 00:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, there is no information on his last days or burial site. Some of the best resources are the contemporary ones that are from before his death. I have e-mailed his great grand niece who is listed on a site as researching his family. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbs of Johannesburg[edit]

Self-nom. I have worked extremely hard on this article and had great assistance from several other people. After User:NicholasTurnbull finished helping me slave away with the map, I feel comfortable nominating this article for FAC. It is an extremely comprehensive look at the suburbs of the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, itself already a featured article. I have tried to look at both the social and economic importance of all the different areas of the city. Thank you! Páll 08:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Have added the numbered map Object none of my concerns have been dealt with Neutral: Its no doubt a good article but a few points: 1)Para 2: I don't like a place being compared with another, in size growth etc. A place should stand up on its own. 2) The term "suburb" used here is not clearly defined. I'm assuming that the word suburb in this case means an administrative sub-division of Jo'berg? 3) Terms are used such as ... Regions 2, 3, 4, and 7,.... Its hard to visualise or understand the same without a visual aid/map. The links are not helpful either. 4) A few differences would help. The suburbs are separated by a postal code is all that's mentioned. Is there an administrative head to the region? Are police jurisdictions the same throughout? Do they have an administrative headquarters? 5) A table would be nice to get an overview of the population, area, density, and if residential/commercial/industrial etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why not compare it to another? Most people have never heard of JOhannesburg, and it helps to give a reference to the sprawl of the city. No, suburb means exactly what I have defined it as, a neighbourhood. The only difference about it from the rest of the city is its character, and the fact that it has a seperate post code. And there are about 1700 suburbs in the city, probably more. A tableis impossibel to make. And the regions are mentioned when a sublink is provided, and they are also mentioned in the upper map. Páll 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I find it absurd that Jo'berg is not heard of in the way you portray it. Its one of the most prominent African cities, not a small town. Even so, a line on Jo'burg's status would be helpful in the lead.
Absurd or not, most people do not know where Johannesburg is, or what it is. [[User:PZFUN|Páll (Die pienk olifant)]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Johannesburg, much like the city of Los Angeles, .... I am not familiar with LA's growth, and I'm sure the same can be said of umpteen cities around the world. I firmly state again: no place/region should be compared to another. Its like saying "county A" of England is equal to the size of province "B in China". It doesn't help a third party sitting in Brazil does it?
Most people are familiar with the fact that Los Angeles is an extremely large and spread out city with no real centre, although I will change that. [[User:PZFUN|Páll (Die pienk olifant)]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Suburb" is a very loose term and I ask you to please refine it. From the article on neighbourhood ".. neighbourhood is a geographically localised community located within a larger city or suburb...". So a neighbourhood is a subset of a suburb, but in this case it is equal to a suburb. I understand what you mean, but on what basis are East, North South etc classified? I'm sure there must be some rationale for separating them into six regions. Is it for administrative, geographic or just arbitary reasons?
I have defined it exactly as what it is. It is a neighbourhood. There is no particular rationale apart from convenience and the tendency for the different areas to be different from each other due to socio-economic reasons. There is no oficial distinction. [[User:PZFUN|Páll (Die pienk olifant)]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm asking you to refine it as, in my city suburbs have a different meaning. My city is made up of two districts, a city district and a suburban district. Together they make up the metropolis. Now the suburbs are clubbed under either the Western Suburbs or Central Suburbs, on the basis of the two railway lines that service the suburb's location. The term suburb is also used to all the townships/ stations which lie beyond the metropolis and are serviced by the city's rail network. And yes, the two have their own local flavours and post codes.
  2. I was asking for the table for the six regions mentioned in the article, not the 1,700 locations. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The problem with tables like that is that most of that information is not known. There are only gueses as to the population of Johannesburg, although I'll see what I can do to get better census information. [[User:PZFUN|Páll (Die pienk olifant)]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I changed it to PD, which it is. Páll 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objecting again. The copyright status of Image:Pic-sandton.jpg needs to be resolved: is it a copyvio, or is it in the public domain? --Carnildo 03:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very interesting and informative article, with plenty of educational content, and has a good balance of topical coverage. Definitely a well thought out and thorough summary of the Johannesburg suburbs. The quality of writing is very good, as is the style of presentation of the article and the overall appearance of the article as a whole. In summary, a very good article. --NicholasTurnbull 21:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (conditional) Support, Ok I'm lazy. I just happen to know more of Palls articles :-P Make sure that any remaining niggles are solved first though! :-) Kim Bruning 00:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional opposition. First, the significance of the area mentioned is questioned. Second, the arrangement of images is quite messy and the distribution of images is quite uneven (some sections come with 3 to 4 pictures while some have none). Deryck C. 09:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of what? What area do you mean? The images work absolutely fine on every computer I've looked at this article in, and I do not have images to use in the sections that have no photographs. [[User:PZFUN|Páll (Die pienk olifant)]] 09:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very thorough, well-written piece about the different suburbs/sections of Johannesburg. The article is very informative for those who do not live in the city or in South Africa in general. Nice work! Bumm13 07:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Object- Nichalp raises some good points. What is a suburb? Can it just be defined as a "neighborhood"? What is a "neighborhood"? Such a term is extremely vague and unclear. In addition, shouldn't the article be moved to "Suburbs of Johannesburg, South Africa"? Otherwise a well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I've defined suburbs as best I can. Any discussion over the meaning of neighbourhood should be done on its separate page. why delve into huge explanations of what forms a neighbourhood in an article like this? There's no reason to. It should not be moved to Johannesburg, South Africa because wikipedia usually leaves major cities without top level designations, therefore New York City exists at New York City, not New York City, New York. The Johannesburg article itself does not use ", South Africa". [[User:PZFUN|User:PZFUN/signature]] 03:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see that the article should stay at its current name. Sorry... :-) Anyways, I still think the lead section/def. of "suburb" could be improved. The lead section is assuming that the reader knows information about neighborhood, suburbs, city, etc. The lead section neither defines the article nor does it tell what will be discussed in it. IMHO, it should start off with "The Suburbs of Johannesburg are the towns located within..." or something like that. Having the opening sentence saying that "The suburbs vary widely." is not a good start to the article, as the first sentence should define what the topic is about (see the Johannesburg article). Thus, I think the lead section could be rewritten. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I just rewrote the opening paragraph. What do you think? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 03:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's better. Support. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinism[edit]

Thorough, clear article about a religious topic. My own reference books were not clear at all on the topic--using relgious terminology they didn't explain. This is exactly the sort of article Wikipedia needs. Bravo to its editors. PedanticallySpeaking 13:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

  1. Support PedanticallySpeaking 13:54, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object the article looks good, but it needs some improvements. The lead does not meet guidelines. I would like to see Calvinism placed in the context of other movements such as Lutheranism, Catholicism, Anabaptism. What areas does Calvinism agree with other Protestant movements and what areas does it disagree. What reasons do these other groups have for rejecting Calvinism. It would be good to see a list of some major churches that consider themselves Calvinist. The educational institutions section is also very short and only lists those found in the United States. - SimonP 15:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
   Comment - you helpfully point out the weakness in the US-centeredness of the educational institutions. It would be a challenge to describe Calvinism in relation to all those things with which it differs - which would necessitate describing those other views in sufficient detail that a fair contrast can be made - without losing focus. We've attempted to stay on topic, to allow contrasts to arise incidentally in order to avoid making a bewilderingly controversial article out of a simply descriptive one.
   However, if it reads too much like an advertisement (if this is, more bluntly, what you are saying), we could try to give a sharper view of the controversies that surround this theology - many of these are described in very detached, neutral tones, and perhaps that is why they do not stand out for you.
   A similar choice is made in not listing denominations, in the article. Reformed churches, as the lead says, traditionally hold to Calvinistic doctrines. The sidebar provides another brief help in that regard. The breadth of the Reformed movement is challenging to encompass. We tried to keep the focus narrowly on what the Calvinism is, rather than who the Calvinists are. Is that really a weakness? Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. A good start, but I think the section on "Historical background" should be renamed "History" and give a more encompassing overview of the historical development. While maybe a differentiation from Catholicism is not necessary (that should be in some article on the Reformation), Calvinisim should be situated in relation to the two other strains of Protestantism that arose more or less concurrently: Zwinglianism and Lutheranism. The unified doctrine (Zwinglians and Calvinists) developed through the Consensus Tigurinus in 1549 and the Confessio Helvetica posterior (1566) should be mentioned and put into context, also other milestones like the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canon of Dordt. The geographical spreading of Calvinism should be covered, too. The French wars of religion and the Edict of Nantes... maybe all this is so much that you'll have to spin it off into an article History of Calvinism, but if so, make that history section a summary of the spin-off article and provide a "Main article..." link. Lupo 17:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler[edit]

This article is a carefully balanced, detailed and objective treatment of a controversial and oddly polarizing topic which continues to be the source of both misleading caricature and seemingly endless popular fascination (and as such, one of the most vandalized entries in Wikipedia). Support. Wyss 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I was planning to nominate this until Wyss did the job. I fully support the nomination since I learnt a quite a few things and the article is pretty well balanced and concise. Though there might be issues of vandalism especially after putting it in the main page I think this article should be made featured article after locking it maybe? And please vote for the article NOT the person. Thanx.--Idleguy 03:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Note, Hitler willed most of his personal property (including the copyright to MK) to the German government shortly before he killed himself, so the Mein Kampf comparison to photo copyright issues is likely not relevant. Wyss 02:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the photos were taken from the National Archives, so I am not sure what copyright status they fell under. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the photographer died over 70 years ago (1934 or earlier), then the image is considered public domain in Germany; all others are copyrighted. For images with the copyright held by the Nazi government, the copyright was passed to the Federal Republic, which transfered all previous Nazi-era copyright to Transit-Film Gesellschaft in 1963. (Trasit is a company fully owned by the current German government.) Transit still vigorously claims copyright on many WWII-era images created by the Third Reich, and the U.S respects copyrights that the German government claims are valid, so long as the photos were taken after 1922. The UK declared that Nazi-copyrighted material was public domain under the Enemy Property Act of 1953, but the United States never claimed this. Since Wikipedia servers are based in the U.S, we have to follow U.S. law. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Can we ask Congress to sign on to it? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since even Britain repealed the act in the 70's, it seems unlikely to work. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting, but just the sight of him still makes too many people's blood boil, and this could be a bad influence. Codex Sinaiticus 04:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not actionable. From above, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed". Please point out specific things in the article that can be fixed/improved. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would tend to agree with Spangineer on this one. Your objection is not actionable — it does not give the editor any pointers on how the article could be improved. Being featured does not necessarily mean it will appear on the front page, it means that we feel the article is of exemplary quality. slambo 15:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • This vote is not only actionable, it is despisable POV! Featured articles are not determined as such on whether the subject matter makes people "cheery" or otherwise. This is currently an invalid opposition. --Oldak Quill 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't feel bad, Codex. A lot of people think that. But the rules are that only actionable objections can be made. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 04:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This article looks great, but the lead seems very weak to me, especially the last paragraph. Maybe it could be expanded a bit to more greatly emphasize Hitler's influence on 20th century history? It seems a bit.. bland. Other than that, I have no objection at all. --malathion talk 19:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, controversial :) In my personal experience, AH is a lose/lose topic in terms of consensus. If for some reason no consensus to feature it emerges, I still think the article is a real credit to Wikipedia. I find the copyright objections to the photos interesting, but more related to AH's contorted (and still volatile) legacy in Germany than to any serious copyright issues. Wyss 00:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, informative and comprehensive. Phoenix2 03:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, like the lead the legacy section lets down the rest of the article, it's a collection of unrealted underdeveloped points. They should both be improved.--nixie 04:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and hope this article can survive the vandalism to keep its current qualilty. I'd probably advise that if the FAC is successful, someone (ie. Wyss) make a note of the version when the FA passes so that it can be reverted to it vandalism and POV gets bad. Harro5 04:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, informative article. This'll be a milestone if it gets passed. --Oldak Quill 22:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just from looking at the introduction, there are already major mistakes in this article. The first sentence is wrong "Adolf Hitler was the Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to his death". He was only Chancellor in 1933, and wasn't Führer until 1934. Also, it says "The racial policies that Hitler directed"-this is wrong, Hitler did not personally direct racial policy, he endorsed the racial policy proposals of his subordinates. Although much of the inspiration for racial policy came from Hitler's personality/books/speeches, he did not actually direct racial policy. I recommend this article be sent to peer review, and the authors of this article read Ian Kershaw's "The Nazi Dictatorship", which deals with Hitler's power and the extent to which he directed policy. There are also generalisations, for example in the Repression section "Thousands disappeared into concentration camps. Many thousands more emigrated, including about half of Germany's Jews." With the extensive references this article has I wouldn't expect such vagueness-no attempt to use specific figures, no distinction between how political enemies, social enemies (what the Nazis called "asocials") and Jews were treated, no distinction between "concentration camps" and extermination camps. It same paragraph also says "the SA, SS and Gestapo (secret state police) were given a 'free hand' "-hardly encyclopaedic language.Deus Ex 17:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these objections revolve around interpretations that are still way controversial. AH did personally direct racial policy in Germany, although semantics and language differences can influence descriptions of how the underlying administration and bureaucracy implemented his leadership. I'm comfortable with both interpretations (I see them as mostly semantic). Although I didn't write it, and agree that the term free hand is a bit fast and loose, it's apt enough if the context is understood. In the past I've personally removed the Fuhrer title from the opening paragraph but it keeps re-appearing. Wyss 23:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, " AH did personally direct racial policy in Germany" goes against everything that Ian Kershaw says about Hitler in his books, and I don't really understand then why Kershaw's biography is listed as a reference if his arguments are ignored. This article fails as NPOV as it shows one side the of the argument-what is known in Nazi Germany historiography as the "strong dictator" argument. The "weak dictator" school and Ian Kershaw's view, what he calls a "synthesis" of the two should be considered too. From what I've read in "The Nazi Dictatorship" (written by Kershaw), Hitler did not personally direct racial policy. In fact there is no record of any racial policy initiated by Hitler-they were all initiated and drawn up by his subordinates and confirmed by him, but they were very much inspired by Hitler's anti-Semitism. And Kershaw is considered today one of the world's leading historians of Nazi Germany.
The Repression paragraph is inadequate and needs revision. Apart from what I've already said, "They were also subject to a barrage of hate propaganda" is questionable, it would be more accurate to say "the German public were subject to a campaign of anti-Semitic propaganda". The treatment of anti-Semitism is too vague-it should mention that the Kristallnacht was a turning point, in that it was the first major act of state approved violence against Jews (previously state persecution had been through the law). Some other things the article doesn't mention are his personal life, e.g. his relationship with Eva Braun, the fact he had a very short "working week" (he only worked a few hours a day-I can find the specific figures)-so he was often unreachable by officials. The legacy section is poorly organised, and there is no section on historiography-i.e. the "master/weak dictator" argument, which you must have come across from the references, especially Kershaw. Deus Ex 00:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you've begun making edits to the article... I was going to suggest that. I've already replied to the endorsed/directed question. As to his working hours, they seem to have been not overly long, but varied somewhat. He rose late, sometimes in the mid afternoon, and didn't sleep until the crack of dawn. The article is already very long, which is why topics such as Braun and his suicide are discussed in separate articles. Wyss 01:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry but I don't find your reply to the endorsed/directed question adequate. "Hitler directed racial policies" is not a fact, it is an interpretation, but in this article it is presented as a fact. It would better to say "racial policies in Nazi Germany", which does not make reference to Hitler specifically, because the extent to which Hitler actually directed racial policy is disputed by historians, and many modern historians would accept Kershaw's position that he was "a dictator without having to dicate".Deus Ex 09:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They burned a lot of papers in April 1945. Recently declassified Sov docs indicate that while in custody after the war, Gunsche and Linge said AH "pored over" blueprints for the first gas chambers (that's in the article now). I agree with Kershaw nonetheless, that AH (at first) was so skillful in both selecting his key aides and assoiates, along with motivating them, that specific orders were often unnecessary. However he was capable of active management, especially regarding things that keenly interested him, was even criticized for it from time to time and serious historians do disagree on the directed/endorsed issue. Since he was fuhrer, with absolute power which he could target rather much as he pleased, I think directed/endorsed is an interesting discussion but hardly a distinction capable of deflecting historic responsibility. I'm ok with the term "enabled" btw but other editors have consistently changed that to "directed". The preponderance of evidence does continue to tilt towards his having given direct, detailed orders on this one. It should also be noted that the last line in his political will, dictated to Traudl Junge hours before he killed himslef, exhorted the world, in effect, to keep exterminating jews. Wyss 18:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I think "enabled" is more appropriate given the debate amongst historians. I just read through part of the article and compared to the Britannica entry, and I've got a few questions. 1. What source is the info about Hitler's indoctrination in his early life? There is no mention of it in the Brittannica entry, and if it is speculative or not completely substantiated, then I think it should be cut back to just the reliable facts. The Brittanica entry just says "Hitler already showed traits that characterized his later life: loneliness and secretiveness, a bohemian mode of everyday existence, and hatred of cosmopolitanismand of the multinational character of Vienna." 2. "he immediately enlisted in the Bavarian army"-was there actually a "Bavarian army", Brittanica says "volunteered for the German army" 3. "Hitler's street-corner oratory, attacking Jews, socialists and liberals, capitalists and Communists"-not a very good sentence. The article needs to explain (briefly) why these groups might be distrusted. It also needs to make explicit Hitler's opposition to the (unpopular) Weimar 4. Need to mention 1930 alliance with the Nationalist leader Alfred Hugenberg and importance (Hitler got coverage in Hugenberg's newspaper, able to reach a national audience). According to Brittannica, this alliance also helped Hitler to gain finance from industrialists and business magnates. 5. "Given this, claims that the German economy achieved near full employment are at least partly artifacts of propaganda from the era." I'm not sure about this. Between 1933-39, unemployment dropped from about 5.6m (depends on whether official figures/estimates) to about 50,000 in 1939-so low foreign workers had to be used. I'm not sure about the War years, but in 1939, unemployment was certainly extremely low.Deus Ex 23:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm now opposing this because Wyss, the originator of the nomination, is citing constructive improvements of the article as Vandalism.
The above vote is unsigned. Its cited reason is a complaint about my behavior, not the article content, so I don't think it should count. Wyss 23:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yola language[edit]

I am nominating Yola language because I found it fascinating and I learned a lot from it. In all my linguistic studies I had never heard of such a thing, so I guess you could say I really learned something about this "other" branch of Middle English that missed out on the Great Vowel shift! I feel this is some of the best of wikipedia; hence my nomination. Codex Sinaiticus 02:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. Every FA has a list of references at the end; while sometimes I don't see why it's necessary, this is not one of them. This is crying out for a bibliography. It's a great start, but I'd work on it some more and put it through peer review before I came back here. Daniel Case 03:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object 1) Cite your sources in a References section. 2) There is no lead section. 3) The article needs a map showing where the language is used. 4) The Yola song section, that appears to be only song lyrics, is longer than the rest of the prose. Compare this to other featured articles about languages such as Laal language, Nafaanra language or Gbe languages. slambo 15:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, we've got a lead section now, but with so little else in the article, it does not appear to be comprehensive enough compared to other featured articles about languages. slambo 17:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Three paragraphs of prose does not make a featured article. Whilst probably the literature on the language is limited, we can surely do better than this. Morwen - Talk 20:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a language template that has been successfully applied to most of the recent language FAs. It's not entirely applicable to extinct languages, but most of it is. Besides being way too short, the following (full-blown) sections need to be added before we can even think of renominating it:
    • History
    • Classification
    • Grammar
    • Sounds
    • Geographic distribution (or something like it)
    • Vocabulary
Peter Isotalo 10:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of South Carolina[edit]

Very comprehensive, more so than half the existing state history articles combined, and covering major American historical event significant to South Carolina from the first Native Americans to the Charles Town Landing to the Civil War. 26 hours over 3 days were spent writing the article, and I'm the only contributor, so pushing it to 1.0 has been an uphill battle, but I think it's there. Toothpaste 03:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Did nothing happen in South Carolina after February 21, 1865? --Carnildo 04:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As per above. There is no information concerning South Carolina during Reconstruction (I am curious as to how the Union forces dealt with the state, since it was the first to secede), the late 1800s, and the 1900s. You could also mention the social and economic changes happening in South Carolina today, especially since the state is attracting many companies due to its low cost environment, notably for industrial types (e.g. foreign car companies such as BMW). Pentawing 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(They were especially vicious to it, of course, and SC suffered more from Sherman's March than Georgia did.) Misnamed article at this point, as this is really half the story. It's great work, but it is only half the story. (I.e. I'd object, but my objection has already been lodged.) Geogre 18:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Content seems to be there. The only problems now are wording (e.g. grammar) and links for the periods after the Civil War. Pentawing 06:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikified all the links after the Civil War section. Could you please point out problems in my wording? Toothpaste 15:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copyediting, but there are a lot of sentences that could be broken down into smaller sentences. Though the article has drastically improved since I first saw it, I would suggest that it be referred to peer review. Pentawing 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Too long for a history of 200 years (38kb!). Better shorten the existing passage and add the things after the war. Deryck C. 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, only because we need to cover the last 140 years. This is a good start, though. Don't worry about the length; you can break off detail into subarticles if you need to. Everyking 10:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added information all the way up to 1998, and later today I'm going to wikify the text. Aside from the above, is there anything else that could be added? Toothpaste 19:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it looks good to me. Could do with a few more illustrations? Phoenix2 02:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I added two more. Toothpaste 03:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Image:Sumter.jpg and Image:Hodges.jpg have no copyright information. --Carnildo 05:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You only get to object once. Add your new objections to the old one if you want, but you can't vote twice. Everyking 06:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • FAC isn't a vote. I'm objecting on two separate grounds, so I'm doing so in two separate places. --Carnildo 07:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a vote. The number of objections matter. One might not be enough to kill a nomination, but two might do it. I had a FAC where I remember at least 1, and I think 2 objects, but those weren't enough to kill it because the supports outweighed it. Everyking 07:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've replaced the pictures that had no notice, anyway. Toothpaste 12:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild object - Lack inline citations, overwhelming TOC, inadequately short lead section, longer than necessary overall (see Wikipedia:Page size), and disproportionate coverage (too much on the Revolutionary and Civil wars while not enough on 20th century history). Spinning off of the more detailed sections and leaving summaries in their place per Wikipedia:Summary style would help a great deal. --mav 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I summarized the sections on the Colonial Period and the American Revolution, then gave them a separate article. Better? Toothpaste 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better. Some other points above are still valid. --mav 17:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Needs to mention the title of the article in the first sentence, and needs to include at least a little bit of pre-history in the lead. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - A thorough, detailed and well-laided out article, I think it's now up to featured status -- Joolz 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. A history of South Carolina which doesn't even mention the Jackson-era nullification crisis cannot be said to be comprehensive. And it wouldn't surprise me if there were other significant events between the adoption of the Constitution and the beginning of the Civil War. Probably involving that Calhoun guy. Monicasdude 06:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Monicasdude -- I went to this article just a few days ago looking for a little info on the nullification crisis, and felt shocked that it was not at all available. I also agree that a failure to provide much on Senator Calhoun (an admittedly controversial, but also a mercurial and dynamic politician) is definitely something I'd expect addressed before FA status was granted. It's a solid article in many respects, but not yet featurable. Object. Jwrosenzweig 05:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lack of any discussion of the Indian Removal Act and its impact on S.C. is also glaring -- I know 1787-1850 isn't the most exciting period in American history, but I think a treatment of some of this is really necessary. Jwrosenzweig 05:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm writing the section(s) on 1787 to 1850 on my userpage, and it will probably be given a subarticle. I've addressed a lot of the complaints about the article very quickly, usually within a day, but I think right now it would be best just to submit this again later after doing more work. Toothpaste 09:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Object- lead section is too long (yes, I know that you expanded it after someone said it was too short, but see Wikipedia:Lead section). Otherwise a well-written article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed the lead. Better, or worse? Toothpaste 20:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sail Training[edit]

with the summer race series kicked off and going strong, thought it might be a good time to raise the awareness of why all these tall ships are still around and what they're doing when they're not at some dock being a simple tourist attraction with thousands of looky-loos asking if it's a real pirate ship. Seasee 02:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am not sure in what style this article is supposed to be in. At times it looks more like a guide/essay than an encyclopedia article. Is that the intention or am I missing something? Pentawing 06:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sail training is not intended to (be) a vacation. The sea has always been associated with some element of risk and if one were looking to stay warm and dry, they should be looking at cruise ships instead of sail training vessels.
From its modern interpretations to its antecedents when maritime nations would send young naval officer candidates to sea, sail training provides an unconventional and effective way of building many useful skills on and off the water. (Is the passage stating a fact or an opinion here? Try rewording this a bit).
The passage concerning cruise ships should also be reworded since it is obvious that sail training is a difficult endeavour. Once the wording problems are addressed, I will reconsider my vote. Pentawing 01:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Fischer[edit]

Bobby Fischer is famous not only as former World Chess Champion, but also for the controversy surrounding his views on September 11 and his long detention in Japan and subsequent adoption of Icelandic citizenship. The article has been through peer review, and includes a merge of the formerly separate Bobby Fischer (biography) article. I have made a few minor edits to this article, but all the real work has been done by others. Quale 17:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia:Peer review/Bobby Fischer/archive1
  • Mild object most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review, but the lead is not long enough and I still have concerns with the ==Fischer in popular culture== section. - SimonP 22:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've racked my brain, but I just can't think of any way to expand the lead. Can you give some ideas on what else could be included there? --malathion talk 14:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead is now much approved, good work. I still do not think much of the popular culture section, but it is not a major issue and I have withdrawn my objection. - SimonP 00:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • I've merged the popular culture section into the Popularity of chess section. Is there anything else preventing a support vote? --malathion talk 01:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support, great work and thanks for being so responsive to comments. - SimonP 17:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I want to support, and will once Simon's points are taken care of. Very good article on the whole though. Harro5 02:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good work dealing swiftly with issues arising from the FAC. Support. Harro5 01:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with note: I inserted a 2nd paragraph of the lead. I fully understand if it's reverted, but I had wanted to indicate some of the areas that could be included to introduce the man's significance and interest and to give a thumbnail sketch of the parabola of his public life, his cultural significance. It's US-centric and leaves out, e.g., how the Icelanders have remained supportive of him, so I make no great claims for that paragraph except that I hope it's a vague pointer to a way of making the lead bigger. Geogre 19:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's great. I reworded it a bit but that's a good contribution. Thanks a lot! --malathion talk 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The section on his recent detention and subsequent Icelandic citizenship needs expanding. Try yanking something from Wikinews ;) - Haukurth 22:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough someone else said I should cut that part, because it used to be quite long. Anyway, I'll add some stuff back in from the old article. Check back in 10-15 minutes. --malathion talk 22:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --malathion talk 23:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for a swift response. It's good to have more detail but the current text belies its origins as day-by-day news updates. Maybe this could be rewritten into a more readable account with less obsessive footnotes. That would solve my current objection. As for the rest of the article I'll read it again tomorrow before commenting further. - Haukurth 23:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain that this objection is actionable. Since Fischer disappeared, information about him and what's going on in his life is very fragmented. An attempt to write a flowing prose account of his activities since his disappearance would either read badly because of the holes in the story, or obsfucate the holes. Also, I think this is the first time I've seen someone object to an article getting featured status because it had too many footnotes. ;) --malathion talk 23:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think coherent information is not too hard to find. Fischer has given several interviews with Icelandic media and he's not even that hard to find. My dad ran into him at a restaurant the other day and chatted with him at length while they waited for their orders. Heck, *I* could maybe even get an interview with Fischer if I really wanted, in the name of Wikinews/Wikipedia/whatever. Talk about original research. At least that would get us a GFDL-picture. - Haukurth 00:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, go for it. Maybe I just don't know what you have in mind, so its probably best if you could rewrite the sections you are having problems with. --malathion talk 00:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I found out that most of the in-text citations in that article were dead anyway. I removed them. I also tried to fix up the timeline feel of that section, but I left some dates in where I thought they were relevant. Let me know what you think. --malathion talk 13:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak objection. A lot of further reading resources and offline references cited, but the article does need some expanding (even though it is quite big by now). — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding how? Please be more specific about what you think needs improvement. --malathion talk 18:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my mind. No more expanding, great article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The images Image:BobbyFischer.jpg, Image:Young Fischer.jpg, Image:Fischerchess92.jpg, and Image:Fischer arrest.jpg are claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia. As such, fair-use images should be avoided if at all possible. If they are used, the source needs to be identified, and a specific rationale for why the image can be used under fair use needs to be placed on the image talk page. --Carnildo 20:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia:Fair_use guideline permits the use of the images in this article. Please post on the talk page for that guideline if you disagree with it. Until the guideline is changed, this objection does not have a rational basis. --malathion talk 21:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer to see at least one picture of him that's not fair use. (suggestion - try googling for images of him and emailing the owner to ask permission). →Raul654 16:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • From Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Image_Copyright: CC, CC-by, CC-by-SA, GFDL, GPL, BSD (and alike), and public domain are all OK. Plus FA requirement five states: "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've gone through the article and tried to help the prose a little but I still feel it needs polishing to reach featured standard. I tried rewriting the Icelandic chapter but it's still not very good. I'm afraid I must still object since I feel the prose is too disconnected. The article just doesn't flow well and even though the subject is interesting the article doesn't do a good job of drawing the reader in. It's too obvious that different authors have written different chapters at different times. The chapter about the religious beliefs comes out of the blue and breaks up the chess carrier narrative. What about his later religious views? Surely some information can be found. This just isn't comprehensive enough. I think the separation into References and Further reading is not useful, except perhaps to reveal the poor quality of the article. Fischer's major biographies weren't used as references? That's just not good enough. But the article is obviously improving and if it improves enough I will certainly change my vote. I'd love this to become a featured article. - Haukurth 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking I think that in order to satisfy your objections, this article would have to be expanded until it is a full length biographical novel. Any biographical article is going to need to be highly selective about what is relevant enough to put in and what isn't and that's going to mean that a lot gets left out. Wikipedia's length requirements effectively forbid comprehensively covering anything as huge as a person's entire life. If you can think of something in particular that should be added and that we have information available for, that would be moving in the right direction. Otherwise I can't even begin to act on your objection on comprehensiveness. --malathion talk 23:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much that I want everything to be expanded - it's more that I want a better overall balance. The guy is famous for his chess so we need a reasonably comprehensive and coherent account of his chess carrier. The article doesn't really live up to that as it is. Fischer's "religious beliefs around 1975" and the speculation about the jewishness of his parents take up proportionally too much space. The best way to fix the proportions is to expand the important sections. We have many much longer articles on Wikipedia, especially featured ones. And I don't want the article to be the length of a biography but I want Fischer's biographies to be used as sources for the article. I wish you the best of luck. - Haukurth 01:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I sort of understand what you're saying here, but I just can't act on it. The kind of information you seem to want is just not available, and other featured articles like Garry Kasparov are less detailed and developed than this one. Let me know if you can think of any more concrete ways to improve this though. --malathion talk 15:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although note I've done a lot of work on this article, and I'm clearly trying to get it featured, so maybe my vote shouldn't be counted. --malathion talk 22:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Brydon[edit]

A self nomination. I researched this page from multiple sources, including the archives of The London Times going back to the Victorian era (access kindly provided by a university Athens account!) Brydon is a colourful footnote in the history of British imperialism and I don't think there's too many sources of comprehensive information on him available on the Internet. Wikipedia is the perfect vehicle for this kind of information. --Peripatetic 02:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 01:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. 1) No sources are cited. 2) The image Image:N01553 8.jpg has no copyright information. It's almost certainly public domain, though. Would it be possible to get a higher-resolution version of the image? --Carnildo 03:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Have addressed above concerns expressed by Carnildo. Have supplied multiple references and sources, and also a couple of external links. PD image now available. --Peripatetic
    • Support. Looks good, especially with the new image. --Carnildo 17:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I made a couple of edits, mainly in style so they are not major, but I did change the bit in the lead paragraph about being "legendary", as I thought that needed to be toned down a bit. The article is short, but I think it's very good, and it's one of those subjects that can be covered well while still being succinct and I like to see good articles that aren't otherwise readily available, as you said. I would delete the category "British heroes" until the category actually exists. The red link doesn't look good. Rossrs 01:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Have also fixed the "Category" issue pointed out by Rossrs. Btw, thanks for your input and suggestions :-) -- Peripatetic 09:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the introduction needs to make it clear that Dr Brydon was not the sole survivor. Other than that great article about an interesting episode. Lisiate 22:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Tricky piece of rewording!! How does the following sound? Comments/improvements welcome. --Peripatetic 23:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is reputed in British imperial history for being the sole survivor of an army of 16,000 that perished on a forced retreat from Kabul to Jalalabad during the First Anglo-Afghan War, although this is factually inaccurate.
  • Object, the last paragraph and the section The retreat to Jalalabad is a direct cut and paste from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, plagarism does not look good on the main page, the article has been maked as a copyvio. Bring back a rewritten version--nixie 23:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article now sports a copyright violation notice.  Denelson83  03:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Strangerhood[edit]

  • Refer to peer review 0) There is no reason listed here for the nomination (yes, not actionable, that's why it's point number 0). 1) Cite your sources in a References section. 2) The article is too list-heavy with not enough prose to balance the lists. 3) The Theories section needs to be reworked into prose and less like a discussion. 4) There are no images. slambo 01:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Almost exclusively lists. Phils 16:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, I'd add to that, the prose in the lists is not very well-written. Object, Refer to peer review. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object I'm a little questionable about this one. So far, there has been only one constant editor for this article, which kinda tells me that this person is one of the creators, making this a vanity article. Also, there is a lot of information here which doesn't seem to be on any of the external links. I'd actually be closer to saying that this would be better in VfD than FAC. --JB Adder | Talk 23:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Somebody has worked very hard on this article, but there are too many lists. The plot is also very detailed and well written, but this article, so far, does not seem to meet the criteria for a featured article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1964 New York World's Fair[edit]

Self-nomination. I was the original author of this piece, created back in 2002. I was unaware that it had been nominated to be a Feature Article in July, 2004, and just stumbled across the nomination and discussion yesterday. Subsequently, I've corrected what I believe to be the major objections to the article and have removed portions that I did not feel were factually correct. I've also listed my sources to the material. I will follow this closely over the next few days and will monitor suggestions for changes as they arise. Thank you!

    • Object Image:1964Fair.jpg is a copyvio - fair use - has little to do with fairs. Dunc|☺ 14:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update I do know the difference between "fair use" and "Fairs." Thank you though, for pointing it out to me. The image was incorrectly attributed by the individual who added it to the article as being copyrighted TO ME! I have modified the TALK page of the photograph to indicted that it is properly "fair use." The New York World's Fair 1964-1965 Corporation would have held the copyrights to the photograph. However, the photograph may have already passed into public domain since much of the Fair Corporation's copyrighted materials, including the Fair's logos, have now passed into Public Domain. nywf64 15:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding is that nothing passes into the public domain by abandonment. Monopoly franchises held by dissolved corporations, out of print books from defunct publishers, texts by authors who left no estates, and the like enter a sort of limbo where it seems unlikely that anyone will ever again profit from the monopoly, but those who use them do so at their risk. It's not certain that the rights to this aerial photo were held by the Fair itself in any case. Smerdis of Tlön 17:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The picture in question was taken in 1964 or 1965. Assuming that it was copyrighted in the first place, it is covered by the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. As a result, the earliest it could pass into the public domain is 2059. --Carnildo 19:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update Good points regarding copyrights. I would assume then that this photograph is probably still copyrighted by someone. What is your suggestion to resolve this? I do not have access to photos that are aerials of the Fair other than those that were taken by/for the Fair Corporation. Should I remove the photograph or should I keep it there and claim "Fair Use" for it? An overview of the Fairgrounds seems an appropriate photograph to accompany an opening that is an overview of the Fair and the article itself. I would have access to other photos of the Fair that belog specifically to individuals from whom I could secure copyright clearance. Would one of those be better even if it was not an overview of the Fairgrounds? Any suggestions would be helpful. Please, also comment on the article itself. Someone along the line thought it might be worth of a Featured article so that is why I dusted it off and resubmitted it. Had it not been originally nominated, I would never have considered doing it. If enough people think it's simply trash, I will, of course, remove the self-nominaton. Thanks! nywf64 01:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • An image under an open license would be much better than a "fair use" one. Good choices would be an image of the fairground entrance, or of distinctive architecture from the fair. I seem to recall the fairgrounds including some rather famous UFO-like structures. --Carnildo 03:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not objections (or support), just remarks: shouldn't there be more comparison of the '64 and '39 fairs in terms of magnitude, layout and how the space was used, etc.? Also that the Unisphere echoed the Trylon and Perisphere? Oh and I think Herbert Hoover made one of his last prominent public appearances there, maybe at the opening. Also possibly worth mentioning: the Texas Pavilion was financed by Angus Wynne, who lost a lot of money on it, forcing him to sell Six Flags over Texas. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:59, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the input. The Fair was a very involved event. I've touched on that a bit by including the section on the problems with the BIE, Robert Moses and the financial debacles the Fair faced. I could go into much more detail on the Fair, there is much that can be said about it. However, I felt that the best thing would be to present a concise synopsis of the highlights of the Fair, that the majority of the readers would find interesting and then supply the links to the other websites that go into greater detail. There is a WIKIPEDIA article on the 1939/1940 World's Fair and readers are refered to that in the article and can make their own comparisons. I wanted this article to be specifically on the 1964/1965 World's Fair. And yes, Herbert Hoover probably did attend the Fair. He, along with Harry Truman, was an honorary Chairman of the World's Fair Corporation. And, yes, Angus Wynn did loose his shirt on the Texas Pavlions and Music Hall. But, again, I would risk info overload if I put all of those tidbits into the story -- and, believe me, there are many more that could be added. But much of that is covered at the other websites that specifically deal with the Fair in detail. I think a more concise presentation of the Fair and what it was about is called for here. nywf64 13:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. It's not really a notably long article. I agree that there is an article on the '39 Fair, but I would actually be intrigued to know how their geographic footprints compared, and have no idea where to start looking. As to the rest of this, I guess I feel this could use more "color". (And given the well-known Disney connection, the less-known Six Flags connection seems of particular interest.) As I say, neither supporting nor objecting to this being featured, just making suggestions. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Update I've removed the original photograph with the questionable copyright issues. I've replaced it with a photo that an acquantance has donated to the GNU that his father took back in 1964 of the Fairgrounds. I hope that I've documented and credited this appropriately. If not, please let me know what should be changed. nywf64 02:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Gadget[edit]

This article has been through massive rewrites and reformatting. It has also been peer reviewed and all suggestions have been considered and applied accordingly. Its a good informative article full of information unique to Wikipedia. --The_stuart 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Object the lead section mentions that this article pertains only to the animated series, but doesn't direct the interested reader to articles about either of the two films or anything else about the characters. slambo 20:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) The article is too list-heavy; there is not enough straight prose to offset these lists. 2) Cite your sources in a References section. 3) I'd like to see more on the series' creation and development; as it is, this information is rather sparse near the end of the article (it should be the first section after the header). 4) the lead section does not fully describe the contents of the article. slambo 20:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - I agree with Slambo. Most of the lists should be reformatted into prose. A comprehensive discussion of the animated series should probably discuss various spinoff adaptations, especially the live-action movies which many people are familiar with. Regarding media - 1) is it possible to get a clip of the theme song?, and 2) is it possible to clean up the screencapture images? They seem somewhat dark and not at all sharp. Slambo's comments regarding references, lead section and others also need to be addressed. - Bantman 21:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review Don't restrict yourself solely to the animated series; as was said above, the two movies should also be explained here. I strongly suggest you read other TV series articles, have a look at how they structure their articles, and base this one around those. --JB Adder | Talk 23:34, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, needs some brush-ups. Like The Strangerhood, there are too many lists. Although somebody did work hard on this, it does not seem fit to be considered an excellent or featured article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, the article is made almost entirely of lists. Phoenix2 22:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Despite possible problems mentioned by the above users, the article itself is very well written with interesting pictures provided. Deryck C. 09:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism[edit]

This has to be noted as a self-nomination, as I have worked extensively on this article. However I think it has developed very well over the past few months from something that badly needed cleanup to an article that I think gives a novice a clear understanding of the subject, and the controversies surrounding it. It also (and I may be asking for trouble by saying this) seems to have managed to ascend from the mire of the constant Anacp/Anarchist edit conflicts and present things in a neutral manner that both sides seem to agree on. (I'm going to duck now.) Saswann 19:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the two vector images can be easily reproduced. Phils 10:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First image replaced with Image:Ancap chart.JPG with clear copyright info. Saswann 19:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2nd image commented out. Saswann 19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spooner died in 1887, over 100 years ago, since the photo was taken during his lifetime, I think it's clear its a PD image(?) Saswann 19:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. It's too old to by copyrighted. RJII 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Object, It's stil very POV. For instance it missrepresents anarchism (all the talk in Talk:Anarchism shows that), but has been improved. You also have to get very deep into the article to learn that "Anarcho-capitalism is a radical development of liberalism." // Liftarn
pulled the "radical development of liberalism" into the lead section. However, I am unsure how the article misrepresents anarchism-- aside from showing Ancap belief that apparently "misrepresents anarchism." Saswann 12:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? If something is a development of liberalism it can't be anarchism? American individualist anarchism is a radical development of liberalism as well. RJII 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very comprehensive. One can tell tons of work was put into this article. When I enjoy reading an article and gain a good understanding of the topic, and other issues like pictures and things are cleared up, it gets my vote. Well done. Phoenix2 17:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, I'm still finding very basic NPOV problems, spelling errors, and even factual inaccuracies even today, which I'm amazed the other editors failed to notice. Further, this article is a controversial one that has been the subject of many edit wars, so I'm not convinced of its chances for on-going stability. Kev 20:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this editor is openly opposed to capitalism. RJII 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla[edit]

Re-nomination. Originally nominated in July 2004. The article is coming along nicely; it currently has beautiful wikification and good narrative arc; and is one of the finest biographies I've seen. It remains long, but has greatly improved the incisiveness and style of its text, added new sources, and controversies have been mediated by editors who are not zealous Teslaphiles. +sj + 06:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Structural things: Why is there a separate section on his education, wouldn't this be better merged into the relevant parts of his life? The ===h3=== heading in the honors section are over doing it considering the amount of text. External links should probably f ollow after references. Text things: The lead seems quite underdeveloped. --nixie 06:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptography[edit]

This article seems to be well writen in my opinion, it's not biased, and it has some nice external links for additional information. It follows the Manual of Style, and is accurate IMO. Exir Kamalabadi(Talk)(contribs) 04:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object, it's a well structured summary article, but it has no references, also some more images would be nice--nixie 05:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. No references. Otherwise, the article seems fine, though. No need for additional images, IMHO. Phils 11:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - Referance the article and i'll support it. --ZeWrestler 14:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object This is very much a summary article, and I don't think it's quite FA status. --JB Adder | Talk 23:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Many external links are given, and the article is somewhat thorough, but offline references need to be cited to inform readers where the author(s) got the information from. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. One word: comprehensive. Also rare to see such good articles with open-ends on Wikipedia. Deryck C. 09:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild object. Unless inline reference is done. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Governor General of Canada[edit]

Re-nomination. See here for the previous nomination. No one either supported or objected to it; there was just one comment about the references, which I addressed by adding two more references. --Emsworth 19:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, a decent article but not comprehensive. It covers the basic facts, but skips most of the detail. For instance there is no mention of the dispute between Lord Minto and Laurier over control of the armed forces, and virtually no history after 1974. The ==political role== section makes no mention of the current main political role of the GG as Canada's highest patronage appointment. Something on the selection process within the PMO is needed. The GGs role as a proponent of Canadian culture also needs more attention. The Governor General's Awards are given brief mention, but nothing about how they came about, the other wide range of awards go unmentioned. In a similar vein this page also needs to mention both the Stanley and Grey Cups, perhaps the most important link between the office of the GG and majority of Canadians. The controversy section also needs to be reworked. Citizens for a Canadian Republic are a pretty minor fringe group, far more important in recent years have been debates over costs. - SimonP 02:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It really looks quite good at a glance, but is it suitable as brilliant prose? — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. -- Emsworth 17:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Lifestyle[edit]

I am listing this article here because it appears to be complete, and has references and considerable collaboration which has made it quite good (in my opinion). Therefore I have listed it on peer review and am now nominating it for featured status. I guess this counts as a self-nomination. I think it would be good because it is on a very non-conventional topic, as well. I realise that there are no images, but there are truly no appropriate ones (we tried). Falcon 05:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. This article looks like it was written by a practitioner of the vampire lifestyle, and is too POV to be a FA. Whig 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • object 1) cite your sources in a References section. 2) There are no images. 3) The writing seems a little repetitive to me, especially in the lead section. 4) I'd like to see more discussion on the origins of this subculture; can it be traced to a specific person or group? How far back do we have references mentioning such a lifestyle? slambo 11:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. slambo above acurately summarizes the problems with this article. Phils 16:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to Peer Review due to the above comments. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Although I don't object to this being sent back to peer review, I would question why nobody made these comments there when it was up there. Thank you all for the input, though. Falcon 16:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • object per above. --Briangotts 02:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per slambo and Whig. - Jersyko talk 01:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object per all above. I have a history of trying to improve the page in question. The nominator (and a like minded individual) blocked my efforts with highly POV actions and personal attacks. I finally had to remove it from my watchlist to avoid seeing how awful it was and the continuous nonsense Falcon pulled. The idea that it would be a featured article is absolutely absurd. Now that there are additional editors pointing out how much the article needs to be improved, perhaps it finally will get done. DreamGuy 23:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Some self-styled vampires claim that, in order to replenish their vampiric energy, they will sometimes feed on the blood of other humans, but some will also feed on other things such as themselves, animals, plants and the elements" --- No, It is looked down upon HEAVILY to "feed" from onesself.

Sybian[edit]

Note: If you have questions/comments/objections to this being put on the front page, please leave them on my talk page or this talk page. It is about a sex toy, so I know there will be objections.
Disclaimer aside, this article was brought up from a stub to what we have now. Of course, we added what we could add without spamming for porn sites and included non-nude images, but it has come a long way. It was copyedited and proofread, was at Peer Review for some time. It should be good to have a FA about a sexual topic, but this could test many unforseen subjects. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Can an article be a FA, but not useable on the Main Page? Is there a policy on this? I don't think this should ever appear so prominently on the Main Page, but to me that doesn't mean it should be on a list of the highest quality articles. ike9898 02:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • If the subject is not appropriate, it can be marked as not featured on the front page, but can still gain Featured status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, an article can be featured but considered off-limits to the main page. The only instance of this is Wikipedia, which is a featured article but considered too self agrandizing for purposes of the main page, so it will never be the daily featured article. →Raul654 20:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. All but one of the images are claimed as "fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so fair-use images should be avoided if at all possible. --Carnildo 04:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, most photos re-appear on various websites, and I am not sure about the original copyright nor I am not sure who took them when. If that is the case, I will make all photos that you think are copyright issues PD, since the main source is not known. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagged them all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't fix anything. You can't go around claiming to release other peoples' work into the public domain. --Carnildo 07:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if I cannot seem to use Fair use, and the original author and date of pictures are unknown, what I am supposed to use then? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can continue using fair use. I don't think (personally) it's that much of an issue, though everyone's right in saying that we shouldn't be encouraging these images at all. Ronline 11:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, Carnildo is following policy: "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured." However, Carnildo and I should try to find out what is considered acceptable copyright status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I went ahead and put them all back to fair use. Until I hear something different, I am sticking to those. I will try to find some photos either today or tomorrow. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • If yall would like to find some copyright OK pictures, I went onto Google and looked at [1]. Of course, if you do not like porn, there is always a filter you can use. But, this is mainly for my point that it is not known who took the photos when, so that was why I was thinking PD first. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What are you supposed to do? You could continue using the images under fair use, in which case I would continue to object. You could remove the images, and I'd remove my objection, but that would leave the article a little light on images. You could track down the creators of the images, contact them, and ask for GFDL/Creative Commons licenses. You could find other images where the creators are easier to determine, and ask for those images under a suitable license. You could contact the uploader of the one free-use image in the article, and ask for more pictures. You could find a store selling those machines, and ask for one to be taken out of the box so you can photograph it. And I'm sure there are other things you can do. --Carnildo 03:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Does the nominator have one of these at home? He could take some pictures. ike9898 20:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
              • No, since I do not have that money and I am also a guy. I will try better, but I knew i lost this fac, badly. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Notwithstanding the image copyright issues (which do need to be resolved), this article is clearly not up to the standard of a featured article. I find that it reads like an FAQ / "about our product and its history" page off of the manufacturer's website. There is little or no objective commentary; no sales figures; no discussion of its niche use in porn; no discussion of its impact on society (rather, subsets thereof); really, nothing but a history of development and a sales pitch ("negatives - it costs too much"). I would suggest sending back to peer review for more work. - Bantman 02:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The use in the porn industry I tried to avoid, since it's just like any other sexual thing: someone put up sites showing girls riding these machines. I do not know which site came first, what sites are out there, and then, it will begin the slope of advertising/spamming, and I refuse to do that. I do not have sales figures, but I can get that. As for it's impacts on society, I do not know, except woman get better orgasms. As for it sounding like a sales pitch, where does it sound like that? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, my concerns are similar to Bantmans. The article needs sales figures, how popular is the product since it is an expensive sex toy, is it stocked in most sex shops? If you're going to go to the effort of writing a FA quality article about a sex toy you may as well mention its specific use in porn. There should be some images that have free copyrights, assuming there is a patent, diagrams should be avaiable and you could make free images from there. Since the intention of the creator seems to be to make a tool for sex therapy, the article more that covers what the makers think, what do sexologists think of the product? The first paragraph of the concerns section really is of no relevance, at least in regard to concerns people may have about using the product and should be moved or removed.--nixie 04:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I searched for Sybian and problems, all I got were about guys having penile problems and women having no problems getting orgasm. I lose there. Same thing for the sales figures, all I get are direct sales websites. Once again, I lost. Photos, not even looking for something good, but I am about to delete a few. I got rid of two, one more can go. If people want to see an attachment, they can look at the first photo. I might write something on the porn use, but I am not sure how I can present that. Pretty much, I lost. Raul, you can close it, since I cannot answer some of the objections here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The references section has 10 entries, 6 of which are from sybian.com, and 2 of which are from toyslove.com (a page which appears to have been created specifically to be linked to from wikipedia?). Can the inline citations be tweaked so we don't have repeat entries listed in the references? I would also like to see some sales figures. Are they constructed "on demand?" -- Norvy (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Henninger Reagan[edit]

Self nom. Profile of a 19th century Texas politician who served as a Congressman, Senator, and Postmaster of the Confederacy. Stable article, illustrated, complete, and has references. PedanticallySpeaking 14:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I moved the picture to infobox format, but I found the article a little short, and the lack of headings was a little irritating. --Scimitar 15:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see the need for the infobox format for the photo since his dates are right there in the lead. I added some headings. PedanticallySpeaking 15:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, good article and quite informative, but too short. Phoenix2 16:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with Phoenix. -- Zantastik 19:50, July, 2005 (UTC)
  • mild support It does seem short, but I'm not so sure what needs to be added; you've already touched on all the topics that I would want to see in a biography article. The structure is good and flows well chronologically. Are there any other images that could be added such as during his military or political careers? slambo 11:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is well-written and well-formatted, but it is much too short to be a FA (maybe short is the wrong word - FA's should be comprehensive). Ronline 11:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding the shortness objection, I quote from the FAC guidelines. An FA "covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details" and "should stay tightly-focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." PedanticallySpeaking 16:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. While I agree that an article shoudln't go into all the minutiae of this man's life, it simply isn't comprehensive enough yet to merit featured status. --Zantastik talk 16:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm curious to know what all the objectors think is missing from the article to disqualify it as not comprehensive. All the key points that I look for in a biography are there, so what do you all think should be expanded? slambo 19:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:54, 28 June 2008 [2].

Donald Bradman[edit]

previous FAC
Nominator: Dweller

This is an article that's been the subject of a tremendous amount of work in the last few months. There have been many contributors who've moved the article on from the excellent base provided, notably by User:Phanto282.

The article has undergone a (more than) extensive Peer Review, has been copy-edited by a number of terrific volunteers and some of the more contentious aspects of the article have been thoroughly debated by the cricket experts at WP:CRIC and by FAC regulars at the article talk page.

I strongly believe that this article would not be out of place among those that espouse our best qualities.

Being defensive for one minute - it is slightly longer than I think ideal, but the man was a phenomenon and utterly notable. For about 70 years he was the subject of the fascination of millions, if not billions of people, as a player, administrator, writer and thinker. The article's about as short as we could make it without rendering it not comprehensive. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citeweb issues raised by Nishkid64
Resolved comments from Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some inconsistencies in the references. For example, refs 193 and 194 use the YEAR-MONTH-DAY for date written, while refs 222 and 223 use DAY MONTH YEAR. Furthermore, in some cases you properly use the "work=" parameter of {{cite news}}, while in others (ref 139, 135, 130, just to name a few) you use "publisher=" instead, even though "work=" is acceptable. Also, some refs (Wisden, xxxx edition refs) don't have any publisher info (should be Cricinfo). For those refs, it would also be nice to indicate that registration is required to access that content. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for those comments. I'll look into the date inconsistencies, thanks. Re "work" v "publisher", if both are acceptable, does it matter which is used? How do I show registration is needed? --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Work and publisher are two separate things. "Work=" italicizes, while "Publisher=" doesn't. Furthermore, work and publisher aren't the same most of the time. For example, a work would be the New York Times, while the publisher is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. I do believe it's the same for BBC News and some other news sites. As for registration, just add "Registration required to access content." at the end of the ref. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As The Rambling Man will happily tell you, I'm lousy with the citeweb templates. Evidence is now available at the article, because my last edit to the D/M/Y issue gave a load of redlinks, lol. Thanks for clarifying. I'll crack on with this and let you know when I think it's done. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned right now, I've rushed through all 200+ ref's and made them, at least, consistent with one another. Happy to take advice and modify further, but would encourage reviewers to focus on content of the article rather than the peripheries (which, while important, aren't as important as the article by an order of magnitude...imho) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reference consistency is a requirement for all featured articles. Criterion 2c of the FA criteria specifically states that references must be formatted consistently. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not arguing with that but I think Dweller would be keen to receive some feedback on the huge amount of prose in the article rather than the citations which can be tidied up at the end. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I suck at prose. :) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dates and citation formatting look consistent now (and yes, it's an important issue for FAs :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to an earlier comment you made, the registration issue has been dealt with here. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB isn't a reliable source, right? It's used as ref 195. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a replacement source from an Australian source called The Daily Telegraph. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Various comments from User:Gary King
Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, inconsistencies in references, so I won't delve into this any further until it has been addressed. Please format like WP:CITE/ES.
The Rambling Man has kindly agreed to take that on. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "innings. See [1]." – Definitely should have text for that URL.
Not sure what you mean... hopefully it'll be clear if I search the text. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Gotcha. I'll see how I can improve it. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TRM got there. Thanks - that was a good spot. --Dweller (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images should be placed before level three section headings, per MOS:IMAGE.
I'll look into that. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found and dealt with one breach. There's another (a graph) but there's no text following it, so no rationale for doing anything with it. --Dweller (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some mixes of American and British spelling; I am assuming the article wants to use the latter. One example if American spelling is "honor".
I can only see "honorary", which is correct usage in British English. One of our many quirks;-) Could be the one you saw has been fixed? Anyway, if you spot any others, let me know please. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy issues from User:Giants2008
Issues resolved Giants2008 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Probably the most important sports article I've reviewed to date. With an athlete of this stature, everything must be as close to perfect as possible. Here are my comments.

Good stuff. Thanks - I want this article polished to perfection. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the "greatest statistical performance in sports history" statement cited by a later part of this article? We are not a reliable source, remember. Either use references from later in the article or don't put a reference there. I'm not a big fan of copying citations in the lead, but would understand that a claim like this may need one there.
I see where you're coming from, but it's not a reference, it's a note. I did it because I thought casual readers would be astonished by the claim and want to read more, rather than to evidence it. In common with most FAs I've worked on, I've not evidenced most of the claims in the Lead; exceptions being where something is not referenced elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're doing now. It does need something, since it is an extraordinary claim. Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some of which stand even today" is quite time-sensitive. Try "some of which still stand".
Happy to make the change, though I'm not sure what the problem was, nor how it's addressed by the change. Nonethless... done. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just had an issue with today. Just trying to make sure this doesn't become outdated. Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A controversial set of tactics, known as Bodyline, was specifically devised" Since tactics is plural, should this be "were"? I looked at the Bodyline article and couldn't find a similar use.
  • My understanding reading this was that "set of tactics" is a singular item. There was one "set of tactics" and it was called Bodyline. Perhaps the sentence needs recasting to avoid confusion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mattinbgn. That's correct. Bodyline was a single entity, comprising of various tactics being put together (chiefly selection of players and application of leg theory, fast bowling and innovative field placements) I see no need to reword (there's no confusing ambiguity), but if others disagree, I'll reconsider. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I misread this one. "Set" is the key word, not "tactics". Set should be singular, so this is correct. Sorry about that! Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to curb his batting brillance" Be careful with phrases like this. Reviewers will think this is POV even if it's true.
Ooh, good spot. I'll obliterate it. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youth and early career: One sentence paragraph here. An occasional short paragraph isn't bad, but too many is a negative. It doesn't really go well with the previous paragrapah, though.
Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bush cricketer: Two Ashes and Test cricket links in section.
Good spot. Gone. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First-class debut: Another Ashes link.
Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test career: It's weird that not out is linked right after a prior use. I'd move the link to first mention.
Strange - I only just added the not out link and I thought I'd been careful to use it first-up. I'll check this. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Did you mean "run out"? The not "out"s seem to be fine, but I found a problem as you describe with "run out" and fixed it, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Run out was what I meant. My ignorance of cricket terms comes through again. :-) Giants2008 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later I'll try to clean up a few things myself, but this should be enough for now. When these are addressed, I will return for more. Giants2008 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the second round from me. I changed some things yesterday to lighten the load here, leaving some things I was unsure about.
  • 1930 tour of England: "Bradman spent a lot of his free time alone, writing," Is the first comma needed? I didn't know whether it should be removed, so I waited until I could ask about it.
Puzzled - looks fine to me. He was alone, writing. Maybe I'm puzzled cos I can only see one comma, so which is the "first" one you're referring to? --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the full sentence: "Bradman spent a lot of his free time alone, writing, as he had sold the rights to a book." The serial comma thing always confuses me. Giants2008 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paragraph is unusual. It hops from Bradman being aloof to a Test match. I'm uncertain whether the chronological order is maintained here.
Agreed. Moved it to end of section where tour as a whole is being judged and it contrasts nicely with his reception back in Australia. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no-one" Don't think a hyphen is needed.
Hmm. Could be a cultural thing. I'd always spell it that way. "No one" means something else altogether and "noone" offends my Englishman's eye. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably is a cultural thing. Giants2008 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant hero: "he scored quickly in making a succession of high scores against the South Africans in the southern hemisphere summer of 1931–32." Scored and score are redundant.
I see what you mean, though they've been used differently, it looks ghastly. Amended. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bodyline: "Jack Fingleton was in no doubt that Bradman's game altered irrevocably as a consequence of Bodyline". Seems to me that this should either be "changed" or "was altered". If the latter, also change "was in" to "had".
Why? What's wrong with altered? It's a slightly interesting usage ("the game" is active, rather than passive) but replacing it with "changed" is the same usage. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not used to seeing altered used in that way. If you think it's okay I'll accept it.
*Declining health and a brush with death: "Bradman blazed two centuries". What does blazed mean in this context? I'm worried that it's either POV or jargon. Never mind; I missed the explanation below. Giants2008 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at this time, this" is a redundancy. Change first this to the?
Good spot. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internal politics and the Test captaincy: "needed to replace the retired Bill Woodfull as captain." How about "needed to replace retired captain Bill Woodfull."
No, because that would imply he'd just retired from the captaincy. He'd retired full stop. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it seemed that the captaincy was affecting his form." Would perhaps be better as "the captaincy issue" or such.
Seems fine to me. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks odd to me seeing as Bradman wasn't the captain. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess. Giants2008 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV alert: "In an epic performance".
Ooh yes! I'll deal. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he battled a influenza" Is "a influenza" commonly used in British English?
Yuck! Where did that come from? It's toast. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to do one more round of comments later, but this is all for now. Giants2008 (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time for the final round from me. Dweller's apparently off for the weekend, but I'm sure someone else will see these and respond.
  • End of an era: "he described the captaincy as "exhausting" and that he "found it difficult to keep going"" Would this be better with said before that he?
  • 'Being bold, I will address some of these for the nominator, I hope he doesn't mind. Agreed, and changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Bradman injured and Fingleton too unable to bat due to a leg muscle strain".
  • "The ghost of a once great cricketer": Second straight section with a fibrositis link.
  • Century of centuries and "The Invincibles": "The story perpetuated over many years that Bradman missed the ball because of tears in his eyes was a claim he denied for the rest of his life." How about "A story perpetuated over many years that Bradman missed the ball because of tears in his eyes, which Bradman denied for the rest of his life." I'm sure you can improve my version.
  • Reworded to "A story developed over the years that claimed Bradman missed the ball because of tears in his eyes; a claim Bradman denied for the rest of his life." -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is a piped link I would assume so. Both approaches are in line with WP:CRIC#STYLE: "Where a person is best known by their initials and surname (as in W. G. Grace), use either W. G. Grace or WG Grace for the title of the article, depending on the article creator's personal preference. [...] If using a form such as W G Grace in the body of an article, ensure that it is redirected to one of the acceptable title forms – e.g., WG Grace." -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After cricket, Administrative career: "Cricket suffered an increase in defensive play during the 1950s." Is this POV? It may be safer to state that "Cricket saw an increase..."
  • Later years and legacy: ABC is linked in its second use in the section.
  • "Bradman's life and achievements were recognised by the Australian nation with two notable issues." Recognised by Australia?
  • ''I have reworded to "in Australia". Given that Australia Post is corporatised, the wording "by Australia" seems a little too much like "the Australian government". Once again Dweller may feel differently. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family life: "it was more a matter of "the pair inhabit different worlds."" Can the first part of this be changed to better flow with the quote?
  • I have gone the other way and made a (very small) change to the quote. It does not change the meaning and without access to the source, I was loathe to change the lead in to the quote. Trust this is OK. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistical summary, Cricket context: Brian Lara is linked twice in the section. I would have removed this myself, but didn't know if this was intentional. considering that all names in the section are linked.
  • World sport context: I would link the statistics in the table. Most cricket fans will have no idea what a batting average in baseball is, and the other stats may be unknown to certain people as well.
  • linked the two batting averages, the others seem self explanatory to me at least. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43 points per game." Should the number be 43.0?
  • I think you may have a better idea on the correct format for basketball statistics than WP:CRIC. Changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. Please respond to these ASAP so I can fully support this. Giants2008 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these points on behalf of the nominator, if that is satisfactory. -- 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
100% Support - One of the finest sports articles on Wikipedia in my humble view. One final comment from me: August 27 is Bradman's 100th birthday. Sounds like a perfect Main Page date to me. Giants2008 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no consensus by User:Bole2

Resolved issues from Buc (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buc. Thanks for this... and for your copy-edit. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sisters—Islet," why the hyphen, there is another in the next pragragh.
It's an em dash. See WP:DASH. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His unbeaten 103 (from 146 balls)" the reader might not know what you mean by "unbeaten"
Good point. I'll wikilink --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(at 56.57)" no idea what that means.
Again, good one. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Test selectors made five changes to the team who had played in the previous Test match. Significantly, Australia’s most successful bowler Clarrie Grimmett was replaced by Ward, one of four players making their debut. The controversy over Grimmett’s omission from the team was to become a theme that dogged Bradman for the next two years—he was regarded as having finished the veteran’s Test career." the first two sentences have nothing to do with Bradman and I don't really understand the third, a theme that dogged Bradman!? and who is "the veteran"?
Bradman was a selector. Grimmett is the subject of the sentence, so is the subject of "the veteran" --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, this wasn't fantastically clear, esp as the info about Bradman being a selector now is a few parags up. I've clarified both issues. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the Notes section be titled References?
I think it should be both. I'll make the change. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By stumps, he was" again the reader might not know what stumps means.
  • "won the game" test
    • Actually, while game is perfectly acceptable here, as is Test, I prefer match and have changed it as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To this day" as of 2008
  • "The South Africans did not get off so lightly" needs better wording
Agreed. I'll amend. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with 856 (or 38.5%)" not sure I follow this. 856 isn't the same as 38.5%.
    • of the total added - read the sentence beforehand and it's in context - 856 runs or 38.5% of the total were boundaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In making some other fixes, I've also clarified this better. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, others thought it proved the theory that he did not handle the short ball very well." needs a ref.
Sounds like it does, indeed. Strange. I'll look into it. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good spot. Amended. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, others thought it proved the theory that he did not handle the short ball very well." needs a ref.
Sounds like it does, indeed. Strange. I'll look into it. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good spot. Amended. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australia crashed to successive defeats" why crashed?
  • "yet to be equalled in Test cricket" as of 2008
  • "After his death" whose? Bradman or his son?
Good spot. Clarified. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sporting idol at the height of the Great Depression." wasn't the Great Depression in America?
  • "... the old Bradman [was] back with us, in the twinkling of an eye, almost". who said this?
    • It's a quote from a book, see the reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not say that in the text?
        • It doesn't need to say "this is a quote from the book" does it? It's obvious from the fact it's referenced immediately afterwards - that's what the ref number is for. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but again failed with the bat" why? what did he do?
    • failed to score many runs? Really, in order to keep the prose from being a series of very plain and boring explanations of every nuance of cricket, some of these phrases are essential. The prose should be "brilliant" if possible for FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Say that. Failed seems a bit POV.
        • Not really POV, if he didn't score runs then he failed with the bat. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But what is "many runs"?
            • How many he scored (13) is now added. And it's self-explanatory given the nature of the rest of the article that this is Bradman failing with the bat so it should be fine now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He "used the crease" who said this?
Good spot. It's jargon, not a quote. I'll find a wikilink. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suprised Jerry Rice isn't in the World sport context table. Cy Young is another you could put in.

That'd be OR. I can only include what RS have done. Which is this bunch. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are yes I see now. Well you could at least add Joe Montana.
Still OR - it's not in that RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ref says "By Mr. Davis's calculations, Bradman led the order of career-long achievement with a 4.4 rating, followed by soccer's Pelé (3.7), baseball's Ty Cobb (3.6), golf's Jack Nicklaus (3.5), basketball's Michael Jordan (3.4) and football's Joe Montana (3.1)."
I'll have to check that. If you're right, I don't know why he's been omitted and I'll add him. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, interesting. Actually, I'm surprised you're not arguing for just one other name to be included, as above (in which case on this occasion, I'd strongly argue against!) Montana provides me with a problem, in that I have no access to Davis' book (and neither does any of my current collaborators) and the only RS that mentions Montana does not mention the basis of his inclusion (touchdowns? points? successful passes? Superbowl rings? something else?) In any event, including the top five names seems sufficient for our needs, indeed, this is the basis on which Buckley's article in the Observer (currently ref 221) works. I'd guess that for the NYT article, Montana was added for the extra context his name would provide for a US audience, especially as the names in positions 1 and 2 are not from what I might term 'mainstream' American sports. With our international audience, we don't have such concerns. So, all in all, even if I had access to the book and could properly insert Montana in the table... I probably wouldn't. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some refs have the date before the link (e.g #35) and some after (e.g #47).
    • You'll need to take that up with the authors of the {{cite web}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it not possible to just enter all the web refs the same way?
        • The template {{cite web}} formats the references according to its own set of rules. If you read the examples given at the template page itself you can see that if you have an author (e.g. for 35) the author's name comes first, then the date, then the title, then the publisher, then the accessdate. If you don't have an author's name then the title comes first, then the publisher, then the date, then the accessdate. Modifying that template is outside the scope of this FAC and would have a huge impact Wikipedia-wide so I propose the citations are left as the current format. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cricinfo links require registration, you need to say this.
  • Might be worth mentioning him being out for a duck in his last test match in the lead.
Hmmm... I'm tempted. It's hard to justify, given that the Lead is already so packed. We haven't specified his highest score (334) either, which was a world record. Let's see what others think. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe it's necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "37 not out" the reader might not know what not out means, I know it's linked but a brief definition would help.
We can't explain all jargon in the article. Convention is to ensure that the first instance is wikilinked, so that an article is neither impenetrable nor dumbed down. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one does need to be explained though as it's used a lot.
I disagree - it is not the place of a biographical article to explain the laws of cricket. The link is sufficient to explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need much and it can be in brackets so it doesn't effect the flow of the writing.
Sorry, but sentences with "explanatory notes" in parentheses will affect the flow. I don't believe it needs to be explained here, you are on your own with this opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Bush cricketer section so called?
    • The Bush is a commonly used phrase and being from the Bush or a "Bush cricketer" means coming from rural or undeveloped land. As Bradman did. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Say that.
        • The bush aspect is described in the lead, and linked also, so no more description is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't say anything about coming from rural or undeveloped land.
  • "Bradman and Jackson needed to prosper" POV
No. It's not saying that they prospered. The article is making the argument that with the Australians expected to struggle, to reverse that expectation, they needed the kids to do well. That's not POV. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs explaining.
I think it's fine as it is actually. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four centuries, including two double hundreds" use either century or hundred, not both.
We get criticised for repetition of words in sentences/paragraphs. As they're synonyms, I see no gain from making this change. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but don't use both in the same sentence.
No, that doesn't make logical sense - no reason why not to brighten the prose up - it's clear these two are synonymous and avoiding repetition is a good thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't consistency important?
This isn't an argument of consistency - both words are interchangeable and can, and should, be used that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on wording at end of section... international cricket closed down in 1939 because most of the cricket-playing countries went to war. By the time Bradman returned to the world stage, he would be greatly reduced by poor health. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really the main sebject of the section?
Do you have any other suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no other, obvious, pithy title and it seems a good one to end the pre-War period with. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the In popular culture section. Seems like trivia.
You should have seen the way it used to look! Seriously, I think that all of the inclusions there are very significant (I ditched a lot of junk) and hang together reasonably well. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ask a few other users what they think.
I've posted to WT:CRIC --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at WT:CRIC is that this is justified. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australian cricketer, widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time. Bradman's career Test batting average of 99.94 has been claimed to be statistically the greatest performance in any major sport." Is there some way of mereing these to statments since they they are saying much the same sot of thing. Also is "performance" the best word to use? Isn't a performance what you do in one game?
They're very much not the same thing! One is saying he was the greatest batsman ever (not bowler or fielder) in cricket. The second claim is that a stastistic he racked up is the greatest stat in any major sport. Again, not that he was the greatest sportsman. The two are very specific and very different. Re "performance" I see where you're coming from. I think rewording to "achievement" will do nicely. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They both justify that he is seen as a great player. Buc (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are very different. The opening sentences of the Lead have been discussed at great length at various pages and consensus seems to be to leave these claims as being notable and different claims. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think you could put his Test records in a table? Buc (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His test record is already in a table in the Statistical summary "Performance in Test matches" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what you mean - you mean Donald_Bradman#Test_records, don't you? Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still discussing / pondering this, but I wondered which of the WP:WIAFA criteria this would come under - or is this just a helpful suggestion, rather than a 'please change'? --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're comfortable leaving it as a list. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive for such a long article though looks to be relatively close. Buc (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for such a detailed look-through. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Next best is Brian Lara with 9 in 232 innings (4%), Walter Hammond with 7 in 140 innings (5%) and Kumar Sangakkara 6 in 110 innings (5%)." again don't need to list them all.
How many would you include? --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One
Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're still discussing this; we're currently split. I'll give it a bit longer. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Status quo. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only seven players have surpassed his total, all at a much lower rate Sachin Tendulkar (who required 159 innings to do so), Matthew Hayden (167 innings), Ricky Ponting (170 innings), Sunil Gavaskar (174 innings), Jacques Kallis (200 innings), Brian Lara (205 innings) and Steve Waugh (247 innings)" you don't really needed to list them all. Maybe just say who was the quickest.
Pondering this. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're still discussing this; we're currently split. I'll give it a bit longer. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion is exactly divided. There are good arguments for keeping them, so I'll stick with the status quo. --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't agree with the following suggestion

  • "he made a dramatic comeback" why dramatic?
    • By the fact he went on to captain an unbeaten tour of England with the Invicibles, as it states just after this clause. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't say unbeaten.
        • Doesn't need to. The prose and linking makes it clear. This is part of making the article readable, interesting and potentially brilliant. We don't have to spell every single detail out. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where is it made clear?
            • When you read the paragraph it is clear. Again, you're the only reviewer who's finding this a challenge. The community seems fine with it - you're on your own with this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've clarified the text as it wasn't obvious. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complex, highly driven man" not sure what this means.
He had a complex personality and was highly driven. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say that.
It does say that - the prose is supposed to be elegant and, perhaps, brilliant. It is perfectly acceptable to say someone is complex. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about "highly driven"?
Don't know what more you can say. If a person is "highly driven" then they are "highly driven" - there's nothing more you can say. It's self-explanatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "highly driven" is self-explanatory. He's not a car.
Well it makes perfect sense to me - it's a common usage. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article should not be writen just for you.
Buc, I don't believe we should make the prose childlike - it needs to be engaging. To be "highly driven" is in common parlance. Nearly 100k Ghits for the phrase. You're the only one who has a problem with it so I suggest the community consensus is that it stays as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we should ask others what they think. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine. Never mind brilliant prose, this isn't the Simple English wikipedia - we expect readers to be able to read and comprehend professionally written articles. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significantly, he had not hit a six" why Significantly
Text goes on to explain. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that at all.
It says "if he hit the ball along the ground, then it could not be caught." - just before this we're talking about how many boundaries he struck, therefore it's significant that he didn't hit sixes because he wouldn' run the risk of being caught. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've helped the comprehension of this with a wikilink to six (cricket). Readers may have been unaware that a six is necessarily hit in the air (and therefore 'catchable') --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems a bit odd to say it's significant before explaining why and how
Cmon, Buc... it's the same sentence. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just switch it round. Buc (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it makes perfect sense as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we need to ask what others think. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I expect anyone not understanding the first half of a clause to read its second half before throwing up their hands in dismay. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Reluctant hero section so called?
Section explains - he hated the adulation. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that?
It says "Bradman received a level of adulation that "embarrassed" him." hence a reluctant hero. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says that in the section before.
So it's explained. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In another section. Why not call the last section Reluctant hero?
No, it's fine as it is. Once more, this seems to be a problem only for you Buc, the community consensus therefore suggests it should stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Need to ask others. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's been reviewed endlessly. It's fine. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The public clamoured for the return" why clamoured?
I wasn't around then, but I'd imagine because he was the most successful batsman ever, by a country mile. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say that.
That would be WP:OR Buc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not OR right now?
Making statements of opinion which aren't cited is WP:OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "clamoured" from a ref then?
No, it's not in quotemarks. It's an excellent and not at all OTT way of summarising the kind of fever that the RS describes as "'Bradmania', amounting almost to religious fervour, demanded his return". --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've nerver heard it before.
Buc, again, clamour is in common parlance - here's a definition for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put a link in the article. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've already been criticised for linking terms in common parlance. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bradman blazed two centuries" why blazed
    • Presumably to emphasise the manner in which he gained his hundreds. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was the manner?
        • Blazing is a common English term to express the fact he got to his hundreds in a rapid and flamboyant manner. It's a descriptive term which enhances the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can't say I've ever heard it. Is there really not a more common affective than that?
            • Buc, I'm surprised. It's a very common phrase in batting sports e.g. cricket and baseball, to indicate flamboyant and rapid scoremaking. No-one else has picked this out as a problem so it should stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Use any one of those. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • TRM hasn't used any verbs you could replace "blazed" with. I don't think any intelligent reader would have any difficulty understanding what it means, even if they've not heard the term used before. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An innings and 579 run victory is a thrashing. Note, according to Princeton university, thrash means " beat thoroughly and conclusively in a competition or fight" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Ah yes "beat thoroughly and conclusively" sounds better to me.
        • Ah no, why four words when one succinctly and accurately covers the issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • thrashed isn't very encyclopedic.
            • I'm afraid it is. As I stated, Princeton university finds it acceptable, not sure why we can't. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Whoes Princeton? Buc (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Princeton University. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Are they the boss other wikipeada or something?
                    • There's no need to be facetious. As above, we expect readers to have a reasonable grasp of English. It's hardly an obscure term. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the End of an era section so called?
    • replies to this seem to have been removed --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the paradox of the continuing fascination with Bradman" why is it a paradox?
It's a paradox, as explained by the pithy and rather brilliant quote, because the more reclusive he became, the more people wanted to know what he thought about everything from modern cricketers to brands of breakfast cereal. More, his contemporaries (especially the teammates who disliked him) couldn't believe how his adulation continued to grow, despite or perhaps because of this reclusiveness. Frith's a brilliant writer. If only he could be persuaded to contribute an FA! --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth explaining.
I think it's fairly clear already. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I couldn't follow it at all. Buc (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I think the section explains it pretty well. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was released and gave researchers new insights" who are these's researchers? and what were these new insights?
Well, for starters, a load of the guys referred to in the Bibliography, but really this is beyond the scope of this article. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean name them all just what there intentions at reserching Bradman is, are they media?
Who they are is irrelevant. They'll be people interested in researching cricket or Bradman or both. It's a general term, used generally, to describe a group, that the article need not define more closely, because it's such a minute detail. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there some sort other mystery about his life they want to slove?
Buc, this is too much - there doesn't need to be some huge detail over such a small point of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "huge detail" who are these "researchers"?
It's irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok with the remaining issues we will have to agree to degree. If you can show me that the consensus is not to do what I am suggesting I'll will accept it. Buc (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buc, it's virtually impossible to prove a negative, which is what you're asking for. If the consensus agrees with you or disagrees with the status quo then they will state it here at the FAC. As far as we can we can, we've accommodated your requests but, ultimately, that's what they are, your personal requests. If you can identify where this article now fails to meet WP:WIAFA then let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just ask what others think of my requests, if they don't agree with me that's fine, that would prove what you are claiming. The article shouldn't be wrtitten just for me of just for you, it should be written to please the majority. Buc (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Show me. Buc (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Buc, we are asking others - that's what this FAC is all about. No-one is agreeing with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno how that happened. Replaced. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 129 has the publisher in the link title. (Cricionfo.com Benaud rates Ponting's team..)
Damned bots? Is there a bot that does that? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was a bot that ran around fixing plain references to cite web's whose title was auto-generated from the webpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)r[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, the links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I think, Ealdgyth. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments..looks pretty good...I have to nitpick a bit to find things to complain about....but here goes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman was unprepared for the intensity of his reception... -why not just 'surprised by' (or was that the original verb?)
Dunno. Happy to amend. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In 15 Test matches since the beginning of 1930,.. 'since' makes me think of the present, why not simply 'from'?
This has resulted from recent edits from other users. I'll amend - it's lost the reason for the stat being presented, as well as becoming stilted. --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman had several other problems to deal with at this time. - could drop the 'several' I think, nothing is lost by its removal.
Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Harte's analysis of the situation.. - hang on, who is Chris Harte? A word on who he is should be placed in front of him (biographer?)
Chris Harte, now retired, was a cricket journalist and commentator in Australia. He wrote at least four cricket books besides History of Australian Cricket and he is widely known among the cricket writing fraternity; he is also widely quoted. I'm surprised there is not an article about him on WP yet but, then, I still say that our cricket coverage even now has more redlinks than blue. BlackJack | talk page 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, just slotting in a 'Cricket author' before the first mention of his name will do very nicely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I did it myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman suffered "a discernable and not unexpected wilting of spirit". - not fond of overuse of quotes especially when they aren't particularly notable. can we just say he grieved or got depressed?
I think this one's important. I don't really want to be accused of making up that he was depressed or grieving or whatever, so reproducing faithfully the exact words of the RS makes accusations of POV or OR or bad faith unanswerable. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heck, none of these are real deal-breakers, so...Support conditional on fixing or telling me why I shouldn't bother with the above quibbles. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Davis' book is listed among the references. Do we have it ? If we do, we should use it instead of references 220 and 221. Tintin 14:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, and the other key editors I've asked haven't either. Otherwise, I agree with you. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a superb article and I think the expectancy of some of the comments above is that it must be inch perfect because of Bradman's stature in world sport. I think we need to remember that a featured article does not have to be A-class (i.e., complete). I have read one biography of Bradman (i.e., Brightly Fades the Don) and am completely familiar with many details of his career. The article does not omit anything worthy of note, in my opinion, and I cannot see anything at all that I find remotely suspect. In terms of readability and provision of information, I give it 10/10. Excellent work by all concerned. BlackJack | talk page 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of article grades, FA class is a step above A class. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is "discernable" (Later years and legacy section, ref 166) Frith's mis-spelling of "discernible" or a typo? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. If it is a sic typo, it comes across a little pernickety to reproduce it, anyway. I'm sure Frith himself would approve if I fix it. :-) --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—It's a fine article indeed; congratulations to the main authors—you should be proud. I must declare that I made a small contribution to the development of the text a few weeks ago.
    • Suggestion: the boxed quote from the New Chronicle—isn't it stronger in reduced form? "As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible ... It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make." I don't quite see the relevance of the billiards sentence that I removed here: ("As long as Australia has Bradman she will be invincible ... In order to keep alive the competitive spirit, the authorities might take a hint from billiards. It is almost time to request a legal limit on the number of runs Bradman should be allowed to make."). Btw, I presume that the opening sentence is incomplete—chopped off before it finishes in the original; otherwise, four dots without initial space are necessary....
Agreed. The chop will remove a distraction. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. And the ellipsis is now unarguable! --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't like these sentences: "In his farewell season for NSW, Bradman averaged 132.44, his best yet.[25] He was appointed vice-captain for the 1934 tour of England. However, his health continued to be variable." Bit choppy, and "variable" sounds funny in this context. Go to the reference to help find a better epithet? TONY (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll take a look at that. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended, using a quote about his health and flowing the second and third sentences better. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony1, and thanks again for the considerable feedback you gave at around the time of the Peer Review. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes: there is a weasly statement in the lead, cited to Wiki. We can't cite to Wiki. The statement should be attributed (claimed by whom) and cited in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. I've avoided citing in the Lead, and this was intended to be a signpost for where to read more (cited) info, but I can see the problem. I'll try to address this later. --Dweller (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There. That should do the trick. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB Thanks to both you and Blnguyen for pointing the way on how to deal with that. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Epbr123 has been kind enough to do an MOS swoop on the article. It should now be all ship-shape and Bristol fashion. Shiver me timbers. --Dweller (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I haven't been part of the team involved in putting this article together, I have followed it through discussions on the acticle talk page, at WT:CRIC and at Peer Review and have chimed in from time to time with my opinion. Having said all that, I feel this article quite clearly meets the featured article criteria. It has undergone a very rigorous process to get to this stage and rightly so given the level of interest in the subject. It is well-written, thoroughly sourced, and covers all relevent matters in a even-handed manner. The only thing I would do differently is to shift the focus slightly from the statistics and place it a little more on Bradman the man. All the figures, tables and graphs included border on stats-porn and sometimes "less is more". Some themes relating to his personality are merely touched on and an expansion would be useful. Having said that, these points have been raised at earlier discussions; the consensus is the article balance is fine and I am comfortable with that. The various split articles also cover Bradman as a person in more detail. Overall, this article is certainly some of Wikipedia's best work. Well done to the authors. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "2,960 runs (at 98.66 with 10 centuries)": should this be "at an average of 98.66"?
  • "against the South Africans in the southern hemisphere summer" Would an earlier use of antipodean sound better? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Error in the "Bush Cricketer" section: Bradman scored 300 in the Berrima District final of 1925-26. He played with St George the following season, but returned to the Bowral team for the final and scored 320*, which resulted in a rule change barring Sydney Grade players from appearing in the local competition Phanto282 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My one quibble is with the Davis analysis as stated in the peer review, though that is but one small part of an excellent biography which is compelling and highly informative. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As long as the recommendations above (all minor problems) are acknowledged i see no problems with the article. It's a large article but it was enjoyable to read, clearly written and does justice to Bradman and Cricket in general. I have to say i was very impressed with the majority of the prose. I only wish i could write so well! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Transformation problem[edit]

Mario Ferretti did all the writing. I churned out wikistyle maths, more readable tables, typeset, subedited, and called Mario on the academic stuff until we got the core texts listed. So a partial self-nom. For reviewing pleasure, I suggest that you force PNG display of math, I find HTML math to be rather small when it will fit comfortably on one line.

Compared with Wikipedia:What is a featured article

  1. An example of best work. A simple statement of the transformation problem is difficult, I think this one is an excellent example of the best work of Wikipedia.
  2. Comprehensive (summary of debates which reached pitch and resolved in the 1970s), factually accurate (it meets my recollection of the Sraffian debates), stable (yup), well-written (for this branch of Marxist economics, this is very clear writing).
  3. Uncontroversial. Yes, it covers disputes that resolved in the 1970s, and indicates where opposition exists (from different disciplinary stand-points, and from non-disciplinary sources).
  4. Style standards. Yes, typographically, in terms of organisation.
  5. Images as appropriate. It has one image demonstrating a key element of the critique. Hopefully a few more suitable charts could be generated as appropriate by a specialist.
  6. Appropriate length. I feel that this is the appropriate minimum length at which the transformation problem could be explained in an encyclopedic manner.

Finally, the article has been proposed to Peer Review, but my expectation is that there aren't enough specialist editors working on Peer Review to investigate this article. A main reason why I'm proposing it to FAC where it is likely to get a hearing. Fifelfoo 03:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Object. While the article does seem to meet most of the featured article criteria, it misses the biggest one: "Be well written." The prose is too dense and academic for the general lay person to understand. For example, in the first paragraph of the lead it says, "In Karl Marx's Economics the transformation problem is the problem of finding a general rule (or set of functional relationships) to "transform" Marx’s "economic values" defined and used in Capital's Volume I into the "competitive prices" (or " prices of production") of Capital's Volume III. This problem was first mentioned by Marx himself in Chapter 9 of Capital's Volume III, where he also tried to solve it."

To understand what this means a reader must already have knowledge of "Marx's economic values," "competitive prices," "prices of production" and much more. Many other examples exist throughout the article. While I believe this could be an excellent article, it needs to be written in an encyclopedic manner so that average readers can understand it. A first step toward this would be to get rid of all of the undefined academic jargon like "embodied-labour quantities." As it is now, only someone who is already an expert in the field will be able to plow through it. --Alabamaboy 14:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. No lead, and several structural problems. I also agree with the above vote. Phils 16:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, needs a lead to even be a featured candidate. Phoenix2 16:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence[edit]

This is the most well researched and referenced article I've found and seveal experts in the field are active contributors. It is quite neutral and fact-based despite the controversiality of the subject matter, and its strict focus on concrete reporting of the facts despite the "taboo" associated with it embodies what Wikipedia is all about. If ever an article deserved to be featured, it's this one. --Malathion 19:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Archived peer review
  • For the interested commentator, consensus scientific statments and surveys on which this article is based: --Rikurzhen 00:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" a report from the American Psychological Association [3] -- later published as Neisser et al (1996)
    • "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" [4] -- later published as Gottfredson (1997) -- a statement signed by 52 intelligence researchers meant to outline "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence".
    • Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing". American Psychologist, 42, 137–144. (some details in this section)
  • Right now, this article may not satisfy the stable criteria because it has recently undergone a transition to Wikipedia:Summary style for the sake of meeting size limits. That said, the prospect is that future edits will be minor, so I support. --Rikurzhen 20:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. While the topic of this article is controversial, the article itself is not controversial in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Despite the disparate personal views of the editors, no NPOV or accuracy dispute exists. Trust that the WP process has taken care of these things. Trust but verify ;) (see above). --Rikurzhen 00:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Non-stable because controversial. That the topic is controversial is not a problem, but the article itself has too much ongoing controversy. Jun-Dai 20:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is quite a lot of debate on the talk page, but looking at the edit history, almost all of the edits are from a few editors following the consensus and progressively improving the article. The one revert war that I can find (with User:Zen Master) seems to have been resolved. --Malathion 20:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is by no means resolved, there is still an open request for arbitration. zen master T 14:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's my observation that controversy has not actually been a stability issue for this article in the past. Current controversies on the talk page involve fine details (e.g. where the phrase culture-only or environment-only is preferable, or whether a graphic is an appropriate detail for a summary section). The major change to content/structure in the last several months has been the shift to summary style: concern about stability should focus there. --Rikurzhen 20:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Still objecting. You can see on the talk page that controversy exists over the article in it present state. That is even more apparent in this thread. Also, a few points that have been percolating in my brain: The article makes vague reference to objections to the notion of race as a valid biological category of humans and to the validity of intelligence quotients, but it gives no serious space to the objections, even though they, as far as I have known, are pretty significant [5] [6] . Most of the article takes for granted that these are valid, even though they are very much in question. The agenda isn't quite as clear and the bias quite as strong as it is in some similar articles (see Intelligence quotient), but this article as it stands is problematic, to say the least. In fact, it's probably the most extreme case I've seen nominated here, though I confess I haven't been around for long. Jun-Dai 23:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll want to famaliarize yourself with the consensus scientfic statements I pasted above and the extensive reference list of primary and secondary sources for this article before taking to tertiary web sources. What you're pointing out is a failing of the public media, not this article. The existence of objectors is covered extensively before data and interpretations are discussed. Examine the article and sub-articles for more details. --Rikurzhen 00:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • <Jun-Dai 01:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)> The content of the sub-articles does not provide a basis for this article being featured. The fact that objections are somewhat better covered in the sub-articles doesn't make up for the heavy slant of the main article. </Jun-Dai>[reply]
          • Claims that this article is non-neutral or factually incorrect should warrant an NPOV tag and a serious discussion on the talk page. Such claims would have to address the content of the three major references I posted above. But with countless editors over the past years, this article has not degraded to an edit war of POVs, but rather has instead made excellent progress towards all of the criteria of FAs. If you still insist on your point, please give some criticisms with citations instead of merely implying that the many editors of this article are all mistaken. --Rikurzhen 01:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
            • <Jun-Dai 02:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)> I'd agree that the article warrants an NPOV tag, but that's a larger fight than I'm willing (or have the time) to take on right now. Meanwhile, leaving aside issues of bias and characterizations of consensus for the moment (I still object on those terms), I do have one comment: The paragraph on racial distinctions consists of a bunch of disoorganized, mostly extraneous information. The sentences "The national and state governments of the United States employ race in the census, law enforcement, and innumerable other ways. Many minority races have political organizations to represent their interests. Racial discrimination is illegal in many areas of public and private life, including employment" are not directly related to the article, and seem much more like they are trying to pose an argument (in defense of racial distinctions or the validity thereof). The paragraph, within the context of this article, shouldn't really contain any information other than to explain what "racial distinctions" are, which is something it barely touches on, even though it is so central to the background of the topic. If these sentences are important in explaining the history of racial distinctions with regard to the study of race and "intelligence", then, then there should be some explanation as to why they are important, as it is not at all clear in the paragraph itself. What's more, how does one "employ race" in the census, etc.?[reply]
              • That section has been bouncing around for a while. It is intended to bring non-Americans up to speed on the race consciousness that exists in U.S. society. This was specifically requested. Your suggestions for improvement are of course appreciated. Feel free to chip in if you have specific ideas. --Rikurzhen 02:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The fact that the article requires a self-referential paragraph in the lead section to defend itself shows that it's not ready, and not likely to be so anytime soon. --Michael Snow 20:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you mean this: This article conforms with the mainstream opinion among researchers on intelligence, and conclusions presented here are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence. That was added because many people will find the results presented in the article surprising as the public press has not reported on them, and it was desirable to prepare them for the suprise. That's a feature of the topic, not the article's quality. If there's a problem with this article, that's not it. --Rikurzhen 20:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Be that as it may, self-referential writing is terrible and should be avoided at all costs - I cringe whenever I see it. [this article, this paragraph , the views presented here, 'etc, are dead giveaways]. Perhaps some rephrasing is in order. →Raul654 20:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Are there any tricks for avoiding that kind of langauge? --Rikurzhen 20:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'd suggest just deleting it outright. It's not clear what useful purpose is being served with that "warning" anyway. --Malathion 21:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still object, and as I investigate further I get increasingly suspicious that this and related articles suffer from a serious lack of balance in their presentation. In reading the article, one gets the distinct impression that there is a connection between race and intelligence. This is naturally a very controversial position to take, so the article does not say so bluntly, but casts the overall picture as reflecting "mainstream opinion" in the field. The (now-removed) paragraph I noted served to reinforce this impression further.
Malathion asserts that "seveal [sic] experts in the field" are working on this article. Now, perhaps someone with serious expertise could really confirm that this article describes the "mainstream opinion" among those who study this phenomenon. But in looking around, I have found only Rikurzhen making any claim that resembles expertise in this field, in this case "a graduate student in the field of genetics." Reasonably related to the topic, yes, so I'll assume Rikurzhen has more-than-usual familiarity with the subject matter, but not such a high level of expertise that we should show excessive deference.
This is not my field of expertise either, so it is difficult to address issues point-by-point or identify precisely what elements make the article unbalanced overall. However, the article feels like it is pushing an agenda, and while it may be subtle this only makes it more insidious. Having a paragraph like the one cited is a red flag, and makes me think the content needs to be carefully scrutinized.
I will explain a little of how the article achieves such an unbalanced effect, even while making gestures toward neutrality and without blatantly advocating the position it works to promote. From what I can tell, the issue of race and intelligence is part of a larger debate over the heritability of intelligence generally. The content here appears to lean heavily to the theories of Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton, supporters of the idea that intelligence is heritable. For a critical view, the article relies heavily on Stephen Jay Gould, an exponent of popular science who is not particularly a specialist in this area. It does not acknowledge researchers and experts in the field who dispute Jensen and Rushton's theories; examining the nature of publications in the footnotes confirms this. Perhaps the editors involved are not familiar with the material needed because they have not engaged the scholarship on the other side, I don't know their reasons for the path they have ended up on. But the effect is clearly to balance the "serious science" in support of a connection between race and intelligence, against the "popular science" that denies this connection, and it is easy to guess how the reader is expected to resolve the issue, based on the relative credibility of those cast as the proponents for either side of the debate.
Quickly looking for information on the internet other than Wikipedia, I found a short biography of Jensen (described as a "major proponent of the hereditarian position") listed on an Indiana University website about Human Intelligence. Here, Jensen is effectively contrasted with a contemporary named Leon Kamin (an "active critic of the hereditarian theory of intelligence"). Interestingly, Jensen and Rushton have fairly substantial Wikipedia articles about them, with significant contributions from some of the same editors working on this article. Kamin, on the other hand, has no article at the present time. This may not be malicious, but clearly an article about Kamin is needed at some point, and I also consider it likely that this article needs to incorporate his views. Anyway, such observations strongly suggest to me that Wikipedia's coverage of articles in this field overall suffers from serious systemic bias.
Basically, this is an article about scientific theories that has gone astray and tried to become an article about scientific facts. Report the facts about the competing theories; do not report the theories as if they were fact. A major overhaul is needed here, and I think it would be a serious embarrassment to Wikipedia to call this a featured article in its present state. --Michael Snow 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a scientific fact. There are only theories and the increasing confidence in those theories as they survive experiment and test. I suspect you're uncomfortable with the article because you feel a conflict between your prejudices and the theories the article seems to support. But that's exactly why the article is a good one. --mc6809e
It's not my field either, so I can't comment concretely, but I'd like to know whether the position that intelligence and race are connected is actually controverial among those more "in the know". It's certainly controversial in popular culture, but if the research points us in a different direction, I don't think Wikipedia should shy away from contradicting popular opinion. It may very well be the case that the "serious science" is being accurately reprenented here. Btw, sorry about any typos; I recently switched to the Dvorak keyboard layout. --Malathion 23:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there are any experts in the field of intelligence working on this article, but most of the contributors are PhD scientists/students. If you'd like to famaliarize yourself with the science on which this article is based, at least three top-prority references exist (see above). More recent literature reviews are also available. --Rikurzhen 23:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Michael, I don't think that is a valid objection. You cannot a priori label an article as NPOV because it presents a scientific consensus (for example, the heritability of intelligence, or the correlation between race and measured intelligence). For example, google finds you lots of critics of the points laid out on Evolution, but that doesn't make Evolution POV. Granted, there could be other reasons for Evolution or Race and intelligence being NPOV. But the fact that viewpoints outside the scientific consensus come off as less reliable is not one of those. That being said, I would love it if we were able to replace the viewpoints attributed to Gould and others with more satisfying arguments. Suggestions are welcome (don't think we haven't looked). Arbor 09:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. The online references need to be properly formatted according to MoS guidelines. A simple hyperlinked title is not sufficient: if the article is printed, or the linked source document is moved or erased, the reference becomes useless. Other than that, this is a great article about an interesting subject. Phils 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite understand. You're suggesting the references should be moved from their sub-page to the main page? --Rikurzhen 21:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • No... I think you're talking about the footnotes. It does look like the footnotes section could use some cleaning up. --Rikurzhen 21:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have been fighting with the footnotes and references for that article for quite some time. I agree that currently they are below par, but it's a huge task, and not much precendent on WP on how this should be handled. I tried to solicit some guidance for this very article at Wikipedia:Footnote3 (which is the style we are trying adopt). But rest assured that everything will be in order real soon now. (The FAC caught us somewhat off-guard, a major refactoring is in progress due to the transition to Wikipedia:Summary style. Excuse the mess.) Arbor 08:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article presents a unique challenge: consensus statements of expert opinion contradict widely (and in many cases stubbornly) held beliefs. As a case in point, that IQ is substantially heritable is beyond significant technical dispute among experts (both consensus statements reflect this [7] [8]), but outside the field, heritability is very much in dispute (see above comments regarding the general heritability of intelligence [9]). Given these disparate perspectives, the article's point of view on the issue of heritability is, to my mind, a model of NPOV (see this section and the related sub-article). As an editor who was drawn to the subject because of the expert/layperson belief dichotomy, I take pride in the WP community's unique response, which has been, in short, to assemble an article with unusually high verifiability. --DAD T 03:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, the summary section bothers me, it brings up a number of things not coverd in the article and I can't think of any featured artlcies where there is a summary at the end, it is not encyclodedia style. In paricular the final statement about genetic engineering needs to go, since the genetic determinants of intellegence are unknown this is highly unlikey and it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article to speculate about the future. The other parts of the summary should be moved to their respecitive sections.--nixie 03:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. The summary was a remnant from the time when this article was >150k. As with the suggestion above, I've commented it out for the moment. --Rikurzhen 04:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • The article also used both inline cites, like Ralpf (1996), and footnotes. The inlines should probably be changed to footnotes for internal consistency.--nixie 06:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's an editor who's particular keen on fixing up the references. The footnotes are new, so we're still half-way finished. --Rikurzhen 06:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
          • I'll vote in a few days, when the editing activity has decreased somewhat :) --nixie 08:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm one of the editors and I never like the summary either. I say kick it out with all speed. Arbor 08:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. For all the reasons nixie listed, and very poor writing to boot, the Summary should be removed. The statement about iodine is novel; the first part of the Summary reads like everyone trying to have the last word, which is ridiculous -- the article should speak for itself. --DAD T 17:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Easy ... Done. --Rikurzhen 17:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • I strongly object to large scale deletion of long standing material. At the very least, much of the material should be moved to other sections as suggested. Ultramarine 17:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Extremely unstable right now. Ultramarine 19:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Instability is largely due to cleanup either recommended by, or inspired by, the present FAC. --DAD T 19:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Totally concur with Michael Snow. Also very biased in favor of the hypothesis that there is a relationship. 172 18:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The evolution and global warming articles are also very biased in favor of the scientific consensus ... unless we decide to fabricate data and include our own opinions, that's not something we get to change; see the consensus statements linked above. --Rikurzhen 18:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. the hypothesis that there is a relationship is scientific consensus (see the helpful material linked on the top of this page for support for that statement). I don't understand the sentiment underlying your comment, unless it's a knee-jerk reaction (for which I have strong sympathies)—in that case I urge you to read up on the material and reconsider your objection. Arbor 19:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • <Jun-Dai 02:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)> That may be true, to a limited extent--but the very concept of race as a biological categorization of humans, or that intelligence can be measured in any particularly meaningful manner is not consensus, and while this is made clear in a few of the external links, it is by no means clear in the text of the article, which seems to imply some sort of consensus on these matters. </Jun-Dai>[reply]
        • The article does not imply consensus, it reports it. As editors, that's all we can do. Because the scientific consensus statements listed above directly contradict your statements, I'm guessing you're referring to the popular consensus. Just as Evolution and Global warming do not dwell on the popular consensus, the present article does not. --DAD T 02:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • While there is a great deal of public discussion of whether race is a vaid biological category, social and medical scientists still go around using race in their research; thus our hands are tied. We must report on what the IQ research says, without introducing personal bias. Although we do report examples of these kinds of critcisms (including Sternberg et al, 2005), we can't act on that POV by not report on anything else. Stepping out of the WP NPOV/NOR shell for a second: the theoretical considerations of some population biologists wrt race do not seem to have penetrated into other fields, where concepts of race as still grounded in "common sense" and "self-reported race". --Rikurzhen 02:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Absurdly strong support, if I (as a fledgling editor of the article in question) am allowed to comment. I "found" this page at the time of its VdD six weeks ago (or so), and have since tried to help. This is potentially the best Wikipedia article I have ever seen, and a shining example of (1) our "secret sauce": NPOV, and (2) the fact that collaborative editing can produce amazingly informative, correct, well-written, and relevant material ('Wiki works", and not only about Pokémon), and (2a) even if the material is controversial. I would also like it to be a shining example of (3) references and verifiability, by pet peeve about WP. It already far outclasses most other WP articles in that respect, but there is some cleanup left to do. After the article went to Peer Review, we started a major reorganisation based on Wikipedia: Summary style which has kept us entertained during the past few weeks, so the current article is in a state of flux. I would suggest we wait until it stabilises again. Arbor 19:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object POV pushing propaganda which states what is not true: that there is a scientific consensus supporting the concept. The "research" presented is largely junk science, and vociferous objections from the scientific community are not cited. Stirling Newberry 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "The concept" has no clear antecedent. Any meaningful response and/or edit requires knowing what you mean. Kindly explain. Also, vociferous objections are cited in multiple places, from accusations of racism and biased results (including comparison of one scientist's goals to Hitler's) to more moderated objections that neither race nor intelligence have any scientific basis and that any attempt to study them is not science and/or is ethically wrong. All appear to be carefully cited. Kindly elaborate on what objections are not covered. --DAD T 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Race and intelligence is an area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of group differences in intelligence. Members of any racial-ethnic group may be found at any IQ level, but averages among groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ scale. Similar clustering is seen amoung racial-ethnic groups in related variables, such as school achievement or reaction time. In the U.S., most variation in IQ occurs within individual familes, not between races. However, differences of average IQs among groups has been pronounced enough to merit a scientific investigation.

This is the intro-paragraph, and it is a mendacious misstatement of current knowledge, POV propaganda and crypto-racism. Stirling Newberry 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominems aside, do you think the differences of average IQs among groups has not been pronounced enough to merit a scientific investigation? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sure we are all well-aware of the first paragraph. I note your (SN's) post does not answer either of my questions, which were asked with the genuine hope of engaging your concerns. The accusations you level are quite serious (and surprising) since the first paragraph reflects several published consensus statements, as has been repeatedly noted on this page. I'm sure other observers would find it helpful to know what base of support you are drawing upon. Best, --DAD T 02:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quadell: The scientific investigation has been going on for decades. Perhaps a better question is, "What published statements -- preferably indicating broad consensus -- contradict anything in the first paragraph?" --DAD T 02:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is POV pushing on its face. [10] is an example of the kind of debunking that Rushton et al regularly get. The article is crypto-racist right wing pseudo-science. Stirling Newberry 02:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I can tell, Richard Nisbett, the author you cite, would agree with the intro paragraph and would endorse the article, if not all the POVs therein. --Rikurzhen 02:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
That very Nisbett article is listed right on the Race and intelligence page, and nothing in Nisbett's article contradicts anything in the first paragraph. Nisbett is concerned with whether the gap is closing, and his viewpoint is prominently featured in the article. He also is concerned with evidence for heredity, and the malleability of IQ, points of view which receive extensive treatment and which the article favors no particular position. Nisbett's accusations against Rushton and Jensen are quite mild compared to the vitriol that the R&I article aims at them. You have just provided outstanding evidence of the article's NPOV. --DAD T 02:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article seems to have several objections based on the fact that it's a controversial topic, but I think controversial topics should be able to be featured articles. It gives a lot of interesting information, it's well-organized and well-illustrated, it's meticulously referenced, and it describes all veiwpoints about as fully as could be expected. There is of course room for improvement - but I wish every article on Wikipedia were as NPOV as this one! The authors have had to work extremely hard making the article NPOV, since it's such a sensitive topic, and the effort has paid off. There will be some people who will object to any article that contains information they don't like, and that's disappointing, but I don't see how any article could explain the current state of knowledge and debate much more fairly. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. There is no scientific nor even pseudo-scientific consensus to describe the issue only in terms of "race" and "intelligence". The supporters of the article would love to get the controversy bogged down analyzing their sources using their one sided method of framing the issue, they completely ignore all criticisms against how the issue is framed and the historic evidence against the subject (see scientific racism). I theorize that most/all of the pro editors of race and intelligence must be ultra racist or insanely politically motivated themselves because nothing else comes close to explaining their support for the unscientific one sided presentation of the subject which subtly presumptively induces racism in others -- not to mention the repeated obfuscation, repetition of language confusion, and misdirection on talk pages. If the issue is described and framed only in terms of "race" and "intelligence" the brain will only think about the issue in terms of "race" in search of causes which will make it easier for the supporters of the article (aka the psychology of language propaganda experts) to later on intentionally confuse description of the issue with cause for the issue. zen master T 03:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess it goes without saying that ZM has a unique view on this subject, which we've been unable to corroborate with citations, and thus is not found in the article. Lengthy discussions to that effect can be found in the article's talk pages. And yes... we all just love being called ultra-racist obfuscating propagandists ;) --Rikurzhen 04:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is a shining testament to Wikipedia's abiding flaw. This (and a disturbingly large collection of support articles) are all strongly POV. Carefully done, well written and researched, but heavily biased. Some of the reasons this article is "stable" have to do with the obvious enthusiasm and eloquence of its major contributers. I see the comment by Jun-Dai that this is a "larger fight than I'm willing (or have the time) to take on right now" and suspect many others have felt the same. I know I have. We need a William M. Connolley analog to balance this out. brenneman(t)(c) 04:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • William M. Connolley wouldn't be needed if people respected the IPCC consensus statements as representative of expert opinion on climate change. Likewise, if people would respect the APA and WSJ consensus statements and the Snyderman & Rothman survey data, then we would all be much better off. --Rikurzhen 05:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The general US population, including even Stanford professors, NYT science reporters and MDs (who write papers on which medications suit which people, etc.) call certain loose categories or subsets of the US population "races". (I think it is an objectionable practice on many grounds, but they could care less what I think about it. I know. I've written to some of them. Guess what the response was.) The US education system is strongly, if not completely, tied to selecting individuals for college entrance and other valued positions in society on the grounds of I.Q. tests -- tests whose names suggest that they measure something called "intelligence." I am troubled because I see no clear definition of "inte lligence" other than the tests that supposedly measure it. Perhaps I am simply uninformed at some deep and hidden level and can be reformed. Be that as it may, the results of parceling the US population into groups that roughly reflect genetic herit age, and that also roughly reflect the social ills and/or the social perks that the society doles out to people, and then using the testing instruments that purportedly measure "intelligence", turn out to raise some very important warning flags that need to be understood and heeded by the electorate.
When college administrators use testing instruments as part of their admissions procedures, they are (or ought to be) interested in determining whether an individual will have an adequate foundation to efficiently utilize the college environment. Tests can be constructed that determine whether that foundation exists. People desiring to take other paths in life will likely undergo similar evaluations before significant resources are devoted to trying t o train them.
The results obtained when the averages for scores on these tests are computed for the so-called "racial" groups indicate something of profound importance for makers of public policy: The several groups are not equally well prepared to do well in endeavors that require the aptitudes measured by the tests. Green people do great, and pink people do poorly. It does not follow logically that pink people do not do well because they are pink. It does not follow ethically that because some people are pink the institutions of society should not be allowed to function for their full benefit. It does not follow from any principle of economic utility known to me that one sector of a population should be disadvantaged either through design or th rough neglect and therefore be unable to make its optimum contribution to the society as a whole.
The terms used to discuss and debate this question are ill-suited to rational discussion. In fact, they are very heavily loaded with emotional baggage. Thos e factors, in turn, distract most people from the true issues and result in emotionally volatile confrontations. The fact remains, however, that rational planning intended for the public good cannot afford to ignore the clear signs that something is not going well.
I fully share the negative reactions that I suspect are behind many objections to this article. I flinch at the very mention of the word "race". I question the intelligence of people who appear to have a circular definition of intelligence. I would like it much better if we had single clear words tied firmly to adequate operational definitions instead of a situation in which there are probably as many definitions of "race" as there are people who use the word. But such words and their defini tions enter a language by a slow process of adaptation, failure, and reformulation. We are not there yet, and we will not get there without facing the issues and working through them.
My own background is in physics, in philosophy, and a bunch of other t hings that have even less direct bearing on this issue. So I am clearly aware that I would be out of my depth if I tried to assure other people of the formal correctness and the experimental adequacy of the conclusions reported in the "Race and Intelligence" article. On the other hand, I have from time to time raised rather incoherent objections or fears pertaining to things that I have flagged for myself as questionable and have later found the article to have been amended to resolve the problems I have noted. I have also never picked up on the slightest hint of evasiveness or manipulative behavior on the part of the major participants engaged in improving this article.
Give us a better term than "race" if you can. Give us a substitute for "intelligen ce" that makes it transparently clear that we are measuring capabilities and inferring from them some kind of underlying capacity without, perhaps, really needing to do so. But examine the article with an eye to determining whether it tells people what the fight is about, why there is a fight, what the payoff is if we can determine what disadvantages some groups and how to prevent that from happening. P0M 07:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This and many supporting articles suffer from systemic bias, as others have noted. Jokestress 08:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is not stable and not uncontroversial as explained on the criteria page. This should not have even been nominated based on those guidelines. Jokestress 17:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fantastic article One of Wikipedia's very best. Being made even better due to this exchange of views. For those who find the article one sided; What do you think intelligence is? What physically executes those information processes? What at conception is the blueprint for the hardware (wetware) those processes run on? What is passsed from parents to children? Parents's parents's paremts... that's ancestory right? ancestory is another way of saying race right? Chimps are different from humans due to genes. Oranges are different from tangerines due to genes even tho they can interbreed. What farmer uses environment to change an orange tree to a tangerine tree? Who wants a world with less diversity in their fruit? Humans have many qualities we can be proud of, only a few of which are measured by IQ tests. IQ tests do not measure who is the superior human. But rejecting evidence and logic because you don't like the conclusion isn't being even a bit superior. 4.250.33.21 08:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok there! Most of this discussion should probably go on the articles talk page. Let's all just cool our jets. (Including me.) brenneman(t)(c) 13:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article should be moved to Research on race and intelligence or should be expanded to discuss popular beliefs and arguments on the issue from outside the scientific community. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:50, 2005 July 16 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think the root of that suggestion is very good. (For example, both global warming and global warming controversy exist.) But I think in practice it would be better to expand the current History section of this article into Race and intelligence (History), and use that article to detail the ideas/writings/etc inside and outside the field and up to the present, which would include popular beliefs, criticisms, etc. I've been not-so-subtly trying to tempt people to work on this idea. --Rikurzhen 05:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm glad to see you're receptive, but I'm not sure why current popular viewpoints would be filed under History. Really, I just think the article should make clearer that the belief that race and intelligence are not connected is widespread and give some suggestions for why that is (especially when 200 years ago it almost certainly was not so widespread). Is there any polling data available on this issue? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 2005 July 16 (UTC)
        • I have seen polling data on experts and heard of polling data on public intellectuals like newspaper editors, but nothing on the general public. The idea that history is a good context to explain current popular views is just a suggestion, but it makes sense to me in the context of Gould's The Mismeasure of Man and the fact that the present is a product of history. (Not that we need to debate that point on the FAC page.) --Rikurzhen 05:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • These comments are being discussed on the Talk:Race and intelligence page here and here.
  • Object The graph in the leading section of the article makes a bold statement suggesting that race is strongly correlated with intelligence. This would have been fine if the graph was well supported by research, but the graph makes a questionable interpretation of a study of 1,880 adults in Journal of School Psychology. The distributions IQ scores of non-white adults is of course what makes the graph controversial and looking at the study it is clear that African-Americans constituted 10.21% of the sample, while Asians and Hispanics groups PUT TOGETHER constituted less than 1.3% of the sample! If the active contributors to the article are experts in the field, I suggest that they update the graph based on research specifically carried out to study the correlation of IQ scores and race
    • Except the graph is based on data taken from that study and others. For example, Roth et al 2001 did a meta-analysis with over 6 million test subjects. See the full footenote. The White and Black averages are verified by the concensus statements (listed at the top of this page) and while the numbers for Asians and Hispanics are less precisely known, the given values are representative of the set of published figures. This would be better discussed on the talk page. --Rikurzhen 23:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I did see the other studies mentioned in the footnote, however given a bold statement made by the graph, I will not remove my objection until more detail is given on the other studies. Please provide the titles of the articles and the journals where the articles were published for the following references used to substantiate the footnote: Roth et al., 2001; Rushton, 1995; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994

129.34.20.23 18:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How much time do people have to weigh in on a piece before a determination is reached? I've been spending a great deal of time on the (unexpected) FAS process for Blackface and just happened to see the FAS for this article, which I've never seen before. Unfortunately, I have a bunch of deadlines of my own to tend to. That means likely no time to read this until mid week. Will there be time left for me to still be able to weigh in? deeceevoice 11:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Concur with Michael Snow, this is not FA material. St33lbird 19:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object until neutrality has been determined. --JB Adder | Talk 00:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Caesar Augustus[edit]

I nominate this page because it is a comprehensive article, detailing the life of Rome's first, and (traditionally) greatest, Emperor. It covers, in great detail, aspects of his life before, during, and after his rise in power from his life as the boy Octavian to the reign of Emperor Augustus. I believe this article desives to be prompted to the rank of Featured Article. Roman Emperor July 11, 2005 05:39 (UTC)

  • Object, could do without Chronology section, though that could be turned into a EasyTimeline, also the websources need retrieval dates. Secondly, such a major historical figure should have a few book sources. - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak object. Thought it was a good article, but there aren't any print references listed. Once that's fixed, I'd love to support. --Scimitar 14:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's certainly long and apparently comprehensive. However, it's difficult to tell which sources are used for what, and the lack of print references is not good. At times, the language veers toward POV; I think this could be fixed by better attributing statements to their sources. (The article's diction is also sometimes florid and "unencyclopedic". I personally don't care too much—better florid and factual than dry, proper and wrong. Still, saying things like "fate had different plans" is not quite cricket.) Anville 19:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. A history article that long needs better referencing. --malathion talk 11:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object It is a little on the POV side and is a bit thin on sources.Dejvid 12:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecisive about this one; I don't know whether I should support or object. This is quite a thorough article, I'll agree to that, but the Chronology section isn't really necessary (it simply summarises the history sections), plus I think, if any can be found, some references to Augustus in literature, maybe. --JB Adder | Talk 00:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

This is a really comprehensive article, detailing various perspectives of one of the fundamental parts of the United States government. It is NPOV and well-written, and also has many references and in-line citations. I believe that this article is ready to be a FA. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

  • Object. The article could use a little reorganization, especially moving the history up ahead of fairly trivial stuff on the Bar requirements and citation style. Also, O'Conner's retriement should not get a paragraph in the history section when no other Justice's retirement is mentioned at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 9 04:07 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! The O'Connor paragraph in the history section has already been removed. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
  • Object. Not comprehensive, needs a good copyedit. And for Pete's sake, remove that O'Conner bit. Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:52 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! See above comment; the paragraph has already been removed. I'll see what I can do in terms of adding more/reorganization. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
  • Object. A good article, but needs some copyediting. Mwalcoff 13:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. There are a couple problems. First of all, the history section seems to start with the Warren Court--there is no information on what kind of decisions the Court made previous to that (for example, the various disputes over economic regulations during the Gilded age, and so on). Secondly, the "Current Justices" section notes the existence of a "liberal wing", a "conservative wing", etc., but then fails to connect these terms to the discussion of constructionism and activism below. Best, Meelar (talk) 15:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy right now, so it might take a while. Thanks for your patience. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Absolutely, utterly, undisputably inadequate. "Loose constructionism" is a neologism used by bloggers and lazy journalists, without real meaning; the rest of the "Judicial Philosophy" section is a superficial discussion of dictionary definitions. A disproportionate amount of text is concerned with transient, current issues and anticipatory discussion of the fight over SDOC's successor. The "History" section omits everything between John Marshall and Earl Warren, except for a discussion of changes in the number of court members and a passing reference to Plessy v. Ferguson. I'm sorry, but most of this reads like an excerpt from a bad junior high school textbook that was never copyedited. And there's a huge NPOV problem in describing the Warren Court as more active and "loose constructionist" while omitting any mention of the 1900-1930's courts that invented "liberty of contract" and took a chainsaw to economic regulations without ever grounding their opionions in constitutional text. Monicasdude 15:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy right now, so it might take a while. Thanks for your patience. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly oppose. There's some good stuff here, really there is, but I don't think its comprehensive. For example, the reference section doesn't cite any books. Charles Warren's is the standard for the early years of the court. There's also the Holmes Devise history. Rehnquist published a good book on the court as well. There are many studies of how the court works, e.g. Bob Woodward and Scott Anderson's The Brethern. And though I've not seen it, I'm sure Linda Greenhouse's book based on the Blackmun papers will be useful. The history section is unfortunately weak and perhaps these books can help. Oh, and the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, that's ever useful. A stylistic issue troubles: the table about the justices. It's awkward, it runs off screen, and it's hard to copy. The information would be better presented in a bulleted list of the justices. That would be much more user friendly. Again, I think there's a solid foundation, but there's still a bit more work to do. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks once again for the input! I see this article needs some major reworking. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Metro[edit]

Somewhat of a self nom; I think this article is pretty worthy. A GFDL map, lots and lots of photos (thanks to User:SchuminWeb), LOTS of history and operational information, and the child pages (the lines) are quite well done too. --Golbez July 8, 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 14:58 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Nothing from any architecture critic about the rather remarkable architecture of many in-city stations (and nothing identifying any of the architects who designed it). Nothing about the escalator at Dupont Circle (which I believe is, or at least was when it opened, the longest single-span escalator in the world—and with a wonderful view as one emerges). Nothing about how construction was originally financed. Nothing about the decision not to have a Georgetown station. Nothing about influence on its design by the successes or failures of any other city's system, nor about what aspects of it were innovative, or what unusual technical challenges were involved in building in a historic city. Nothing about its influence on any other systems. Nothing in terms of demographics of ridership except the total number of daily riders. And the only comparisons to other systems is one, in passing, to New York. In short, while it's not a bad article, there is an awful lot more that could be written here. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Earth[edit]

This article is well-written and presented with many pretty pictures and facts. It covers the topic comprehensively and summarizes many related topics. And well, I just like it. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 21:39 (UTC)

  • Object. There are many extremely short sections, and much of the article consists of lists. There is virtually nothing about terrain, climate, and the biosphere (collectively these should make up half of the article, in my opinion). Most of the human social statistics doesn't belong (it should be moved to Human or society or some similar page). The information about humans should concentrate on how we take advantage of and affect Earth, not how humans trade or communicate with each other or what the population makeup is. There is at least one factual error (Mount Everest being the maximum deviation; see the talk page), and the article is poorly referenced overall. The coverage of Earth's physical composition is decent, but could be improved; I'd like to see clearer definitions of the Earth's layers (and this image being used instead; additional illustrations would also improve the article). Suggest peer review. In fact, I started a half hearted attempt to rewrite this article a couple of weeks ago, but didn't get far. Fredrik | talk 7 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
  • mild object My first thought on clicking through was, of course, "mostly harmless" (and I see many reverts in the history to that effect), but looking at it now, I agree on the sparse references. With so much published information elsewhere, I'm left wondering what was omitted to keep this article at this length. slambo July 7, 2005 22:01 (UTC)
  • Object, per Fredrik. Phoenix2 July 8, 2005 01:19 (UTC)
  • On top of that, it needs resectioning having "Descriptions of Earth" as section 10 is poor formatting. Refer to peer review. - Mgm|(talk) July 8, 2005 08:01 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well the writing is on the wall with this one. I don't agree with many of the above comments, for example, I can't see including a figure that ignores the distinction between the inner and outer core, no matter how pretty the figure is. However, I do agree with enough of them that it is not worth arguing the point. The bit about Everest is particularly embarrassing since I was one of the people that pointed out problems with that section when it was first added (in fairness it has been significanly improved since then), but I hadn't noticed that no one fixed the Everest remark. Anyway, thanks for your input and advice. Dragons flight 00:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dogpatch USA[edit]

Thurough and intresting article that has been through peer review.--The_stuart 7 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

Comment: It's been less than 48h on peer review and didn't attract any comments in that time: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dogpatch USA/archive2. Lupo July 7, 2005 14:50 (UTC)
Yeah, thats why I went ahead and added it here. I thought that if it didn't get featured, at least it would get noticed. --The_stuart 7 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)
Well, maybe you should have left it on peer review a bit longer and someone would have had time to look at it. Phoenix2 7 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
Maybe--The_stuart 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
You need a couple of weeks for peer review to really get some good stuff coming through. Granted, it's nothing in comparison to FAC, but it looks bad to yank it after only two days. Harro5 July 7, 2005 22:55 (UTC)
  • Object for now, but I will support this fascinating and informative piece as soon as a properly formatted references section is added. Is that link the only thing you used for research? Meelar (talk) July 7, 2005 16:34 (UTC)
There are alot of intext sources--Imfinite 8 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
Then they should be properly formatted and added to the references section. No FA is complete without one. Meelar (talk) July 8, 2005 13:49 (UTC)
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Dogpatch USA.JPG does not have a copyright tag.
    2. The image Image:General T Cornpone.JPG does not have a copyright tag. When you say some of the images composing it are "used with permission", what sort of permission did you get? Permission for Wikipedia to use them, or permission to use the images under the GFDL or other free license?
If you look at the image, an email conversation giving permission is attached.--Imfinite 8 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
By a strict reading of the email exchange, what you've gotten is permission to use the images, unaltered, in the Wikipedia article on Dogpatch USA and nowhere else. Such permission rules out such things as using the images in other articles, or combining images as you have done. --Carnildo 8 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)
  • Carnildo 7 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
  • Object. There are many little problems in this article (I won't even bother with the bulk writing unless there's a peer review), most notably the strange use of POV ===Level 3=== headings and the weird "setting the scene" intro (I mean, "dilapidated"! When does anyone need to use that word?). Also, can a place have an afterlife? Send back to peer review for at least a fortnight. Harro5 July 7, 2005 22:55 (UTC)
  • Return to peer review for reasons listed above. Give it a couple of weeks. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
  • Support awesome article.--Imfinite 8 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
  • Mild object. This is a fascinating subject which excited me more than any article I've seen recently. If the comments above are addressed--especially the POV issues and the need for more references--I will wholeheartedly support this article.--Alabamaboy 8 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)
  • WITHDRAWN I am withdrawing my nomination for this article from FA so that it can be peer reviewed--The_stuart 13:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal[edit]

Self-nom. I believe I have addressed all the items brought up in peer review and think this is a good, strong article—one of my best. --[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Sorry, it's not bad, but it's too short and thin for a FA, and with a kind of tunnel vision, it could and should open up in various directions. For instance, I can't believe it doesn't even mention the other candidates! Or does it..? I can't find them. Bishonen | talk 5 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)
  • Object, only because it is too short. Phoenix2 5 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The aftermath section reads like it has been cut-and-pasted from an RNC profile of Mitt Romney. Why is there a pic of him? And the paragraph of how successful the Games were is terribly POV, and doesn't have enough fact to support "one of the most succesful"-type statements. Harro5 July 5, 2005 23:10 (UTC)
  • Oppose All reasons above. LordMooCow 09:17, 3 July 2005 (GMT+10)

U.S. presidential election, 2004[edit]

I submit this article because of it's depth and usefulness. This article seems very fair and neutral, despite the sticky political subject. Many questions I have had, some I couldn't even articulate properly are anwsered here, especially the Ohio situation. It also includes much information that could have been left out if not for the author's attention to detail. --Kode 22:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Very well written informative article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs July 5, 2005 04:29 (UTC)
  • Support can't believe they've managed to make an article like this so balanced Borisblue 5 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)
  • Support. A great time to put this up for FAC. People have accepted the 2004 election results, and there's no reason for any more anon vandalism than usual. Great article (pity about the size of the TOC, but it has to be like that), and it sets a standard for all future election pages. Harro5 July 5, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
    • Changing to oppose. As has become quite obvious, this article has some major flaws in terms of missing information. Looks like it needs lots of writing, and then a long stint on peer review. Harro5 July 7, 2005 11:48 (UTC)
  • Object (replacing earlier comment with no vote). Having read the whole thing:
    1. There's five citations in the text, and these use a plain external link, they should use {{ref}} and {{note}}.
    2. Additionally there are many plain external links (not in reference format) in the text that should be split out and cited properly.
    3. More citations! While there is references the article does not cite sources (a rule for featured articles), and the current references section does not aid the researcher who may wish to trace the source of a fact.
    4. There is a section "Overview", but the introductory section above the fold is supposed to provide a 2-5 paragraph overview (that section is only one very short paragraph).
    5. There is an empty section "Timeline".
    6. There are a lot of single paragraph (very short paragraph) sections, either they don't need splitting under their own headings, or they can be expanded.
    7. Newspaper endorsements contains a link to subarticle, but there's no summary which is the point of subarticles.
  • These should be easy to fix (I'll even help if I find the time), and since I'm not qualified to comment on the factual accuracy or comprehensiveness of the article and don't object to the prose, when they are fixed I'll consider removing my vote. Joe D (t) 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
  • Object. Good work getting this a NPOV, but it needs quite a bit of work to be a FA. The lead needs to be considerably longer, at least two or three paragraphs. The overview section should be turned into prose, rather than a list of bullet points. Sections like ==Ballot access== and ==Newspaper endorsements== should be more than just tables, and should get some explanatory prose. These small tables also do not look very good in their current formatting. They would look better if they were right aligned and floating. The external links section should be cleaned out. It is huge and looks especially bad on the TOC. It would also be good to see some book references, rather than just news websites. Also the page has some major gaps. There is noting on the issues in the election. Topics like Iraq, social security, and national security, are nowhere mentioned. - SimonP July 5, 2005 13:15 (UTC)
  • Support Very informative, very nice work, great info! Nice use of pictures. So I definitely support! LordMooCow 09:20, 3 July 2005 (GMT+10)
  • Object. Agree with SimonP. You need to mention the issues of the campaign, otherwise the article does little or nothing to explain why Bush won. It shouldn't be that difficult to find reliable info: opinion polls by newspapers on the most important election issue for example. At the moment, if you search for "economy" or "Iraq", there isn't a signal reference in the entire article. Deus Ex 6 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
  • Object--there needs to be more coverage of the unusually contested Democratic primary especially. For example, there is no reference to Howard Dean outside of a sentence on an unrelated issue, despite his frontrunner status and dramatic fall from grace. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 14:17 (UTC)
  • Object. Per above objectors. Reorganizing this article according to summary style (e.g. Primaries, Campaign, Results, Controversy) is extremely important and would help resolve all the other objections. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 16:55 (UTC)

Rum[edit]

Self-nom. About a month ago there was discussion on this article's talk page about nominating this article for FA status. Since then the article has been on peer review and seen a significant expansion. At this time I am not aware of any outstanding issues remaining and wish to submit the article for Features Article consideration. --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 00:38 (UTC)

  • Support, with a minor objection: aren't song titles usually in quotes rather than italics? Daniel Case 3 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
I have checked the style manual, and made the appropriate correction. --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
  • Object. Naval section has a sentence with the clause, "well until the practice was abolished", which doesn't seem to make sense. The use of well in such a context goes with the phrase "well after". This section should probably also mention the famous quote about "rum, sodomy, and the lash", although it's variously attributed (I've seen Churchill and Nelson; it may have circulated enough that the original source might not be traceable). Also, the lead mentions use in mixed drinks, but the article fails to mention any such drinks specifically. --Michael Snow 3 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)
    • The "rum in cuisine" section appears to mentions numerous rum cocktails: Rum and Coke, Cuba Libre, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 3 16:06 (UTC)
    • I will take your issues in order. The grammar in the sentence you pointed out has been corrected. The well-known quote "Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash" was not included as it deals more with naval tradition than rum. As for the mixed drinks, would changing the term used in the lead to cocktail help any? --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
      • I'll withdraw the objection, I did get hung up on the cocktail/mixed drinks bit but that's more my fault than the article's. I would still mention the quote — the section on naval rum emphasizes the association between the two in the public's mind, and the quote is classic evidence of that association. But if others see it differently, it's not worth holding this up over. --Michael Snow 4 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
  • Yo ho ho and a Bottle of Rum. I'd like to see a wikiquote on rum too. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 06:21 (UTC)
A wikiquote page on rum has been started, and the article has a link in the "See also" section. --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
  • Support. Good coverage of many different aspects of the subject: history, varieties, culture. ike9898 July 3, 2005 14:31 (UTC)
  • Support, comprehensive. Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
  • Object. I see that you have moved the list of rum brands to a new article, but the major brands should probably be mentioned in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 3 23:05 (UTC)
    • Could you provide a definition of "major brand" that does not have problems with either WP:NPOV or WP:V? As most rum producers do not publish numbers on the volume of their production, it is not possible to produce a verifiable list of the largest rum producers. Business press estimates of case volume also tend to be restricted to either the North American or European markets and ignore the rest of the world. Without case volume or some other measurable method of determining which brands qualify for consideration as a major brand any such list is inherently a POV exerise. There is also the question whether brands as Stroh or the larger cachaça should be considered for such a list. Due to the differing definitions of what speicifically qualifies as rum, this is another problem without a single good solution. It is due to issues such as these, plus the regional bias to favor brands available to each individual editor, that the list was moved to a seperate article were all brands may be listed. --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 14:02 (UTC)
      • You could say something along the lines of "Major rum producers include Bacardi, Captain Morgan, (any others you may add)." For various reasons, including its historic notability and sales volume, Bacardi is certainly among them. Captain Morgan, according to its article, is among the top fifteen selling spirit brands in the world, which would seem a good basis for inclusion. If there are other brands that can reasonably be included, include them. The definition being used, specifically, is the definition of major. There's no need to provide a list of the largest rum producers; all that's needed is a mention of the major names in the field. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 4 16:42 (UTC)
        • I have added a line as suggested to the first paragraph. I tries to give the list variety in both style and geographical representation. I chose Stroh as the spiced rum to include a European entry, and because Captain Morgan is owned by the same parent company as Bundaberg and Myers. --Allen3 talk July 4, 2005 18:43 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonderful article. Fascinating read.--Alabamaboy 5 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
  • Object. I have several objections, mostly classified under "not comprehensive" and "POV". First, the issue discussed above re: rum production and sales needs to be resolved. Without any idea of how much rum is produced in the world or in key markets, and how much sales they are worth, the article cannot be considered comprehensive -- the article gives no quantitative indication of consumption. At least for the large producers, they are owned by public companies and good information should be available. It is not acceptable to relegate even major rum producers to a "see also" list. There should be more of an idea of how rum's popularity has waxed and waned, especially in the modern period. The involvement of rum in the slave trade is given less than one sentence's treatment, and should be expanded significantly. I would like to see example brand names and price points for the various categories of rum. I would also like to see more discussion of the components of rum from a food science / chemistry perspective. Under "POV", the categorization language needs to be cleaned up; right now it reads as if Spanish-speaking islands only produce cheap rum, which I know is not true. Other issues include some grammar errors and no pictures of production methods. - Bantman July 5, 2005 22:13 (UTC)
  • Object Not much info really. It's good, but not great. Then again I guess you can't have so much info with rum, but nah, it's not FA material. LordMooCow 09:25, 4 July 2005 (GMT+10)
    • Please be more specific - this objection at the moment is not actionable, and is thus invalid. Ambi 7 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
  • Object. I believe that Bantman's intelligent objections need to be addressed before this article can attain featured status. The article must be comprehensive and authoratative in order to be featured. --Zantastik talk 13:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Niggers Association of America[edit]

Despite of being a great article about a piece of internet culture, it is unfairly going through its sixth VFD. They even tried to change the rules so that they'd have more of a chance to delete it, but wikipedians just seem to like it too much. (Nomination by 83.131.11.55 (talk · contribs))

Would like to second this FAC nomination, but only once the VfD is complete. For the time being, this is being closed down. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
  • Object, since it needs to be cleaned up, expanded. We need to see what is really true and what really is a hoax. There is many things we have to add to this. I suggest sending this to Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)
  • If an article you've nominated for deletion on VfD is not deleted...
    • do reconsider whether your nomination was justified.
    • don't frivolously nominate the same article for featured article status.
      • It's going through VFD and Peer Review right now to find out how to fix the article and how to make it work. This FAC, to me, is pointless, since it is going through those processes now. That is why I said it is a bad faith nomination (which is a term used a bunch on Wikipedia.) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
  • Object. The very presence of this article on Wikipedia is evidence of systemic bias, due to self-selection of editors from a pool made up entirely of Internet users, in favor of Internet subcultures and other phenomena with no relevance in the real world outside of the 'net. Kaibabsquirrel 9 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
    • Though I am objecting to this article, but if this is really a FAC debate, this will be considered inactionable. Raul654, the admin who watches these pages, said that any article that survives a VFD can be considered to be FAC's. We do have articles that are featured that deal with subjects not in the real world, such as Dalek and Link. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)
  • Object, still subject to VFD which means it's not stable by a long shot. - Mgm|(talk) July 9, 2005 07:53 (UTC)
  • Support once this survives its eleventeenth round on VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been closed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuno Álvares Pereira[edit]

A good piece on Portuguese general that became a mystic in 14th century.--Xixicoco 1 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

  • Object. Not a bad article, but it needs to be longer, especially the religious life section. It also needs to have some references to become a featured article. - SimonP July 1, 2005 22:12 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review first. I agree, the article, though with its merits, is far too lacking for a serious FA bid at the moment. Perhaps a month in PR will yield enough critique and further research time to beef it up substantially. --Girolamo Savonarola July 2, 2005 02:23 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review, not long enough and unreferenced. - Mgm|(talk) July 2, 2005 12:50 (UTC)
  • You can refer to peer review, but unless major additions are made there, it won't be featured.
    Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 2 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
  • Object too short. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:06, July 3, 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet ranks and insignia[edit]

Second candiacy: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia/Archive 1

This is the second FAC case. Article was significantly improved and past objections on article to be canon rather than fanart is (in my opinion at least) met. Minor issues have already beeing fixed. All parties involved with earlier FAC will be notified. Thats all I got for now. --Cool Cat My Talk 30 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)

Correction, this is the third time this article has been placed here. Round one can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ranks_and_insignia_of_Starfleet.

THIS NOMINATION HAS BEEN CLOSED AS OF 3 JULY 2005

  • I still want to support this nom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
  • Support - very comprehensive, I found it interesting. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support - much improved from the last time. Still has issues with graphics layout (viewing this on IE), and there should be a sentence and wikilink to Star Trek canon in the introductory paragraphs, but that's the extent of the objection here. Will switch to firm support if these can be addressed. --khaosworks July 1, 2005 01:24 (UTC)
    • I added the Wikilink. The setence reads as follows: Starfleet ranks and titles have evolved through both live action productions, official publications, and the fanon of the Star Trek Expanded Universe. The most official ranks established are those which appear in Star Trek films and television productions, with ranks appearing in publications from Star Trek producers considered "secondary", but nevertheless still officially established Starfleet titles. The least official of all ranks are those which appear in Star Trek fan literature, such as magazines and websites published by private persons with little or no affiliation with the Star Trek series. Such ranks are considered conjecture, yet occasionally may find their way into semi-official Star Trek sources (an example being the rank of Branch Admiral). As for the images, what images seem to be causing you the most problems?Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
      • Specifically, the Enlisted Ranks section. The Petty Officer graphics do not flow with the text (the larger graphic is aligned to the right as well), causing a huge blank space. I also note that some graphics do not seem to initially want to load - this may be because there are too many graphics and IE times out or something. --July 1, 2005 05:28 (UTC)
        • I am having many images not even show up, so it could be a Wikipedia problem. I will check into the page and see what I can do. And if your first objection is solved, then I request you to strike out that section, please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)
          • I cannot fix it without screwing anything up. I need to copy this template so I can see what magic I can do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)Ok, I fixed it, I hope everyone likes. If not, I got a few more tricks up my sleeve. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
  • Support, interesting article. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 1 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
  • Support once again an even more improved article. -SocratesJedi | Talk 1 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to support, but one thing I still don't understand is the "public domain" tag on recreations of the insigna by Wikipedia. Do the creators of Star Trek really hold no copyright whatsoever on the design? Phils 1 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)
As I understand matters, such a design may be patented or trademarked but it cannot be copyright, although a specific representation of it may be copyright.—Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
    • The reason why they are public domain is that I drew most of the images myself, so I released them into the public domain so there were no issues about copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. A curious topic but one well-covered.—Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC) I have made my support conditional on the fixing of Taxman's list below.—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
  • This one has been through the mill: I think it now meets our criteria and would support but for one caveat - query whether all of the images taken from live action programmes have a sufficiently "free" copyright status. -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
  • Object. (Taxman Talk July 1, 2005 13:17 (UTC)) Certainly much improved. I will not continue to object after the following issues are handled. There are a lot of them as you can see, but I think they are all fixable. 1) Still needs a clear explanation of which sources are official and which are not. It mentions that some are and some aren't but only says which is which for a few of them from what I could see. 2) Still a lot of unsourced claims and pure opinion. That is not acceptible under the NPOV and No original research policies. Since this same objection has been leveled many times on this article, I thought I would list out every instance I could see in order to facilitate fixing them. These need to be restated factually and many of them need sources to back them up, or failing that, they should be removed. So here we go:
"Since promotion to Commodore is not mentioned, it may be assumed that the rank was no longer in service."
"It can therefore be assumed, unless additional information is promulgated by Star Trek producers or through official sources, that subsequent to the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation the rank of Commodore ceased to exist."
"An episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, entitled "Inquisition", may have shown a modern Fleet Captain insignia"
"...as "Deputy Director", the title possible indicating that the position of a Deputy Director of Starfleet Intelligence would hold a rank equivalent to that of a Fleet Captain."
"Based on the rarity of the rank of Fleet Captain, it may be assumed that the rank is an honorary title, bestowed .."
"In such cases, it can be assumed that Fleet Captain is not a prerequisite for promotion but rather a special rank bestowed under certain circumstances."
"This gives rise to the interesting theory that Pike may have been a Captain in title only, but was actually a Commander or possibly even a..."
"...was most likely a Captain at some point in his career..."
"Spock may have been permitted to wear full Commander insignia as a "spot promotion", due to his position as Enterprise First Officer, or the insignia oddity may have been a script oversight."
"One may assume this is similar to the practice onboard modern day U.S. aircraft carriers where..."
"In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, although not referred to in the dialogue, the characters of Uhura and Sulu become Lieutenant Commanders as is evidenced by an examination of the Motion Picture era sleeve stripes." - several examples have been given for characters referred to by ranks other than what the rank looks like, so this is another assumption.
"This may have been a protocol of Starfleet whereby the rank of Lieutenant Commander may be verbally shortened to Lieutenant. This would also explain the nomenclature of Valeris during the time frame of Star Trek VI. Alternatively, accidentally calling a Lieutenant Commander “Lieutenant” may simply have been a script error."
"While simply a costume error, Star Trek fans have speculated the existence of a new rank known as "Second Lieutenant Commander", senior to a Lieutenant yet junior to a regular Lieutenant Commander" Just give a source for this one.
"This was, perhaps, a means to distinguish Ensigns in the Motion Picture from Crewman, since..."
"Information from the prequel series Star Trek Enterprise indicates that in this earlier period of Starfleet history, Lieutenant Junior Grade did not yet exist as a rank." Just because it is not seen, what evidence is there that it doesn't exist?
"...the statement from "Divergence" may have been a plot error or an indication of the point at which Lieutenant Junior ..."
"Fan apologists have suggested that the case of Kim was owing to the isolation of Voyager in the Delta Quadrant, while the suggested lack of a Lieutenant (junior grade) rank in Enterprise may explain Sato and Mayweather. Others have suggested that Voyager..." - Needs sources
"When Star Trek was first created, Gene Roddenberry allegedly had stated that, within Starfleet, there were no enlisted ranks since..." - Needs source
"An alternate "shoulder tab theory" indicates that such tabs indicate membership..."
"Due to the plot of Star Trek Voyager, it can perhaps be assumed that the ship has very few enlisted crew members..."
"As O'Brien was seen wearing a hollow pip insignia, fans have speculated the insignia of higher warrant officer ranks extending..." - Source needed.
"Earth Starfleet possibly also maintains the ranks of ..."
"It is possible, however, that the Starfleet Academy students in Star Trek II were senior cadets, most likely fifth year or graduate level students, given the advanced nature of their training."
"...one possible explanation of Wesley’s uniform is that the grey tunic was a sort of “junior youth” uniform similar to the present day Sea Cadets or the Cadets of Junior Naval ROTC. Another explanation is that the uniform is indeed a established Starfleet uniform..."
"Wesley’s field commission as Ensign was apparently revoked and he began wearing the standard uniform of a Cadet."
There may have been more I missed and there may have been some of these that were sourced but it wasn't clear, so that would be easy. There were a lot more that were of the form "evidenced by this=> foo result", of which many are also opinion, but weren't nearly as egregious as the above. - Taxman Talk July 1, 2005 13:17 (UTC)
Do you think we can use footnotes to satsify the requirements? If so, me and others will try to start crawling for sources and where everything is taken from. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
I think the problem is a different way of saying "some people have said...", these sentences are cop outs. The sentences need to be changed to include who is assumeing this information. Conditional support if this is adressed. Also is there any information on who designed these insignias? If there is this should be included in the article somewhere. MechBrowman July 1, 2005 23:13 (UTC)
I am checking Google now, but not much has been found. I also could not find any designer, so far. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with MechBrowman. They need to be written as facts instead of opinions. A source of who made the claim would be a great way to do that, and footnotes as a way to cite that source would be fine as long as they are quality sources. - Taxman Talk July 2, 2005 03:48 (UTC)

Changed to Support -Husnock 1 July 2005 15:49 (UTC): I might as well support an article I worked so hard to create. HOWEVER- I respect what people said last time about the article not having enough real world info. Also I really appreciate the fact that it has been far too soon since the last FA was closed for a renomination. Its not good form to just keep renominating and renominting until one can get it past. A few months should actually go by. In addition, this will probably (again) draw a huge amount of fire from anti-Trek people or people who feel fiction subject articles should not become an FA. Those people are welcome to their opinion and, in fact, I understand where some it out comes from. If that doesnt happen, I will vote to support but I did not renomiate this. -Husnock 1 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Link (Legend of Zelda) is a FA and was on the main page; I didn't see anyone protest against it. As long as we keep a reasonable proportion of different kinds of featured articles, there is no problem with articles about fictional subjects. This has been discussed before. I fail to see how this is going to "draw fire from anti-Trek" people any more than Libertarianism drew fire form conservative Wikipedians/readers. Phils 1 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
The last two FA nominations drew heavy criticism, name calling of the article, attacks on those who worked on it, among many other incivilities. I would hate to see that happen again. I actually find that interesting Legand of Zelda didnt draw such protests. I guess we will see how it goes here. BTW, I now vote support! -Husnock 1 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
  • Support - this article is more comprehensive and better supported than any other piece on Trek rank and/or insignia I've ever seen before. John Elder 1 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm as much of a Trek fan as the next guy, but I don't beleive this article is 'Encyclopedic' enough to be featured on the front page. The Link article mentioned above probably shouldn't have been featured either, though it did provide a break from the more serious subjects offered. Also, whereas the Link article held appeal for a mass audience, Starfleet ranks would only be of interest to those familiar with the show. I suggest instead featuring an article on Trek itself. Autopilots July 1, 2005 20:25 (UTC)
    • Inactionable: So what is the suggestion for improvement? An opposition to a featured article candidate must give a point which it opposes and a measure to correct the article otherwise it may be considered inactionable. General dislike of the article is not, within itself, sufficent. Per Wiki policy: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page. This was a problem with the last nominations in that some people simply opposed the article for even existing but offered no points or measures to correct. -Husnock 1 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
      • Husnock is correct that this objection is invalid. Philosophically, we believe that any article that can survive VFD should (in theory) be featurable. The purpose of the actionability requirement is dual-fold: to encourage people to give feedback (with specificity) so as to encourage improvement to the article, and to combat objections which don't meet with that philosophy that any VFD-survivable article can theoretically be become a featured article. →Raul654 July 1, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
        • This article seems to me as being the first one to actually test the idea of any article that hasn't been successfully VfD:ed can become an FA. So far it has been vehemently opposed on both grounds of principle as well as actual article quality. If the discussion concerning this article isn't enough to state at least somewhat of a precedent then I would like you, Raul, to explain how we set such a precedent. /Peter Isotalo July 2, 2005 10:24 (UTC)
          • Actually, you are mistaken. When this article was last nominated, there was a discussion about the matter at hand on the talk page, following which all those (except for yourself) who had opposed on grounds that it was "too crufty" agreed that it is not a valid objection, and reworded their objection to provide actionable criticism. Look at WP:FA has a number of articles about entirely fictional subjects, so the claim that this article becoming a FA would set a precedent is false. Phils 2 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)
            • Every FA is a potential precedent as long as it doesn't violate the FA criteria quite obviously. Just have a look at a lot of the FAC's; the serious ones are bound to contain at least one comment about what was (or wasn't) approved in previous FA's about a similar subject. And for the umpteenth time: this is not about fictional subjects being invalid as FAs. It's a matter of pretty extreme cruftiness. Seeing how some participants view an FA as something that should be handed out mainly for mere effort, not objective quality, I'm thinking we should actually try to have some sort of paragraph about cruftiness even though I loathe instruction creep. Insisting that anything that survives a VfD is eligable for FA is just not a useful criteria and is to me a pretty obvious invitation to some serious point-making. I'm myself extremely tempted to polish up pure pseudo-articles like differences between the Norwegian and Danish languages and demand that it be FA'd just to see what happens. /Peter Isotalo July 2, 2005 14:03 (UTC)
  • I would actually be very interested in seeing the Norwegian/Danish difference article be made into an FA. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
    • Well, I hate to tell you that such an article is even less merited than the one we're discussing. /Peter Isotalo July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll concede to the inactionable label, though I must disagree with that established policy (a debate for another time and place) Autopilots July 1, 2005 21:44 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible: I actualy forgot to vote. -_- --Cool Cat My Talk 1 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
    • Nominators could vote? i didn't vote for my Carl Friedrich Gauss nomination either!
      • I believe that when a person nominates, they also give a "hidden" support vote. I personally think, just like with the WP:FPC, the nominator should place their intent to nominate and support after they place the reason why. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
  • Support It is an excellent article, that has only gotten better through the revisions and prior FAC processes, and it is clearly the finest article on the subject out there. --Wingsandsword 2 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)
  • Object, per Taxman. Ambi 2 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)
  • Object, per Taxman's comments and refer to Peer Review because this is starting to get old. The same objections, both normal and "inactionable", seem to be appearing in every nomination and they are still not amended. Re-nominating the same article so soon, despite deep controversy and extremly poor behavior from one of it's most avid supporters against valid objections, is as far as I see it a very real abuse of our trust. This whole affair is only a few more personal attacks and high handed edits from becoming a very real disruption to make a point. Once more I would wish that the authors of these articles tried concentrating on something with real substance and informtion value, like the main Star Trek article or maybe something about medals or ranks. /Peter Isotalo July 2, 2005 10:24 (UTC)
    • I agree, even one of the people working on the article was surprised about its nomination. So, let's send this to peer review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
    • I dont think its fair to say people abused wikipedia by working on the article or that this was nominated to make a point or disrupt wikipedia. For the record, I did not renominate this article. Also, who has behaved poorly? Has someone associated with this article broken Wiki rules and regulations? No user name was mentioned above, so its unclear to what is being spoken of. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
      • Well, since I've already pointed out to you exactly what I'm talking about before [12] and because of the obviously offensive nature of your posts (without a hint of remorse), I assumed you didn't want me to bring it up again. But here goes [13]. You accused me of being biased, "narrow-minded" and of being a liar shortly before 'removing the objections and comments of others from the FAC without any consent. /Peter Isotalo July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
        • Okay, now we're down to petty mud-slinging. I clicked on the links you have above and none of them are inappropriate. I stated that your statements were untrue and narrowminded. I nver said "you are a liar". A person can make untrue statements without knowing it and therefore not be a liar. I did it at the Hanoi Hilton article and was promptly corrected in that what I said was a falsehood. As far as "removing comments without any consent" that is a LIE although, to be fair, maybe you didn't realize it (although I think you probably did). The comments you spoke of were moved to the discussion page of the first featured article candidate and were done so with the full consent of all involoved: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia. The move to the discussion page was discussed on the talk page (a discussion to which you never contributed) and then moved over becuase the discussion had gone outside the scope of the FAC and was then a discussion about the very validity of a fiction article as an FA. You never voiced an objection, never stated on the talk page you wanted the comments back in the main article, and nver reported it. I've tried to be civil, here, but everyone can pretty much see there is some kind of personal dislike for both me and this article. Bringing up stuff that happened two FACs ago, then saying my comments here are "offensive", what are you trying to prove? It looks like (at least to me) that you are attempting to discredit one of the article supporters by making accusations. Give it up man. If you think I'm behaving badly, there are numerous pages to report me to admins for blocks or bans. I think people are tired of hearing about it and even mroe so since you once again drew this back to me even though I wasnt the one who even renominated this page. -Husnock 3 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
          • The links were from a previous FAC. If there was a problem on how that was dealt with, then tha is when, in my view, they should have been handled. But now, its back to personal attacks, which I want to remind everyone on here, it's a no-no to perform on Wikipedia. So, if we got issues to settle, take it to the talk page. Let's use this main space to see if the article is worthy or not for Featured status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is a certain level of geektitude that, while fine for wikipedia, I do not think needs to be advertized on the front page, particularly if the project really wishes to be taken seriously and win over the skeptics. I'm sure this will be dismissed as "inactionable" or some such, and the vote will likely be discounted, but, well that's my 2 cents anyway and I at least wanted to say it. For full disclosure here, I will also point out I don't really care for the whole featured article thing in general. -R. fiend 2 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
    • Inactionable Inappropriate FAs can in fact be banned from the main page. So the "irrelevant for main page" objection is null. Borisblue 2 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
      • If enough people complain that it is not suitable for the main page, I'll mark it as so. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 18:37 (UTC)
    • The FAC candidacy is not a simple vote. This listing allows us to improve article, I want to hear all concerns. Later we can fix it. Objections that are objecting the existance this article does not belong here. Any article on wikipedia can be a FA. The only articles that cant be a FA are the ones inaproporate to be on wikipedia which should be placed on a VfD. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
      • Why should the VfD, which apparantly is a simple vote, be used as a guideline for FAC, which isn't? A VfD is dependent on timing, how many ultra-inclusionists that happen to be watching that particular week and (sadly) the prestige or experience of whoever wrote the article. This is as far from quality control as one can get. Are you saying that this 100% populistic section of Wikipedia should decide the only basic criterium for what constitutes a valid FAC? What would be the point of this? What would it say about the notion of this being "the best of Wikipedia"? /Peter Isotalo July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
        • Raul also says that any article that survives VFD would be, in theory relevant for FA. What do you mean there's no quality control? I've been working my butt off for over a week fixing flaws nickpickers found in my Carl Friedrich Gauss FAC. There is quality control, lots of it but that is, and should be restricted to the article's content rather than its topic. This is FA policy. If you want to argue for a new policy the place to do that is the village pump, not here. Borisblue 4 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
  • Todos, this FA nomination should be closed. It was way too soon after the last one and, while massive corrections and updates have been made, this is still going to draw fire and a lot of controversy. Lets close the FA now and mover to peer review. -Husnock 2 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
    • I agree, let's close it now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
    • Anne Droid: With two votes you are the weakest link. Goodbye. <ZAP>
    • Fine. FAC is closed, this doesnt mean the article is bad, just there is enough room for improvement to shut this FAC. I hope we establised the leftover problems better. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
      • (Via edit conflit with coolcat) I didn't want to remove this nomination until I checked with Coolcat (the nominanator). He said it was OK with him to withdraw the nomination, so I have removed it. →Raul654 00:59, 4 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI[edit]

I want to resubmit this article. It has grown considerably and has become much more stable since last time considered (May 3). 83.109.188.50 01:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor Object There are still a couple of external links that should become notes, in the Papacy section. Otherwise I would agree that the article has received major improvements. --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am fixing those right now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Conditional Support Can a couple of the shorter paragraphs in the body of the article, describing the Pope's early career in the Roman Catholic Church be tightened up a little? --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. While the article is quite good now, my feeling is that this is one which will constantly be changing as Benedict does more in his papacy. We really haven't seen him address some of the major issues (adoption, contraception, etc.) that were so heavily discussed at the time of the conclave. I feel that these issues will set off POV edit wars, and this article is unlikely to remain stable for long. Harro5 05:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
How's that any different than any other revisionist biographical writing? :) And years from now, if there's a MAJOR change in church teaching, how's that going to prevent anyone from prior to such a shift getting pages vandalized? Popes have been discredited posthumously before.... --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, he has clearly addresses all the issues you are mentioning while he was a professor, cardinal and prefect of the CDF, and has written numerous books. His views are well known. 83.109.174.82 17:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for the POV editing, that has pretty much been silenced now. The last main POV issue, the use of the styles, pretty much died off. Plus, every article that was featured on the main page was vandalized, no matter what topic it is. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, I will support the nomination and support this article becoming FA. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Better articles have been voted out beacuse they relate to the current events. Perhaps we should make it into some kind of a rule? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That is already covered by the stability criteria. --mav 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support My major worry the previous time was stability, and the article has quieted considerably since then. --MikeJ9919 01:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - Agree with Harro5. The lead section is also way too short and the TOC is a bit long. --mav 02:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What I did in the references section is what we should do to reduce the TOC? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support on condition the lead section has a solid 2 or 3 paragraph summary of the article content. Re: Harro5's objection, Featured Articles can be about on-going or changing events, in fact they are the ones usually picked up by mainstream news and "featured" by the rest of the world. Stbalbach 02:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But we already have a section called "Overview". Wouldn't a longer lead section be redunant then? 83.109.149.64 13:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • See the Wikipedia style guidelines and other examples of featured articles. The purpose of the lead opening is a high level plain language low-factual high-style "hook" to draw the reader in, to let them decide if they want to read more, then like peeling an onion, the article gets progressivly more detailed, repeating the same material but with more detail each time, so the reader can stop reading when they know enough, or keep reading to get into the nitty gritty. Stbalbach 14:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I've tried to expand the section slightly, improvements are welcome. 83.109.128.127 19:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good to me. Phoenix2 03:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: suggest anon assasinates the Pope in order to speed up the completion of the article as a current event. The only issue I see here is that the act of assasination itself could be seen as introducing original research into the article. HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The idea of having a feature article about a major world leader who has barely assumed a lifetime office is absurd. I have no doubt that perhaps the article will have some substance once something can actually be said about his papal reign in context, but doubtless that will require either considerable time or his vacating the role (if not both). As a matter of comparision, would you dare have a featured article about an active and ongoing war? --Girolamo Savonarola 01:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
    • Do you have a problem with how the article is formatted? If not, then there is nothing I can do to resolve this objection. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe the problem is inherent to the subject at this point in time: the article is about a pope - clearly the most defining characteristic of the man - who has barely been pope. How possibly can the article cover his papacy at this point in time? I am not debating anything about the article's content or format. The problem is that I don't believe that an article about a barely regnant pope should be able to be featured, being as the defining facts for which he will be remembered have yet to be apparent. There's nothing wrong with articles about active people, but those just thrust into the spotlight for an influential job whose powers they've barely exercised? Clearly you can at least see my objections, even if you don't share them. To answer your question succinctly, the article itself does not concern me one way or another. The situation and context does. --Girolamo Savonarola 03:24, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
        • Well, I mainly think the purpose of the FAC is to allow people to comment about any technical issues about the article. This is from the main WP:FAC page: "If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page)." Of course, some might say it has been quick to be put on here, and this is the second time around the article has been placed on FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then. I believe that my objections have been at least partially reflected within other objections which may touch more directly on policy, such as rapidly changing events and so on. I believe, however, than an article about a Pope that deals very little with his life as Pope can be regarded as a technical issue. As can I suggest a technical solution: continue to work on the article and wait for more events to develop until his papacy can become a full and substantial part of the article (what he's done beyond his initial investiture). Look at virtually all other Pope's articles (aside from the short-lived ones) and you'll see that the best written ones are mostly about their papacy, not their backgrounds or initial beginnings. Also, your citing a second nomination for FAC within a short time of a religious leader a large number consider second in authority only to God should not be seen as anything other than what it is - a second nomination, not a mandate for featured status. I appreciate that it's a good article about an important person, but I simply can't support it at this point in time. I know that my technical solution is not what you want to hear, but suggestions can be specific and helpful while also unable to be immediately implemented. These are merely my thoughts - if you want to force a specific policy objection, then I suppose I'll just agree with the other objections and cite the fact that the article is almost certainly going to be heavily re-edited, likely with points of editorial controversy and contention, for a long time afterwards and thus deals with current events and is too unstable to be realistically expected to be consistently a model article. I don't know what more you want me to say. --Girolamo Savonarola 02:30, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
            • Thats fine. FA requirement three states: "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." Of course, we might have issues about his early days, especially those of him involved with the Hitler Youth. I have no clue on what is the truth or not, since many of the people that could mention his activities in the group might have lost their memory of him or have passed away. Plus, every article on the front page has been vandalized, and we still have problem with vandals. One problem with the article itself is that some want more pictures of the Pope for the article. I will not fight anymore, mainly I am just here to fix anything that could be done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article still contains the POV-laden prefixed style, "His Holiness" which issue has been silent of late but is not at all dead. Wikipedia should not pronounce honorific styles but mention them in referred context. The Pope John Paul II article was appropriately changed before submitted for FAC (though since defeated, he is now prefixed "Servant of God"), this practice should not be endorsed as the best Wikipedia can do. Whig 29 June 2005 04:38 (UTC)
  • Support: The article is well written and thorough. "His Holiness" once at the beginning of the article is not POV, it is information on official address, he is correctly referred to as Ratzinger throughout the rest of the page. The very nature of the papal office will ensure that such a figure will be controversial from now through to eternity, so the page will probably be vandalised and frequently updated etc. However the page as it is at the moment FA standard, and has to judged on that, if that standard changes in the future then there is a process to deal with that eventuality. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 09:39 (UTC)
  • Object As someone said before: His reign as pope has just begun and when he starts dealing with more major issues POV wars will wage. We need to think about the future of this article. No sense in having it featured now only to have another vote to remove featured article status later Nick Catalano (Talk) 29 June 2005 12:35 (UTC)
    • The papal office is only a part of his life. He has been the most influential man in the Catholic Church for years already and is famous also as a theologian. He has already dealt with the "major issues"; everyone knows what his opinion on these issues are and he has made them clear numerous times.
  • Support. While I agree that major POV wars will results in this article in the future, his life up til now is fascinating and worth feature article status.--Alabamaboy 29 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
  • Object, I don't think an article on any current leader can become a FA, as they cannot meet the stability criteria. - SimonP June 29, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
    • I do agree that we still have vandalism issues with the article, and once it becomes featured, it will be possibly be hell on earth to revert it back. As for the styles issue, there was a vote conducted on the use of HH prefixed in the article. The result did not meet consensus, but a slight majority voted to use the prefix. As for it being dead, I know not many have talked about the issue, but I still think Wikipedia will not have a set gudieline for a while. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 18:48 (UTC)
      • We have to judge this article on what we see before us now; not on what it may or may not become. We cannot assume the role of prophets. The Pope is indisputable important to many millions of people. He is an international figure. This is an encyclopedia, the subject and the page currently meet the criteria for FA. What more is there to say. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)
        • I'll see what happens here, report to the guys who work on the article what happened at the FAC and see what kind of magic we can pull off. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)
          • Comment it is pretty plain to see that this article does not meet the stability criteria. All the arguments for keeping here are also in fact arguments against the stability criteria for FAs. Personally, i dont understand the necessity of that criteria; wikis are, of course constantly evolving. Perhaps we need to look at the big picture and redefine/eliminate the stability criteria? Borisblue 30 June 2005 10:00 (UTC)
  • Mild Objection. 2 comments: First, this article is too holy. How can an encyclopedia article start with "his holiness"...!? Second, just a comment (this point itself is neutral): articles in this wikipedia are designed to be changeable. Therefore possible changes in the future does not affect its wellness.
    • there was a vote conducted on the use of the prefix in the article, and a majority voted to use it. So I believe this is not the right place to protest against the "Holiness" thing.
      • correct Giano | talk 30 June 2005 18:44 (UTC)
  • Object. The image Image:Benedict-salute.jpg is claimed as "copyrighted fair use", but I don't think we can claim that, and further, "fair use" images should be avoided if at all possible. Also, the image tag {{vatican}} is unclear. Are these fair-use images, or are they free-use under certain conditions? (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
  • Support.--Xixicoco 1 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
  • Support Well written, and also well structured article, detailing the Pope's life. Besides...he is a Pope. Antonio Not Holy in any way Martin 1 July 2005, 21:52 (UTC)
  • Support Well written, stable and NPOV. Worthy of being a featured article. FearÉIREANN(talk) 2 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Rastafari movement[edit]

This article having been peer-reviewed and no substantial blocking issues to featured article status identified, I believe this article provides a signficant and substantial addition to the list of Wikipedia featured articles. Whig 29 June 2005 03:09 (UTC)

  • Support, SqueakBox June 29, 2005 03:17 (UTC)
  • Object, the article does not cite any references, the role of women in the group is only mentioned in passing. --nixie 29 June 2005 05:01 (UTC)
  • Object: Interesting, comprehensive but no references. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)
  • Object: Contents of this article are too far from modern reality, yet the nature of this article is not historic. --Deryck C. 15:28, 30 June 2005 15:28:06 (UTC)

Wilfred Benitez[edit]

This was my first article ever. The article has definitely improved, as, when I wrote it I was a novel writer and POV. the photos are a plus, and the layout is pretty good in my opinion. I think people should also know about the downspirals many boxers live after being on top of the world; largely ignored by society that once held them high, they come to a crashing end after their career is over. Benitez exemplifies that. Antonio Americas Most wanted sex object Martin

  • Object: is missing several featured article criteria Joe D (t) 28 June 2005 21:16 (UTC)
  • Comment: This user now has three FAC nominations running concurrently. Be wary that all have major flaws, and will likely not get the attention they each so sorely need. Harro5 June 28, 2005 22:51 (UTC)
    • FYI, taken from above instructions: "Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice." Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 28 June 2005 23:37 (UTC)
  • Object: Should not be here, it is not featured article quality at all! Needs expansion, tidying, changed layout, references etc. Giano | talk 29 June 2005 12:07 (UTC)
  • Comment Take another look, although it still lacks comprehensiveness and references. Sfahey 30 June 2005 04:57 (UTC)
  • Excellent rescue job, improved layout etc. It is now a nice concise Wikipedia biography, even though it lacks references. Regarding becoming a FA it is too short and has insufficient detail about the man, what is he doing now for instance, I'm sure there is a lot more that could be said here. Sorry I still object. Giano | talk 30 June 2005 07:58 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This article is well-written, yet the person talked about is not famous enough. At least I've never heard of this guy. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:31:58 (UTC)
I agree it is still not FA quality, but not having heard of someone is not a very good reason for objecting, especially if you consider "Soda can stove", "Exploding cows", and today's FA. FWIW, more millions of people have heard of Wilfred than many featured articles topics. "Neutral" was perhaps though an acceptable choice.Sfahey 1 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
Thanks for being neutral as opposed to opposed, 9check out the redundancy there, hehe), but Benitez was the first, and because of boxing rules now, will forever be, the youngest guy ever to win a world title. He was the first Latino to be a three division world champion, the fifth boxer in boxing history overall, and the first in 40 years. He is a member of the International Boxing Hall of Fame and almost saw himself in the middle of an international problem when he became stranded in Argentina for one year. Ask on the internet who Wilfred Benitez or Wilfredo Gomez are, and you will get more than 2,000 pages of answer. Still, I appreciate that you didnt oppose. Thanks and God bless!! Antonio Let the Music Play Martin
  • Object. The two images on the page are both "copyrighted used with permission", which is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia. (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
According to what I last read, wikipedia does allow photos copyrifghted by others, as long as we have been given permission. Antonio watch your skirts, ladies, I got a camera :) Martin
Only if that permission is compatible with the GFDL see [14]--nixie 16:24, 2 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Russell[edit]

Long, well-written and more important accurate article about one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. --ThomasK June 28, 2005 12:30 (UTC)

  • How about references? If works were used from the bibliography to write the article, they need to be cited properly. And inline citation would be a real help as well for an article of this scope. --Spangineer (háblame) June 28, 2005 13:07 (UTC)
  • Object, a good and comprehensive article but the formatting needs to be improved. There are too many one sentence paragraphs, and why is the succession box in the middle of the article? Personally I would also like to see the quotes section moved to Wikiquote. - SimonP June 28, 2005 15:15 (UTC)
    • Right, I fixed the succession box. But in my opinion there should be a few quotes in the Wikipedia article. --ThomasK June 28, 2005 16:24 (UTC)
  • Object. It needs to be made clearer what information comes from which documents: footnotes and separation of Bibliography (works by Russell) and References/Further reading (works about Russell used to fact-check/write the article. I don't really have a problem with the few one-line paragraphs SimonP mentions, but I agree tthe quotes belong in Wikiquote, unless they are used in the text to underline some aspect of Russell's persona. Phils 28 June 2005 19:34 (UTC)
  • Comment. I recommend adding more info about Russell's support of world government. See http://www.vcn.bc.ca/wfcvb/whywf.htm, http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Bertrand_Russell/future.htm . Nathan256 29 June 2005 11:48 (UTC)
  • Minor object. This looks extensive, but it has several problems. In addition to mentioned above lack of references, the text needs careful going over ilinks - some terms are linked only in their second/third/etc. usage or not at all - examples (Principia Mathematica (which I linked now), World War One, Pacifism, 20th century). I am sure with a little editing work this can be a FA, but now it is still a work in progress needing some editing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 29 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)
  • Object, the copyright on the images needs to be established and the article should have references--nixie 30 June 2005 08:48 (UTC)
  • Object, yes, long, long, too long. Nobody will be interested to read an article of 7919 words.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:36:59 (UTC)
    • Image tag fixed. Deryckchan, maybe you are not interested to read this article. Russell did extensive work, to summ up is actually not possible. --ThomasK July 1, 2005 05:00 (UTC)
    • I, for example, do like my articles long and comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 1 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)
  • Object in the strongest possible terms. This article is a puff piece for an unmitigated scoundrel widely regarded by those familiar with him, barring his small albeit influential circle of devotees, as one of the worst monsters in recent history. Inadequate attention is paid to his advocacy of world dictatorship through nuclear terrorism. Inadequate attention is paid to support of eugenics and against populations with darker skin-hues. I will not support until the said problems are corrected. Cognition 1 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
    • Cognition, I repeat the protest i made at the Carl Friedrich Gauss vote. Please use a civil tone and don't attack the editors who put up their baby articles here. And again, please note that aggressive edit summaries are an especially bad idea. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
      • I am not attacking the editors. I am criticizing the article for omission of vital information, which, according to the instructions on FAC, is an essential part of this process. Cognition 2 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
OK.. so you're merely criticizing the article for omitting the vital information that BR is "an unmitigated scoundrel" (cliché alert) and a monster? I'd better re-read those FAC instructions. Seriously, to contribute to this process, please make only actionable objections. Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)
No, for whitewashing his support for eugenics and support for an unprovoked nuclear attack on Russia in order to establish a one-world government. [15] [16] If one believes that this does not make him a monster, that is a commentary on his humanity, about which I have nothing more to add. Cognition 2 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)
Comment. Cognition (talk · contribs) is a follower of the LaRouche movement, which teaches that Bertrand Russell is, literally, evil. Two arbitration committee cases have ruled that editors may not act in a way that appears to promote the views of Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 04:36 (UTC)
          • You are replying to my argument by addressing the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself, which is a logical fallacy. Further, you have no evidence that I am a follower of the LaRouche movement. While my user page expresses my admiration of Lyndon LaRouche, he is just one of many people I admire. Cognition 2 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
            • Your edits betray you. You are a follower of Lyndon LaRouche, and Bertrand Russell was not evil. Those are both facts. This isn't the place to discuss it, however; please see your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 05:20 (UTC)
                • Now you are arguing from authority, despite the fact that I am using NON-LAROUCHE sources. Go figure. Cognition 2 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)

Writings[edit]

I think perhaps we need to break off the 'Further reading' into a seperate link as its making the article overly long and somewhat intimidating for some readers - partly why it failed as a candidate I assume - How do people feel? [I appreciate he is not known as a peer but I have added the style to bring it into line with the majority of other peerage articles.

Wilfredo Gómez[edit]

informative, if maybe rookish, article about legendary boxer's life. Nice photos as well. Antonio men and women's knockout Martin

  • Object. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    1. The images have no sources. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    2. 2nd img caption: Miguel Hernández links to the wrong person. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    3. Lead is too short. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    4. Only one "Biography" section, which is actually more a list of fights. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    5. Nothing on his early life: where was he born (in Las Monjas, Puerto Rico :-), how did he grow up? Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    6. No references. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    7. Tone sometimes too casual. First example: "Coming from Puerto Rico, however, meant that the big bucks and exposure of the American media would not come easy, and Gómez had to move to Costa Rica, from where he began to tour all of Central America in hopes of finding matches." (big bucks, had to — who says he had to move to Costa Rica? Why not just "moved to C.R."? Why could he not have made his way in the U.S.?) Second example: "Puerto Rico was shocked by Gómez's defeat" (Was it? Says who? And what about all those people who couldn't care less about boxing? I'm sure those exist in Puerto Rico, too!) Third example: "is now back in Puerto Rico, getting his life back on track" First, it's kind of eerie to switch to the present tense (why not "returned to P.R."?), and second, what does "getting his life back on track" mean exactly, and who says so? When did he return to Puerto Rico? Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    8. Especially towards the end, too superficial: "He later moved to Venezuela, where he made a few wrong decisions and ran into trouble with the law." Why? What decisions? What does "trouble with the law" mean? (Apparently, he became a drug addict. What drug(s)? Coke?) Did he stand trial? Was he ever convicted, and if so, of what? Did he spend some time in jail? If so, where and for how long? Lupo 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
      See also [17], which hints at some of these questions, but more definitive sources would be good. Lupo 28 June 2005 08:51 (UTC)
    • Dear Lupo: Hi1 How are you? My regards and salute to you. As far as the Wilfredo Gomez, it was my third article, back in 2002. I believe the page has improved a lot in three years, specially since when I wrote it I was new and it was POV. I worked on some of the issues you mentioned, mosly based on what I myself heard (as far as his early life) both from Gomez himself and from elders in Las Monjas when I lived in Puerton Rico. I think three links is good enough, and the link you offered is a little POV as far as his fights and specially about his life after boxing. He HAS stayed out of trouble since he was in trouble. Anyways, I wanted to thank you for the time to read the article I originated, which always flatters me and I hope you enjoy it now better since I made a few fixes. Thank you and God bless you!

Your wiki-friend, Antonio El Feroz Vargas Martin

  • Refer to peer review. - Mgm|(talk) June 28, 2005 09:00 (UTC)
  • Object: Object: Far too little information. The lead is too short. I would like to see it more sectioned and clearly laid out, and of course the big crime no references. Giano | talk 28 June 2005 11:48 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is not well-structured enough and the person is not famous. I've never heard of him. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:39:15 (UTC)

Cerritos, California[edit]

Excellent article. Far more inoformative than those of other cities Ive read, actually Id say 300 percent more informative. Excellent choice and layout of photos as well. Antonio extramultiple lanes road Martin

<Jun-Dai 28 June 2005 07:39 (UTC)> It is too detailed for a single article. The local landmarks section should be broken out into another article or set of articles, retaining two or three of the main ones. There are too many pictures; there should only be a few, and they should be larger. The article seems mostly like a listing of discrete and not terribly-related buildings, projects, etc. There certainly doesn't need to be three sections for individual high schools. Even one high school should not have a section unless it has had a significant impact in the world's awareness of Cerritos, which is not apparent from the article. All in all, this seems more like a brochure or travel guide than an encyclopedia article. That Frank Sinatra once performed in Cerritos is not relevant information for the article. </Jun-Dai>

I have a question about the usability of the photos in the article. They all seem to be from the City of Cerritos website ([18]), which has a clear copyright notice and no separate info on the copyright status of the photos, yet the photos have all been given either {{fairuse}} and {{PD}} tags. Also: Some of the text in the article looks like it was directly copied from the city website.

I also agree with Jun-Dai that the article is a rather jumbled listing of various locations around the city without any good indication of the importance of each location. Whitney High School, for example, has at least a state-wide reputation for the quality of the school, while the article gives no indication of that.

The article should also cover some of the local controversies, such as the problems with expanding the Cerritos Auto Square. There is also nothing about the Aeromexico DC-9 airplane that went down in Cerritos. BlankVerse ∅ 28 June 2005 08:25 (UTC)

    • Actually, the Aeromexico DC-9 IS mentioned. There is a small photo of the tragedy in the article as well. Thats the only thing I knew Cerritos for before I read the article. I thought Cerritos was a farm town before I read the article. Beng an aviation fan, I guess if I ever go there, I'd still feel chills thinking of the Aeromexico plane! Antonio Puertorriquena Airlines Martin

Needs to be divided into separate articles. Also, pictures are too small. Kaldari 28 June 2005 18:26 (UTC)

  • Object. Lots of problems here: Too many, too small images with a bad layout; unencyclopedic wording in many places of the article (the city takes prides in its beautification..., Cerritos' tradition of intelligent, progressive government is reflected in its civic facilities., etc...); many lists ("City beautification", "Notable characteristics"); structural problems ("Tournament of Roses Parade" has the same heading level as "Geography" and "Demographics", some sections are also out of place: the "Landmarks" section should be put after "Geography" and "Demographics", and couls probably use a renaming); insufficient references (the single web-based reference is also ill-formatted); inappropriate lead. This article should spend some time on Peer Review. Phils 28 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)
  • Support. Another well-written and well-furnished city article. However, yes, a bit too long. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:41:08 (UTC)
  • Object. I like the information, but the alignment is really grotesque. I would switch to support as long as there's an observable improvement in textual arrangement. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:23, 1 July 2005 (UTC)

History of nuclear weapons[edit]

This page gives a lot of good information on the subject. This page seems like one of those pages that the Wikipedia community can brag about. Therefore I believe that this page could be a featured artice candidate.

  • Support, somewhat long, but looks like featured material to me. I am not necessarily voting fot this article because this topic should be featured, but it is a good article. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 03:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strong objection – 1) The article is too long and cries out for a summary. There is absolutely no need to go into detail and delve on Marie Curie, Earnest Walton, Hitler being appointed etc. The entire prelude is unnecessary and should be summarised into a small paragraph and merged with the section below. 2) The text details too much information on USA and USSR (especially the former); and just a whisper on the other countries' nuclear history. It should be balanced between the seven stated nuclear powers and others who have given up or have undeclared arms. 3) The text on the Cuban missile crisis is not only superfluous but heavily tilted to the US POV. 4) Non P-5 countries labelled under "nuclear proliferation", is another blatant POV. Countries like India and Pakistan haven't signed the NNPT and India's nuclear weapons are indigenous. 5) CNN has an informative interactive map. Replicating a similar map here would well illustrate all countries' arsenals. 6) There's hardly any information on nuclear disarmament and the treaties are given a fleeting mention. 7) Nothing is mentioned on each country's nuclear doctrine: first-use or no-first-use. 8) Information is also lacking on the number of tests each country has conducted and the size of their nuclear arsenal. 9) Latest developments in Libya and Iran are not covered. 10) The titles of each section 'knot of war', 'power of the sun' can be toned down. 11) Dirty-bombs and the Al Quaida's plans are also not covered. I strongly feel that this article should be worked on from scratch, and articles of this nature should be kept in Peer Review for at least a week before nominating it here. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 06:21 (UTC)

  • Comment: Just on a few of these points (as you can see below I don't think the article is at all "finished"):
1. I disagree that the prelude is unnecessary -- the context out of which they were created was desperately important to later conceptions about them. But more importantly for the article, the section is designed so that somebody with absolutely no knowledge of basic nuclear physics can quickly be brought up to enough speed to understand the rest of the article without having to fish around a lot of science articles first. Sure -- it could probably be made more concise in places, but I think the point of the section is justified.
2. While I agree there should be a more "international" approach, most of that will be going into later sections, especially those on proliferation and the India/Pakistan arms race. But we should not be surprised if the US/USSR end up dominating a lot of this history; they were the engines that drove a good deal of the work done by other countries and the models they emulated (with a few interesting exceptions, but again, that's for the proliferation section).
3. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest point at which weapons were almost used in an all-out war between two nuclear armed nations. It could perhaps be edited down a bit but I think it was a fairly important episode in the overall history, and is the "concrete example" for the dangers of brinksmanship. It only takes up three paragraphs at that, one of which is a famous Khruschev quote which I think wonderfully reflects upon the gravity of it all. And I don't think it is from an extraordinarily US POV, honestly; I went to some trouble to make sure that nobody was painted as a villian or hero (because honestly, in my own POV of it, it wasn't the nations that were the problem, it was the whole system they had set up).
4. India's program was not completely indigenous but that is not really here or there. There should be more on the India/Pakistan as I noted but I don't think it's POV to classify their role in the overall history of nuclear weapons as proliferation. What would you suggest it be? I don't see how not signing the NPT gets one around of the fact that they are part of the weapons "proliferating" to other nations, whether or not they officially broke any treaties or not.
5. I agree about the map.
6. Yes, another section for that is in the works. International agreements, proliferation, etc.
7. There is a huge amount on nuclear doctrine in general -- I am not sure it is a good use of space to iterate each country's specific professed policies. I do not think it is the place of the article to necessary state how things "are now" -- that is for articles like Nuclear weapons and the United States which is a "current" rather than "historical" article.
8. Ditto, more or less. I feel like this sort of specific information should be relegated to other articles, such as List of countries with nuclear weapons and nuclear testing.
9. Proliferation section, again. Or do you find that term too POV? ;-)
10. Okay. You come up with good titles, I will use them. These things do not grow on trees.
11. Proliferation/terrorism/"the state of things today"/etc. section to be added. Though I don't know what Al Qaeda's plans are -- do you? I know of some people who'd be interested. ;-)
So yes -- I am trying to improve this article, though it takes a lot of TIME. Each of those large sections is about four hours worth of work to write from scratch, to source, to find all sorts of little details so that it is not just overly general. And then it will need editing to make it more concise again. Anyone who wants to help is most welcome. You can see the article's talk page for more of that. --Fastfission 29 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)
The page is a whopping 53kb. Parts of it have to be summarised. The prelude is unimportant. It details the history of radioactivity, not weapons. If I was interested in reading about nuclear technology, I would rather read the main nuclear article. Just mention here when radioactivity was discovered and who thought of the use in warfare. That's all that's needed here. That was paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 should detail the WW2 and the Manhattan project. It should be a summary. Hiroshima and Nagasaki should follow it. Then the rest of the article, summarise it. Details should be kept in sub articles.
Granted, the two superpowers dominated the scene in the cold war, but extraneous details from the two should be summarised, and other countries' coverage increased.
The Cuban Missile Crisis: Refer to this phrase: On October 28, the Soviet ships stopped at the quarantine line and, after some hesitation, turned back towards the Soviet Union. Khrushchev announced that he had ordered the removal of all missiles in Cuba, and U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk was moved to comment, "We went eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just blinked.". It’s a clear US POV. The article on the Cuban Missile Crisis is much more neutral. This text gives a reader that the Soviets chickened out, when that was not the case. It was Kennedy who accepted the deal to remove the Jupiter missiles before Khrushchev called back the ships. No doubt the CMC is a very important point, but it should be a summary, again.
India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea's programmes: adequate coverage should be given to all nations.
Put details of the tests conducted & total warheads into a simple table. Basic doctrine can also be included. Eg. USA, Russia and Pak have first-use. India has no-first-use.
Yes, I find the term proliferation a POV.
Al-Quida plans to make use of dirty bombs. Local area, max damage. Iran's recent developments should also be included.
Cut the length of the article. Its too long. You can take your time, but this needs to go through the Peer review first. Its a little to hasty to feature this in the current draft. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 30, 2005 09:18 (UTC)
Listen, I am not going to write long replies here anymore, go to the article's talk page if you are interested in helping out or being the critic. I think my idea for the article will produce a far superior piece of work once it has all been put together and edited down. Yours would be a list of facts. I prefer coherent narrative history in "History of..." articles. It is meant to be able to be read straight through by someone with only a minimal knowledge of the subject, they will not have to scurry around Wikipedia for all of the explanations unless they want details. Wait until the page is done, or help with it, before you comment on what is or is not there. It is incomplete, as I have said. Proliferation simply means the acquisition of nuclear weapons -- I don't see the POV. When the UK got weapons, it was proliferation. When Pakistan got weapons, it was proliferation. No difference in my mind. I've never seen someone object to it as POV before, it is a common scholarly term. --Fastfission 30 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)
That's Ok. Just address my concerns and let me know once you've finished. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 1, 2005 13:36 (UTC)
  • Comment: Currently the article says "See the main articles at History of physics, Nazi Germany, and World War II." Isn't "Main articles: History of physics, Nazi Germany, and World War II." the standard? - Mgm|(talk) June 28, 2005 07:25 (UTC)
  • Object the article is deeply Amerocentric. There is virtually nothing on the French, Chinese, and British nuclear programs. There is some good content on the Soviet program, but much less than on the American one. The section title ==Red cloud on the horizon== is also clearly expressing a Western POV. - SimonP June 28, 2005 15:12 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, a section on these will be added. I am not sure why "Red cloud on the horizon" expresses a Western POV -- do you mean a non-Russian one? Why not? They too saw the idea of a Red Bomb as being on the horizon -- they just thought it was a positive thing! I think it is a Western POV which interprets a sentence like that as POV, but anyway, if you have a better title that is not something bland ("Soviet bomb") and does a little better for the narrative structure of the article, please feel free to add it. The article is meant to be able to read straight through, or in individual sections, which are thematic while also being chronological. But yes, the British, Chinese, French, etc. Except that on at least two of these not much is known, and how they have played out in the overall history in other than a relatively minor role is not clear to me (they don't embody any of the "big themes" in my reading of it, but I'm open to suggestions). The British are interesting because they wanted an independent deterrent from the U.S. The French are interesting because they felt it necessary to join the club also, and also because they tested quite a lot. The Chinese are interesting because they wanted to join the club and thought they could get help from the USSR but then they couldn't and so they just made it independently, more to ward off the USSR than the USA, but eventually also with the ability to ward off the USA. These are my readings, anyway -- all of which would fit under a "proliferation" section, i.e. "who else makes weapons and why", which is always a "reactive" sort of action (they make one, so we make one, so they make one, etc.). So anyway, any thoughts on that would be appreciated on the talk page. --Fastfission 29 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)
  • Object. Per Nichalp and SimonP above. Phils 28 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is still in progress, though I haven't had time to work on in awhile. Hence it immediately drops you off into nothing in the last two sections. And yes, it needs to be edited down a bit in places. It'll get there, but it's not there yet... if you look at the talk page, you can see my overall plan for it (I have been rewriting it from scratch over time) -- I'd love for contributors willing to help write new copy! --Fastfission 29 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Good article in whole, but some parts and pictures are redundant. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:43:14 (UTC)

Jean Schmidt[edit]

Self nom. Profile of the Republican nominee for Congress in the Second District of Ohio, running to replace Rob Portman, who resigned in April. Photos, notes, and a pretty complete bio, I hope. PedanticallySpeaking 14:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I put a couple pictures to the left. PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 16:36 (UTC)
  • Comment. The number of external links is absolutely overwhelming. Some are unecessary (links to her hometown's website, and the websites of the local clubs and comittees she is in) and at the very least should be moved out of the text into an External Links section. Some external links on the other hand act as pointers to the source for specific statements: these should be made into footnotes. Otherwise a solid article, although the subject is not really spectacular (no I won't object on grounds that it isn't "spectacular" :D). Phils 08:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since we do not have a Miami Township article, I wanted people to be able to go to its site, especially as Schmidt is proud of having lived there her whole life. Second, the organizations are unlikely to have articles written about them here and I wanted people to be able to go to them. I didn't know what the 20/20 Committee was until I looked at the site. Why go through the duplicitative effort of creating footnotes? Everything's already in the bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 16:36 (UTC)
Footnotes detailling where the info came from makes it possible to track back the source even after the document pointed to by the URL is modified/goes down, and are useful in case the article is printed out. I feel at least our FAs should be print-ready. Phils 29 June 2005 19:48 (UTC)
  • Support; at least on a cursory glance, this looks quite good. Everyking 22:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. All the photographs in the article are claimed as "copyrighted fair use". Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so images that are not under a free-content license should be avoided if at all possible. (Note that I'll be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)
    • Might I suggest emailing her -- Jean (at) JeanSchmidt.com -- and asking her to give us a GFDL'd picture? →Raul654 July 3, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Gay Niggers Association of America[edit]

Despite of being a great article about a piece of internet culture, it is unfairly going through its sixth VFD. They even tried to change the rules so that they'd have more of a chance to delete it, but wikipedians just seem to like it too much. (Nomination by 83.131.11.55 (talk · contribs))

Would like to second this FAC nomination, but only once the VfD is complete. For the time being, this is being closed down. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
  • Object, since it needs to be cleaned up, expanded. We need to see what is really true and what really is a hoax. There is many things we have to add to this. I suggest sending this to Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)
  • If an article you've nominated for deletion on VfD is not deleted...
    • do reconsider whether your nomination was justified.
    • don't frivolously nominate the same article for featured article status.
      • It's going through VFD and Peer Review right now to find out how to fix the article and how to make it work. This FAC, to me, is pointless, since it is going through those processes now. That is why I said it is a bad faith nomination (which is a term used a bunch on Wikipedia.) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
  • Object. The very presence of this article on Wikipedia is evidence of systemic bias, due to self-selection of editors from a pool made up entirely of Internet users, in favor of Internet subcultures and other phenomena with no relevance in the real world outside of the 'net. Kaibabsquirrel 9 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
    • Though I am objecting to this article, but if this is really a FAC debate, this will be considered inactionable. Raul654, the admin who watches these pages, said that any article that survives a VFD can be considered to be FAC's. We do have articles that are featured that deal with subjects not in the real world, such as Dalek and Link. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)
  • Object, still subject to VFD which means it's not stable by a long shot. - Mgm|(talk) July 9, 2005 07:53 (UTC)
  • Support once this survives its eleventeenth round on VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been closed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John III of Portugal[edit]

This candidate article is a fine work that needs just some adjustements because it was translated from Portuguese. The objective is to improve. --Joao Campos 17:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object.
    1. Image:Lisbon 16thcentury.jpg, Image:Portuguese flag 1495.gif, Image:Portuguese elm.jpg, Image:Macau oldmap.jpg have no copyright information.
    2. There are no references besides the 1911 Britannica.
  • --Carnildo 18:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to peer review. I'm sure the article has potential, but it has too many language problems to be ready for FAC. It needs a good copyedit, preferably by someone reasonably proficient in Portuguese, as there are a number of sentences that are hard to understand, e. g. The preparation for his sister's (Isabella, princess of Portugal) marriage with Charles V, made possible for John III to bold his alliance with the Emperor—what..? "Bold"? The paragraphs are too short throughout and need merging. Linking needs to address the readers' information needs (compare the linking of Emperor in the quoted sentence), there are formatting problems such as non-standard use of italics, and, well, as the nominator seems to be aware, the article needs a bit of a fixup altogether. Peer review is the place for that. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It has potential but it should have gone to PR first, as Bishinen wrote. Still, while it is here, this is a list of things to fix: 1) add references, 2) format lead to 3 paras and ensure it is a good summary 3) this is serious: this is supposed to be a biography, yet the entire 'The_Empire' section looks like it should be moved to History of Portugal! It is history with John's quotations. Move quote to Wikiquote, copy relevant part to History... article, incorporate rest into the article in section like 'John's policies' or sth similar 4) ilinks are missing - better red then none. From first few paras, I'd like to read on: Maria of Aragon, Portuguese theatre, Tomás de Torres, D. Diogo Ortiz de Villegas, Luís Teixeira, António de Castilho, Isabella, princess of Portugal, Catherine of Austria... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal[edit]

I self nominated this as a candidate because the article explains rather well the details, current problems and history of one of the largest man-made waterways in the world. Raskolnikov The Penguin 15:54, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

  • Refer to peer review--no references section. Also, on a quick read-through, the article is somewhat lacking in detail--for example, it fails to note any controversy over the treaty under which the U.S. surrendered control of the canal. Meelar (talk) 15:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. Apart from not having any general references, the article has specific unsourced quotations which need sourcing. Morwen - Talk 16:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support contingent on the resolution of Meelar and Morwen's objections. Good work, Raskolnikov. Tracing the history is not an easy task, especially in the space and organizational constraints of an encyclopedia article, and your work is a comprehensive overview. 172 | Talk 18:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    1. The image Image:Panama Canal Locks.jpg does not have copyright information.
    2. The images Image:Stamp-ctc-panama-canal-opens.jpg and Image:Panama canal.png are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, so fair use images should be avoided if at all possible.
  • --Carnildo 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For everyone's info, I recently came back from Panama and took WAY TOO MANY PICTURES of the Panama canal and placed them in the Commons. Most of them were so similar that I only bothered to put the ones I liked the most. You may want to take a look at them in case they are useful to the article. Especially the pictures Image:Ship passing through Panama Canal 02.jpg and Image:Ship passing through Panama Canal 01.jpg may be useful, even though there is already a picture of the Miraflores locks. There is no picture of the little trains that guide the boats though, as in Image:Trains guiding boats at Panama Canal.jpg. If slightly different shots are needed, I can see what I can find if you leave a message on my talk page. On other critiques, couldn't there be more on the French attempt at the canal (especially with the panama scandals article being as small as it is), on the exacerbation of the disease problem during construction when they believed the disease to be spread by rats and dug water-filled trenches around all the beds which only increased the mosquito population, and on the economic impact of the canal on the country currently? Some of it may be unncessary, but these are just suggestions. - Dozenist talk 03:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to peer review - an excellent start, but it needs references; it seems rather choppy in places, with one sentence paragraphs; and the lead section is too short. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a reference section and edited the return to Panama part (anonymously, I didn't see I wasn't logged in), also referred it to peer review, I'll work on the picture related problems. Raskolnikov The Penguin 00:29, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
  • Why are you putting this article on FAC and peer review at the same time?Borisblue 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jante[edit]

I am nominating this article. It is succinct and sexy. Please be open minded about women in heels.MikeLowryBadBoys 20:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2005&oldid=992004343"