Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2006

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


Ford Taurus[edit]

I'm nominating this artlcle again. The first time around, it got shot down. it has been vastly improved since then, and now I feel that it is ready for feature-hood. --Karrmann

  • Support. --Gmaxwell 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Karrman, this is a great article. --Chaos Reaver 17:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The prose is a bit rough in spots, but overall, a very good article. RyanGerbil10 19:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lots and lots of infoboxes. Are they really all necessary? They make the article look very cluttered and unclean. Would it be possible to turn all but the main infobox into text? —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 00:13 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't think so, all models seem to have differing specs. What is the general guideline overit for these kind of articles? Circeus 00:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article needs a massive copyedit for glaring Capitalization, speeling, and, grammar, errors. — Scm83x hook 'em 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Been copyedited. --Karrmann
  • strong oppose + commment. I don't think the article meets current FA standards (the ideal one), and here are some thoughts:
A. The prose is choppy and atrocious at times, and the article contains numerous spelling and grammar errors. In the design section, the word "they" refers to both the designers and other things, such as import models (the second sentence is especially terrible). There're ways to make this clear. Examples just in the first section:
1. Ford is a company, but is referred to as "they" many times. Bad grammar.
2. What are the "minor touch" here and there. This doesn't read professional at all.
3. Capitalization of adjective inside parantheses, wrong grammar. ex. "A"lmost.
4. Don't describe a build of car as "atrocious." It's not proper language for an article. Give specific reasons and description of the car to show your point would be better.
5. Why British spelling on American car language (ex. realising)? Not consistent with rest of articles at all.
6. This article needs heavy grammar checks, as there are too many puntuation, spelling, and syntax errors. Sentences don't follow a logic order thoughout the article. An FA should have none of those as a prerequisite.
B. Insufficient emphasis on design and production of the vehicle.
1. Lack of any significant engineering information regarding the article. They were more aerodynamic, or aesthetic purposes only?
2. After oil crisis, the American manufacturers sought "technologies." This is one of the worst sentences in the article. What technologies, oil crisis and aerodynamics, do what? To reduce drag? No explanations offered, and the sentence is totally out of place.
3. It's a car, where's information about gas mileage ratio?
4. Why is torque a welcoming addition for heavier wagons? We know torque in physics or in propeller crafts, but what's torque in a car?
5. Why is cooling problem thought to be at fault in 3.8?
C. The article is more or less a product or consumer guide.
1. Besides first section, all other sections are product description, and read alike, with the only difference being model make. What's the point, you could have just provided a link to other websites. And one of the website is a Taurus "Encyclopedia."
2. These sections read amateurish: Wow, this car has airconditioning, X model engine, blah blah blah. It takes lots of space to add these to the article, and are not put into context.
3. Why are some features in some model but not in others? Ford must have made some rationale to divide Taurus into many sub-classes, but the article does not provide reasons behind these decisions.
4. Overall these sections are like direct copy from consumer brochures, and it's not good when an article under consideration for FA has ONLY those facts.
5. Export model section is pretty insufficient, only cursory mentions of some weightless facts. Inability to expand Taurus to outside must be displeasing to Ford, any information?
Overall I don't think this article is ready. You can argue about the content, but at least the grammar of the article is very sub-par. The article contains more insufficiencies than the ones I listed, but those should give you some idea about the quality of the article. Anyways, feel free to bloviate. Temporary account 01:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it had some pretty glaring errors, like spelling "Ford" as "for" a few times leading to very confusing sentences, and pretty much a grammar or spelling error error in every sentence on average. I'm hardly a great copy editor but I've made a ton of fixes in the first section so far... I'm sure there are a lot left. --W.marsh 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Writing not good enough; there's even a prominent typo at the top of the first section. POV as currently worded in a few places (e.g., 'atrocious'); that's not encyclopedic language. Tony 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed (for the most part, I hope). —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I noticed the same issues as others have pointed out. Also has some issues with weasel words (like "many people argue"), and several unreferenced POV claims (I added a citation request to one of them). A good article certainly, but still needs some work... I've done a bit myself at least. --W.marsh 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now, per W.marsh and Temporary account. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as "brilliant prose" goes, it's lacking. As far as an interesting read, it's lacking. What's the impact of the Ford Taurus on the world? There's so much more the article could tell us. Matt Yeager (Talk?) 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

comment : for such a common object,there must be better pictures than some of those.--Technosphere83 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object The article is more narrative than encyclopedic. An example; the first paragraph of "Introduction and competition" needs a complete copyedit. "Ford was in a free fall tailspin. Their build quality was atrocious, and their sales were plummeting" feels opinionated. "Ford needed something, and they needed something fast" is POV and narrative. "They called in Tempo designer Jack Telnak, to create a car that would one-up Chrysler and General Motors while allowing the United States to finally be able to keep up with the imports from Japan and Europe" is very wordy. Similar opinions and wordiness appear in most of the later paragraphs. --Ataricodfish 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles Dickens[edit]

I think that I should nominate this article, because it seems someone must have forgot this great page existed. Malomeat 05:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Malomeat

Slight Object until the following concerns are addressed:

  • The lead and sections are well written, but the lead should be split into 2-3 paragraphs and the body sections should be split into subsections where possible.
  • More references should be cited.
  • There seems to be disagreement about a Shakespeare reference on the talk page. If indeed there is any conflict, it needs to be resolved.
    • [Nope, conflict long dead - newbie upset about his edit being changed, but I'm the other "party" and am not that bothered, so newbie's edit stands. JackyR 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)]
  • The article could use a few more images to break up the text. Perhaps one of Dickens as a child? The guidelines say that images are not a prerequisite for FA status, but if it is possible, we should do it.

These are my most immediate concerns, and some of them I can begin working on myself. If they can be resolved, you have my support. --Danaman5 06:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object; as above. Also, the (two, which is insufficient anyway) references don't use any real referencing format, not MLA, not APA, not Harvard, not... anything, so far as I can see. It just has a link with a brief discription of what the link is, no author or date or publisher or anything. Please include more information with the references as well. Fieari 22:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom[edit]

I feel that since this article is both well-written and informative on the reign of Queen Elizabeth II that it should be our next featured article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fading Light (talkcontribs) 01:24, March 20, 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There are a number of reasons to oppose this article, but the most notable are (a) insufficient referencing and (b) because she is still Queen. As long as she is Queen, the article is not stable enough to become an FA; this was also an argument used in opposition to other FAs for current politicians or world leaders. Citations, preferably footnotes, are also needed so that the article is verifiable. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 20 March 2006 @ 03:14 (UTC)
Tony Blair is a featured article even though he is the incumbent Prime Minister. --Terence Ong 11:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree on this point. I've always assumed that the 'stability' requirement meant that there isn't still huge debate and revert-warring going on over the article (which would obviously mean that a featured article might rapidly change to junk) - but I don't imagine it means that subjects where real-world facts are still being accumulated can't be FA's - that would exclude a large number of important topics from ever being featured. (However, there are sufficient other reasons to Oppose - so this is a moot point) SteveBaker 15:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Steve and Terence. Saying we can't have FAs on living politicans or heads of state is like insisting we should only have FAs on extinct languages. And Elizabeth II isn't really all that controversial to begin with.
Peter Isotalo 15:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (a) Four of the images have unacceptable copyright status - all of the others are listed as 'fair use'. (b) Definitely insufficient references. There must be a bazillion books written on this subject - there is no excuse for not using them to back up the facts in this lengthy article. SteveBaker 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The above reasons other users stated concern me. The article has lack of sources and references and is not very well written after all. This article definitely needs more improvement, and sources must be verifiable. --Terence Ong 11:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I Believe in You[edit]

Note: The article in question has been moved to I Believe in You (Kylie Minogue song) to create a disambiguation page.

I believe that this article is worthy of being a featured article: it is well written, comprehensive, referenced, neutral and stable, and complies with the WP:MOS. It uses three images: two of single covers and one of the music video, and they have "acceptable copyright status". I really believe that this article meets the FA criteria -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(this is a self-nomination) -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • tentative support this is a pretty short but nice article about a single... I'm not sure I can say more than that but it appears to meet the FA criteria besides a couple unreferenced things which the submitter appears to be working on. Just another star in the night T | @ | C

01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support. Like other FAs about songs, this article needs a section detailing the release of the songs, versions, etc. RyanGerbil10 02:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think the article it is well written and comprehensive. I'll try to help expand certain sections, but as of right now I think the article is very informative. — Underneath-it-All 02:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I think the article needs work. There is a great deal of passive voice, especially in the short lead, as "is" or "was" is the verb in every sentence (In particular, the phrase "The song was ..." is used often). There are weasel word phrases and opinions, such as;
"The song takes its inspiration from 70s disco and 80s electro-pop music, and has been descibed as a nod to 80s band New Order." -- i.e., who described it as 80's New Order?
"The chorus is recognized as the highlight of the song..." is also an opinion -- who recognizes it as a highlight?
"The collaboration with Shears and Babbydaddy was seen as an unlikely collaboration." -- Seen by who?
"The music video has been compared to Dannii Minogue's music video for "I Begin To Wonder"." -- Who has compared it?, and so on.
The article is much too short, with paragraphs of only one or two sentences. There is also nothing which shows why this song is notable -- how did the recording process go? Why was it a "unlikely collaboration"? How has this song advanced / declined her career? After these additions and a peer review, I'll be glad to evaluate the article again, but as it stands, it needs considerable work. --Ataricodfish 06:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've sourced/removed your four weasel word points and added a bit about how the song returned Minogue to popularity in the American dance market. The song is notable because it is a charting single release from Kylie Minogue -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the article is still very much incomplete and needs tremendous work. Take a look at something like Real Love (song) or Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) for examples of more complete Featured Articles on songs. The articles tell the motivation for writing the song, how the songs were recorded, why, and how they were influental to the performer's career. After reading the article, I fail to see how the song is important besides it being just another song Kylie recorded. Also, there should probably be some book sources, or at least something besides Internet links. My objection remains, and I would recommend that you place the article in Peer Review first as, despite your good intentions and admiration of Kylie, it's not ready for FA yet. --Ataricodfish 03:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object The article is far too short and lacking in detail to be a featured article. In fact, without the charts and track listings the article would be almost laughingly short. In addition, was there any cultural impact from the song? The article also lacks bio info on the singer and lots more.--Alabamaboy 19:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the article lacks bio info on the singer"? Kylie Minogue is covered in the main Kylie Minogue article. I am not sure if you want me to bring some of that information into this article? -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The article should still have some bio info about Minogue, along with a Main article link to the main article on her. If needed, bring a bit (not all) of the main article stuff into this article. Please note, though, that this is a minor issue with the article. The other issues I raised are more substantial.--Alabamaboy 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the article is too short.. I have expanded the "Composition" and the "Chart performance" sections. And I do not believe that the single has impacted any cultures (it only reached the top five in most european countries) -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. An overall short and choppy article. The prose is uncompelling: there is no flow or variance of sentence structure. Almost every sentence (especially in the lead) begins with "The song...". Secondly, the article fails the comprehensive section of the FA criteria. Not once does it discuss the history behind the music: the studio sessions, etc. Moreover, while it does talk of the "music", there is still a lot to discuss: the theme of the lyrics, the key in which the song is set (major or minor), the melody, time signature, the song structure (does it follow the verse-chorus form, AABA? etc) The writers quoted lyrics, but why? They have not discussed it indepth, nor have they commented on its strenght/weakness. It seems to be there to take up space. Thirdly, the article is poorly sourced. Just 6 sources are included, most of which are critical appreciation. The rest of the article that discusses "song composition" is not sourced (except for a quote), and if left this way, could be construed as original research. Fourth, there is a picture at music video, but how does it contribute significantly to the article? The caption reads something like "a scene from the video"(not a direct quote). However, you need to use that pic to help show something notable about the video. In its current state, it's there just for decoration. Good attempt, but this article needs much —and I do mean "much"— more work to be considered ready. I suggest peer review. I really hope the writers dont get discouraged; it has potential. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have changed up the intro and there are now eleven sources, and I have changed the caption of the picture. I fully understand your second point and I will try and improve on that when I'm not busy. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted to improve on the discussion of the "music" (composition section). I hope I've done it right, I don't have much experience in that area. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
CommentI'm sorry, but no, you certainly have not. What you did was a direct cut and paste of the "music and structure" section of "We Belong Together", slightly altering text to "fit" your article, and I must say, I'm a bit disappointed: 1) its like reading a mirror article/total rip-off of "We Belong together", which is really weird, since the content in that article was written by yours truly, and 2) the text does not fit in another article, especially this one. You could have atleast altered the words just to make it less obvious. Moreover, unlike WBT, none of the new info in your article sourced, which brings us right back to original research. Changed vote to "strong object." Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I used that format because I knew that WBT's article had a good "music/structure" section... I will alter the text further and find some more sources -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You could have used the same format without a direct copy and paste. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I know FACs can be brutal, and the objectors can be a real pain in the ass, but please just hang in there ok? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment→ I have realized that with the addition to the music section comes a deterioration of prose and coherence. Examples:
  • ""I Believe in You" includes three sections of melodies, each with Minogue in slightly different emotions" — I just don't get what this sentence is saying. "Three sections of melodies"? Also, what are the different emotions?
  • "This melody is maintained throughout the song, except for occasional pauses for Minogue's verses" —poor musical explanation.
  • "Written and recorded for Ultimate Kylie during the summer of 2004 in London, the song takes its inspiration from disco and 80s new wave electro-pop music and has been descibed as similar to 80s band New Order. This is evident in the rhythm of the song: the song opens with a keyboard playing the choral melody in a 4/4 time signature." —Does the fact that the song opens with a keyboard in a 4/4 time signature means that it is inspired by 80s disco? How come?
  • "During the second section, she lowers her tone and sings in a sweet voice" — are you implying that she was singing in a higher pitch in the first verse? Also, who said her voice was "sweet", you or a critic?
  • ""Nothing lasts for ever, but together til the end, I'll give you everything I have again and again," Minogue sings during the bridge of the song." — what is notable about this section that merits a quote/special mention? I would really advise that you do some research. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support -I'm a firm believer in article length not always having anything to do with quality, and on quality grounds it's there. However, I DO have a problem with 3 fair use images. The cover should stay, the music video, noted for it's effect, is beautifully illustrated. The alternate cover, however, adds precisely nothing to the article and stretches fair use. It needs to be dumped. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 02:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess you're right. I've removed the alternate cover image -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 02:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
And now you get full support -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object please have the article peer reviewed first. Zzzzz 09:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Reads like a well-written fan piece rather than the 1-in-1100 that is a Featured Article. There's even typos (which I'm fixing as I find them). Should be peer reviewed first. --kingboyk 13:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There are multiple typos throughout the article and the subject ("I Believe in You") is incorrectly spelling in several places, where "in" appears capitalized. The chart trajectories need to be removed and replaced with a graph similar to those included in We Belong Together and Cool (song). In addition, where is the information on the music? What chord is it in? What is the time signature? Are there any bass guitars, a piano, or even a clarinet? Refer the article to peer review. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment- I would advise any author to ditch the graph style. It takes up more memory and is less exact then a chart. Considering We Belong Together did not make it, I'd also advise any author to take ideas from that article with a grain of salt. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment— Just because an article did not make it, that does not mean that it cannot be used as a model. Most of the objections were on image copyright and a few instances of poor prose, not comprehensiveness nor content. i.e. it can be used. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - should be very careful about quoting lyrics. They are copyright and governed by the same fair use rules as images and sound samples. If lyrics are to be quoted there must be a reason and they must be discussed in sufficient depth, that the inclusion of an extract from the lyrics is necessary. This is not the case here. Two sizeable chunks of lyrics are reproduced and I can't see any reason for it. One section is just there - no explanation - is it just for decoration? What is the point you are trying to make with these lyrics? The other bit is where Kylie sings "in a sweet voice" (whatever that means) and in this context whatever lyrics she is singing is irrelevant as the point seems to be about her "sweet voice". Please remove these. Rossrs 00:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II[edit]

A concise-yet-comprehensive look at a Cold War icon, stable, went through a peer review. This is somewhat of a self-nomination as I did a significant rewrite of the article but it is heavily based on contributions from members of WikiProject Aircraft - Emt147 Burninate! 05:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

While I might generally support it, for the time being I have to oppose based upon the fact that this article is not comprehensive. Several important variants, such as the F-4G, are missing. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
All Phantom variants including both F-4Gs are in F-4 Phantom II variants. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but the F-4G was a very important variant, and was the last variant in USAF service. IMHO it warrants at least a cursory mention in the main article. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The same argument can be made for Vietnam era flying ace rides, etc. To maintain some semblance of NPOV, all variants are given equal treatment. Besides, the F-4G was not the last USAF service variant -- QF-4s and German-owned F-4Fs are. But your comments are noted, thank you. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV? This isn't a political discussion on the F-4. It's simply the fact the F-4G warrants at least a cursory mention. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it was an important variant but so were the others. I tried to present a balanced overview with US forces given the same space as international users. The whole idea is to give an overview of the aircraft with the gory details spared for the variants page. You are more than welcome to integrate the F-4G into the text if you feel its important -- I don't claim exclusive ownership over the page. :) - Emt147 Burninate! 06:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
One may argue that the other users were just as important, but bear in mind where 80% of the production was used. Therefore, DoD usage should dominate the article. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. I invite you to make the edits you suggested -- the Phantom is extremely difficult to write about concisely. This whole discussion belongs on the article talk page now, sorry 'bout the mess everyone! - Emt147 Burninate! 07:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now considerably expanded the section on US military service. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Support Clear up the redlinks, and it's a good article. I have made a start but I have to go now. --The1exile 08:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Though alluded to, I'm not clear why it's called Phantom II. Can a section descibing the letter variants be added? Such as what was different in A, D, S, etc? Coffeeboy 13:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a separate big page (linked from the article) describing all the variants in some detail. The Phantom had so many that keeping them all on the main page makes for an extremely long article. Thanks for your comments. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't answer why it's called Phantom II, not just Phantom. Rlevse 12:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
McDonnell FH-1 Phantom of WWII fame got there first. Not sure where to mention this, but it really should be somewhere in the article. Any suggestions? - Lordandmaker 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It is is the article, in the section about naming of the Phantom. - Emt147 Burninate! 14:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes. So it is. I presumed it wasn't, given the above question. Lordandmaker 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you concerned there are too few in-line citations? Because they certainly are there. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, the inline citations are in the parentheses. I would prefer if they are converted into footnotes, perhaps using the Cite.php style. AndyZ 14:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is in direct contradiction to WP:Cite which states that footnotes for inline referencing are depreciated in favor of the Harvard system. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If I may ask, where does it say this? I have been using the new <ref>/</ref> style in many of my articles, especially ones that have reached FA status. Good work on the article, btw. Very interesting and well written! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Says so right on WP:CITE although as you can see I've given in and started using cite.php as well. :) - Emt147 Burninate! 06:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Appears to be fixed.Comment Nice but there's still POV and it needs good copyedit. --PopUpPirate 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you please be specific about what is POV? Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 03:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
"Amazingly flexible, the Phantom easily expanded its original air defense role" and "Eager to show off their new fighter", just needs toning down a bit --PopUpPirate 12:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems fixed, changed to support --PopUpPirate 14:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The history is written mainly as one big block of text, and I know that there were several distinct periods of use, so it's very hard to get a chronological perspective on it. Also, seconding the issue of POV, (looking at "Either devoutly loved or passionately hated by those who flew it and worked on it, the Phantom gathered a number of nicknames during its illustrious career." here) and the need for citations, plus there should be at least an overview of the major variants in the main article. Night Gyr 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'll work on the POV, variant summary, and chronology. What exactly is the issue with citations -- too few? I hope it's not a footnote problem because per WP:Cite footnotes for referencing are out and the Harvard system (which is what I used) is in. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a brief summary of the variants. If someone can explain to me their beef with the inline citations as they stand right now I'll gladly work on that as well. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it says you can use Harvard or footnotes. Rlevse 13:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
But it also says footnotes are depreciated. - Emt147 Burninate! 16:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It says many style guides have deprecated them. It does not deprecate them on wiki. And besides, I hate the /reference style as it makes it hard to read when you're in edit mode. I much prefer ref/note system. Rlevse 18:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll work on converting the inline citations. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I love them, because you can easily split the article, and you can easily reorganise the text (try moving one whole section to be before another section with {{ref}} and {{note}}. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I have converted the article to footnote citations. Would appreciate any other feedback on getting it to FAC status (all the comments have been great, none of it came out in Peer Review unfortunately, so thanks for all your help!) - Emt147 Burninate! 04:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object (I read the current version as of this timestamp. I have no expertise or particular knowledge in this area.) The lead is succinct and informative. The writing as a whole is quite clear and easy enough to understand. Although a significant amount of listing is used (e.g. specs), the material and format didn't bother me. The reference sources seemed credible. However, I found clear problems with structure and organization, set out below, which have are mainly writing and comprehensiveness issues:
  • Main sections should have summaries: Specifically, the "Development", "Operational history" and "Phantom in foreign service" need introductory paragraphs, summarizing the content of these quite long and involved sections. It was hard keeping track of the details without an overview. This was most apparent in the first section, "Development", which immediately launched into the "Super Demon" subsection, while the next subsection is "Phantom originas" -- this was confusing. Also, the "World record breaker" subsection seems maybe out of place, belonging perhaps in a Perfomance section (see also next point).
  • Organizational problems with the "Operational history" section The account of use in the various US military services was fine, until the final subsection, USAF. Here, the last paragraph dealing with general (air combat?) performance, doesn't quite fit the reading flow, and seems better suited to a separate "Performance" section. And the last paragraph of the section, separated by a horizontal rule, seemed quite out of place: it deals with Air Force and Navy demo teams, it should be incorporated properly.
  • Comprehensivenss problems with "Phantom in foreign service" The lead says the F-4 "remains on active duty in several countries to this day", however, that is not clearly followed up here; of the listed countries, it is not explicitly stated which are still using it. And the brief intro to the section is vague. There is no explanation of why these countries were selected and covered in some depth, and others not even mentioned. Which other countries have F-4s, or why is it not important to know? Also, the info for a couple of those mentioned is very thin (South Korea, Spain), compared to the others, and dates are used inconsistently (some things are dated, some aren't.)
  • Inconsistent use of inline citations - The inline restraint is...commendable (this article could've been a horrifying mess of citations), and I think all of the general technical and deployment info is best left to the general refs. However, where inlines were and weren't used is confusing. Certain details that seem similar to other info elsewhere are cited, others aren't. And statements where citations seem most appropriate have none, for example, "By far, the biggest weakness of the F-4", "the anecdote ... has no substance", "... then shot down, apparently by an AIM-7 Sparrow".
  • A "Performance" section - This is more of a suggestion, mentioned above, and it is partially covered in "Operational history", but IMO a separate, brief Perfomance section, probably following development, would add a lot of interest and context for the more general reader.
  • Costs not mentioned There is no financial/economic coverage. At the very least, the cost of an F-4 in various configurations should be included.
Overall, I found the article quite good, a minor copyedit is needed, and some technical terms could use clarification, but those are relatively minor issues, compared to the above. --Tsavage 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for such a detailed and informative critique! I will work to address these issues. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Review update 18-Mar Some of the concerns I raised have been well-addressed, others not touched. I haven't gone struck anything in the review above, but overall, while improved, enough concerns still stand for me to maintain my objection. If this stays here for several more days, I'll check again. Thanks. --Tsavage 01:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I lack the references to address some of the concerns you raised (e.g. cost, current usage figures... my most recent sources are from 2001). Foreign users will be uneven by virtue of different use of the Phantom, e.g. Israeli Phantoms saw extensive modifications and combat while Spanish Phantoms were simply second-hand aircraft with no stories (that I know of) to tell. The World Record Breaker section very much belongs -- beating 16 world records was part of the Phantom's development cycle (as it is for all record-holding production aircraft). Most citations are placed at the end of sections or paragraphs to indicate that they apply to all of the above material. Two performance sections would be redundant and against WP:Air MoS. Thank you for following up on your critiques. Unfortunately, someone with better references would be needed to fill out the gaps. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I doubt this will be passed this time round, but for reference for your next attempt, the lead section should be three paragraphs long, summarizing the content of the article, by the standards set out in WP:LEAD. I believe that the very short lead accounted for why the right aligned TOC was being used... I agree, with such a short lead, the usual TOC does look ugly. But that's one reason for having the propper sized one. Additionally, the various sections for each of the other countries are very stubby, and should either be expanded, or consolidated. Fieari 19:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • FYI, right-aligned TOC is not depreciated -- there was no consensus last time I checked. The TOC takes up more than a full screen height at 1024x768 and right-aligning it creates a reasonable article rather than a page and a half of blank screen. Guidelines in WP:LEAD are for maximum length not recommended length -- this article adheres to WP:Air MoS. See my response to Tsavage above for the countries. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article". Appropriate length. We're not saying the article should be deleted if it doesn't fit, or that it needs immediate cleanup attention as in the case of NPOV issues, but if it doesn't meet standards, it won't be featured. I still have issues with a right aligned TOC. Users come to expect a certain placement, and making things as usual makes it easier to read an article -- when things are in their propper place, you don't have to think about them as much. Raul is free to disagree with my vote on the point of the TOC, but I'll flat-out refuse to support an article that uses it, except in extrodinary circumstances, which I don't believe this article merits. As I said, expand the lead, condense the sections (or expand and then split using summary style) and it won't be so ugly. Note, "The TOC should not be longer than necessary, whether it is floated or not." If you're floating it simply because it's so long, than it's probably too long in the first place. Fieari 07:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

First Council of Nicaea[edit]

I believe that the great changes that this article has undergone since it was withdrawn from candidacy last year (see here) indicate that it's time may well have come. I also believe that all of the then-current objections have been addressed. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous debate archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Council of Nicaea/archive
  • Comments
    • The box at the beginning is awfully wide and squeezes the lead unattractively.
      • Wholeheartedly agree withbox ugliness. Was WP:BOLD and edited it myself. Hopeit looks better now.
    • Second paragraph of the lead begins with a too long sentence.
    • Is the term "Character" as used in the section heading normal for this topic? I'm aware of the sense it's being used in, but seems odd to me. Not sure what I'd replace it with though.
    • The one-sentence paragraphs (such as under "Attendees" and "The Nicene Creed (symbol)") should be expanded or consolidated.
    • It's not clear what "A special prominence was also..." has to do with "Attendees".
    • Standardize citations -- a couple footnotes, at least one parenthetical, and an external link
  • Tuf-Kat 06:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Looks good; appropriate use of illustration, generally well-written prose. However, some of the sections could use a little more detail, for example the section on 'Character' in particular could be expanded. Furthermore, all the red links need to be removed, as they are generally considered to be annoying clutter and are off-putting to some readers. A good, concise conclusion needs to be written to summarise and evaluate the topics covered by the article. Also a few more footnotes would be helpful. If some effort is put into addressing these relatively minor issues, I would consider changing my comment to a support. Bigdaddy1204 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Looks fine to me, from a language point of view. Tony 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose on a few issues:

  1. Notes should be in numerical order in the text and in the notes list, ie the first not in the article shouldn't be note 4.
  2. Html links in text need to be converted to notes and fully cited for future reference
  3. There are "harvard style" cites fro sources texts like: According to Duchesne (Revue des questions historiques, xxviii. 37); that could also be converted to notes.
  4. Only the first word in a section heading should be capitalised (unless it's a propper noun) see MoS
  5. The format of the list in "other problems" is inconsistent with other lists in the article, the first words should probably be capitalised.
  6. The lead is not a summary of the article and contiains information that only appears in the lead. it is also (probably) too long considering the articles length. I would suggest moving most of the information on the historical significance to the body of the article (where there is currently no mention of this) and adding some detail on Councils that followed and the impact this council had on the church.
  7. There are lots of short paragraphs that could be merged into related paragraphs.

--nixie 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments - Oh dear - why is there a {{POV-section}}? And are the items in your "Bibliography" section references? If so, please call them such. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Content disputes need to be settled before an article attempts FAC. Durova 07:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK article, but one comment I have is that it is written (correctly) that "No follower of Arius could say these words as a profession of faith." It would be nice to say why - I know why, but then again I did a course on Church History at Bible college. Outsiders most likely won't know — I fear that the average uninformed reader (this is why they read our encyclopedia you know!) won't know why this is the case without a bit of background. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Further to this, another issue is that it needs to be made very clear why the idea that Jesus was of one substance from the Father was so crucial to the debate. It should also be made clearer about the debate over the term "Homoousian" and why this was so crucial. Again this would be dealt with both by a brief overview of the Arian controversy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: what is a conciliar letter and what is a circular letter? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Blue Man Group[edit]

Informative article about a group that not many people know about. Most remember them from the Intel commercials, and people need to be informed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripod2282 (talkcontribs)

  • Object: The lead isn't an overview. References. Would refer to WP:PR. Kaisershatner 15:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: The main image has no copyright tag (image now tagged to indicate this fact); no references given. Schutz 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, not enough referencing.--Fallout boy 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: "A total ripoff of the Smurfs if you ask me" – Homer Simpson. OK, back to serious mode. All above objections, plus the whole thing is rather uneven. Has too much of that "indiscriminate collection of facts" feel to it that we should absolutely avoid putting the gold star on. As I say elsewhere, this is a beginning, not an end. Daniel Case 04:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, as above. Specifically the "indiscriminate list of facts" thing. "Appearances and other work" is particularly a bad offender here, and really needs to be rewritten as flowing prose. Fieari 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First French Empire[edit]

Partly self-nom, as I've done various bits of work on this, over time. — OwenBlacker 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strongly object, as the current article has massive POV and stylistic issues (stemming, I suspect, from the almost unaltered sections of text from the 1911). A selection of some of the more flagrant examples:
    • "But Napoleon little knew the flame he was kindling. No more far-seeing than the Directory or the men of the year III, he thought that, with energy and execution, he might succeed in the Peninsula as he had succeeded in Italy in 1796 and 1797, in Egypt and in Hesse, and that he might cut into Spanish granite as into Italian mosaic or 'that big cake, Germany'."
    • "Napoleon's formidable material power could not stand against the moral force of the pope, now a prisoner at Fontainebleau; and this he did not realise."
    • "Napoleon himself was no longer the 'General Bonaparte' of his campaign in Italy. He was already showing signs of physical decay; the Roman medallion profile had coarsened, the obese body was often lymphatic. Mental degeneration, too, betrayed itself in an unwonted irresolution."
    • "At Eylau, at Wagram, and later at Waterloo, his method of acting by enormous masses of infantry, artillery and cavalry, in a mad passion for conquest, and his misuse of his military resources, were all signs of his moral and technical decline"
    • "Napoleon had hardly succeeded in putting down the revolt in Germany when the tsar of Russia himself headed a European insurrection against the ruinous tyranny of the continental blockade"
    • "Napoleon made a desperate effort in 1812 against a country as invincible as Russia"
Frankly, this article needs to be completely rewritten, using somewhat more varied and modern sources. —Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy IV[edit]

This article has been transformed in the last few months, with an extensive peer review, it represents a huge amount of collaboration and time well spent. It is comprehensive, well referenced, concise, with images that directly relate and add the the article discussions I submit, for your approval, Final Fantasy IV for featured article status. Judgesurreal777 22:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support I see no major issues. Deckiller 03:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Looks better, but I still see some issues. (1) In the sentence about Uematsu's music tours, "in proof of which" sounds awkward. (2) Brian does raise some valid points below. I'm not sure how much print material is available on Final Fantasy IV, but, even on the web, there's more material to be incorporated. The Reception section in particular can be fleshed out. What in particular made FFIV highly acclaimed? More material can be found here: [1], [2]. (3) Footnote 8 doesn't seem to support the corresponding assertion that it follows. (4) It occurred to me that some of the lead is probably too much detail into the release history. Could some of that be moved down into the "Development history" section and the lead changed to be a broader overview of the entire article? — TKD::Talk 05:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Structure and content look good, from my perspective. However, the writing could use polishing in spots:
    • "Gameplay in Final Fantasy IV is standard computer role-playing game fare; characters traverse an overworld to fulfill requirements of various quests, using towns to replenish strength, buy new equipment, and discover clues, all the while fighting monsters at random intervals.": Grammatically, dashes should be used to separate off "using towns to replenish strength, buy new equipment, and discover clues", since that phrase contains embedded commas, but that impairs the flow of the writing too much, so I'd suggest somehow breaking up this sentence for better clarity.
    • "On the moon, Cecil meets FuSoYa, who explains to him that he is descended from a race known as Lunarians.": Here it is unclear whether "he" refers to Cecil or FuSoYa. Obviously, the subsequent sentences clarify this, but the reader shouldn't have to go that far to know what a pronoun refers to.
    • "In this incarnation of the series, many well loved pieces were composed, so much so that he continues to do concert tours of Final Fantasy and use pieces from this game.": Syntactically, the phrase "so much so" initially appears to refer to "composed", when it really refers to "well loved". Recast the sentence to make this clearer. Also, "In this incarnation of the series" probably isn't the right phrase; I'd suggest "For this game" or similar.
    • "Square was forced to drop plans for the Famicom game and to continue development of the Super Famicom title, which was retitled Final Fantasy IV.": "Title" twice in four words is a bit jarring.
    • "One of the first localization projects undertaken by Square's North American branch, many criticized the original North American Final Fantasy II for the poor quality of its English language translation.": This sentence has a dangling modifier; it needs to be clarified that the first part of the sentence refers to "Final Fantasy II", not "many".
— TKD::Talk 04:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I was planning on giving the article a good copyedit, but I'm "technically on Wikibreak", so my time is limited :) I'll see what I can do. Deckiller 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Just as a note, please do not strike other people's comments. It's up to them to do so. I personally don't consider this case a big deal, but others could take offense. I'll re-read the article later, when I have more time, and re-evaluate my comments then. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 01:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keeps getting better. Good work. The only really actionable comment that I have remaining is that I'd like to see the Reception and Development sections fleshed out more. know that at least a couple of the reviews went on about how the game's storyline and character development were fairly novel for RPGs at the time. I think that has to be mentioned as a starting point. — TKD::Talk 04:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. TKD raises some good points; the prose does need to be polished. Other than that, the article is in line with other video game FAs and I think with some polish it could be awarded both the honor of FA and my support vote. RyanGerbil10 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's got potential, but I have some concerns.
    • First, beginning with the "Development" section, the information is really sparse. More can be said about the development, certainly?
    • Similarly, the "Reception" section needs to be fleshed out. Where are the sales figures? Why aren't any of these reveiwers called by name? One paragraph is not enough for its own section.
    • The table of remakes is bulky and obtrusive and should be converted to prose.
    • Another concerns is the use of weasel words and unclear quotation. "Final Fantasy IV has been called one of the greatest video games of all time . . . ." Called by whom? Rephrase it as an active sentence to give more information about the source of that indirect quote. ". . . and is considered by many to be the popularizer of many common computer role-playing game features." "Considered by many" is a phrase that should set off warning bells in a reader's mind. Rephrase it to say exactly who considers it to be such.
    • Finally, the article is overly reliant on web sources. Do none of the print histories of video games mention this game? There is scholarly discussion of this game available, as this Google Scholar search shows. I also got a hit at Google Books. In short, the authors of this article need to do a bit more research and need to do it by doing a bit more than searching the web and playing the game. Granted, all of these additional sources I'm suggesting were found with a web search, but the print histories of video gaming might need to be found at the local library. :) — BrianSmithson 15:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Captions of images need to describe what the image is in addition to giving narratives WhiteNight T | @ | C 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But isn't it very clear what the images are in each case? It seems, to my eyes, that they ARE labeled as to what they are; clearly many are screenshots from the game, and the plot at which point they fall is explained precisely, and in the others where box art is used, this is also obvioius. And various versions are noted throughout. Could you explain? Thanks! Judgesurreal777 04:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • As example, the caption for the celtic nights (sp) remix soundtrack doesn't make it very apparent that it really is a remix soundtrack - someone unfamiliar with the genre might think it is some kind of sequel to the game, maybe. Same thing with the FFII caption (is it a box, manual?)- note that there was a nintendo version of FFII that is entirely different. Maybe people disagree but I think they could be more descriptive in general which is what I'm trying to get at :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • How does it look now? :) 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • EXCELLENT! Thank you :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as the one red link there is fixed. When I last saw the article, a few weeks ago, it looked pretty messy. It has improved over the course of the month, so I say put it in. Crazyswordsman 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
One red link is fixed :) Judgesurreal777 22:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Objecting mostly on "Comprehensiveness" terms. In particular:
    • I'm wary of a couple of what seem to be "stubby" sections, including "Musical Score" and "Reception". Musical Score in particular could use some elaboration, I think, including reviews and opinions of the sound track alone. It could be made somewhat clearer that the two compilation albums listed were officially produced by Squaresoft, since I know there are independant bands that produce video game music. You could also mention "Project Majestic Mix" [3], one such independant release that was officially liscensed.
    • For the reception section, could you find any Japanese reviews of the game, instead of just the sale figures? Was it rereleased in Japan as well, and if so, what was the reception to that?
    • "Graphical improvements": I know there's more technical information that could be mentioned here, like the amount of memory used on the cartridge compared to other SNES games of the time.
    • I believe that the FFII information could be placed in its own section. It looks a little odd hanging off the remakes section after that chart like that. Either move the chart down, or give it a section heading, or both.
    • I believe that the lead section should consist of two paragraphs. After the expansions I've mentioned above though, this might require three.
    • I'd like a citation for FFIV being a "very linear game"... surely it's been quoted as such somewhere, right? I mean, by playing the game, it's obvious, but I'm wary of potential original research claims.
  • Hopefully these items can be improved. Great game, I just don't think the article is quite ready yet. Fieari 19:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - None of the references are to reliable secondary sources. -- Gnetwerker 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know about "none". Some of the sources are questionable, but I would think that IGN/GameSpy and GameSpot are reputable within the context of gaming. — TKD::Talk 02:48, 25 March 2006 (
      • The sources used in this article are found in other video game FA's, such as Super Mario 64. IGN, Gamespot and Gamespy are all in the Mario article, is simply a compilation of various major reviewers impressions of games, Majestic Mix states on their website that they have covered FFIV music which you can order on CD, as there is a direct reference to the creator of the FFIV emulation we linked to his website, and the few remaining are review publications, only one of which is reviewed by a user. For this to be actionable, please tell me, which source do you object to? :) 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Also, I want to make this clear: let's not turn this into a 30kb debate over resources. It should be fairly easy to find a few creditable sources to balance off the ones already up/replace shaky ones. Both sides better not go OCD over such a MINOR issue. — Deckiller 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Good point, but could you perhaps say which should go? Because I know what I think are the weak ones, but what has been objected to that must be replaced? Just want clarification :) No hard feelings here! Thanks much 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Just for the record, here's my stance: Gamespot, GameSpy, etc. are all perfectly fine for video games. They are the or AMG of video games. They are reliable for stats and examples, though other sources need to be included to balance things out. It's all a matter of balance, I feel; not only will including some more sources that some people consider "better" diversify the reference section, but everyone will be at a compromise. That's all I'll comment on for this unless I'm addressed directly. — Deckiller 04:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, I worked on the story section of this article, and my forte isn't necessarily references. That's about the extent I can provide, though I will shun any usage of fansites. — Deckiller 04:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The rpgfan and lostlevels sites are the only ones I'm kind of concerned about. The FFII bad translation is well-known enough that I think you'd probably be able to find it in a more reputable review. Not sure if the information used from lostlevels can be found elsewhere, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. I totally agree about IGN, GameSpy, and GameSpot beingf fine for gaming-related articles, and I have no intention of objecting over one possibly weak source, if that's the only issue. I would say that the more important thing is to flesh out the Development and Reception sections, as Brian noted above. — TKD::Talk 05:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:RS. To be a reliable secondary source, the source must have consulted multiple primary sources. A review of the sources used in this review shows that none of them provide references to other primary sources. Thus, they are themselves primary sources, and are not suitable for an encyclopedia, regardless of whether previous articles on videogames have gotten away with it. See Donkey Kong (arcade game) for an example of one that is done right, with appropriate secondary sources. -- Gnetwerker 18:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying what exactly your concern is; I had misinterpreted your original statement. First, I'm not sure that failure to cite multiple sources necessarily makes a source primary. Of course, it is preferable that a secondary source use multiple primary sources, and WP:RS states as much. However, that is not the sole criterion suggested for evaluating a source's reliability. Whether a source is primary or secondary is basesd on the context in which that source is used, not what it cites. I was always under the impression that, when writing about fiction, the fiction itself and sources closely relating to its creation/release (interviews with the creators, press releases, ancillary material included in the packaging, and the like) are primary sources, while commentary on it from outsiders would be secondary. In particular, WP:RS (which I had previously read) states that "a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about". So I'd say that, in the realm of fiction, the game developers would be primary sources, while the third-party reviewers cited would be secondary sources, since the latter had nothing to do with the creation or any canonical interpretation of FFIV. On the other hand, if the article were about media coverage of games, then these reviews would be considered primary. — TKD::Talk 22:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I thank you for the clarification; I think we can now assume that what is needed are a few primary sourced book references to add to the article, but I strongly believe that the secondary sources in this article are very reliable, as reflected by their presence in such recently approved FA's like Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. If anyone has some Final Fantasy books, let me know, it is difficult finding books on video games.... :) Judgesurreal777 22:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
          • It would seem to me that a Featured Article should be held to a higher standard than the minimum required by WP:RS, even if your analysis is correct. I reiterate my Oppose. -- Gnetwerker 22:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
            • You are correct that FAs should be held to a higher standard. I'm not saying that online sources will be entirely adequate for this article, especially given that the game is 15 years old. I was just concerned about the interpretation of sources currently used. If online sources were sufficient to cover the topic, I'd be fine with that, in principle. But, as Brian did note, there are potentially some high-quality print sources that can be used to flesh out the Development and Reception sections. — TKD::Talk 00:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
          • You might also want to see whether you can find back issues of independent game magazines from 1991, and whether critics' views of the unchanged aspects of the game (characters, story) have changed over 15 years. I stress "independent" because I wouldn't trust, say, Nintendo Power to give an objective review of Final Fantasy II, although such a source might provide insight on how the game was marketed. Moreover, didn't one of the (recent) reviews compare the complexity of the plot of FFIV to that of Phantasy Star II? Direct comparisons to other games would be good to include. — TKD::Talk 00:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for a variety of reasons. I agree with User:BrianSmithson that the old table of remakes was a bit unsightly, but I would argue that the basic information there should be presented in a "quick reference" format akin to the main infobox. The current prose conversion is choppy and unsatisfactory as far as article flow goes, and the essentially buries the information. Personally, I'm fond of the "mini-infoboxes" used in the Final Fantasy article, although that may require some layout tweaking, since there's not much prose in some of these sections. Secondly, the point about WP:RS is a good one, and there are still a number of weasel words ("this game has been considered widely by many players and critics..." is literally a textbook example) and out-and-out point-of-view violations ("emotionally intense...", "very effective use...", and "famously beautiful scoring..." all occur in one introductory sentence) that make the whole thing seem a little uncritical and even hagiographic. The quality of writing isn't quite there yet: certain phrases, like "standard computer role-playing game fare" seem a little unprofessional, there's far too much passive voice in play, and a number of missing spaces between words. Lastly, the latest flurry of changes indicates that the article simply hasn't stabilized yet. It's improved a great deal in the past few weeks, but there are still problems that need to be addressed, and a sufficient amount of time needs to be allowed to pass to ensure that these problems remain addressed and new ones aren't introduced, before it's truly ready for featured status. – Seancdaug 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Frank Zappa[edit]

First FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Zappa/Archive 1

Well written, comprehensive and informative article. The concerns about adequite citations from the previous FAC seem to have been addressed as there is a very large section of works cited included. Hamster Sandwich 21:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object for now. Article has a "further reading" section - are these supposed to be the references? Were they actually used as references, or are they just sources that probably back up the claims of the article? There is a difference. I'd prefer an actual references section. Inline citations would be good too eventually. Also the above archive link above doesn't seem to be working. --W.marsh 21:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    This has been somewhat addressed, but Allen3's second comment below summarizes the still remaing problems quite well. If the references were cleaned up as described there it would do a whole lot. As I mentioned elsewhere, there are some POV claims in the article that are totally uncited. I just don't think a featured article should, say, proclaim their subjects "legendary" or "gifted" - though citing someone notable who says that is fine. Hence, reference problems. --W.marsh 00:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. As per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Further reading/external links, references are kept seperate from the further reading and external links sections because they serve different purposes. The long list of intermingled citations needs to be seperated and some form of inline citation added to allow a fact checker to double check the article's sources without undue effort. --Allen3 talk 22:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    The referencing still needs a fair amount of work. The quick split helped, but the majority of the article lacks any form of inline citation. The embedded HTML links (the only form of inline citation I was able to find) need to be converted into proper citations. In addition, there appears to be two or more different citation styles used in the further reading and references sections. The article needs to be standardized on a single style of citation. If you are not sure which citation style you wish to use, I suggest looking at the current citation templates. Please see WP:CITE for more information on what is expected. --Allen3 talk 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice the lack of reference to 'Guitar Johnny'. I am not expert enough to add the necesary lines but he was a major influence on Frank's guitar style & a lifelong friend. On a tv documentary I have he is one of the guests at a party for Zappa to comiserate with his impending death.

I think this is one of the best written articles on Wikipedia. It should be featured. Overdubbed 02:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Please get this article featured soon!

Julian Eltinge[edit]

Very well-written article about theater in the early 20th century and about one particular man who was so good at cross-dressing that he made a business out of selling beauty products to women. It's a comprehensive look at his career and gets deep into Eltinge's apparent need to prove his machoness. Great work all around. --Idols of Mud 01:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, no inline citations, too many redlinks. Has potential if the issues are addressed, however. It could also stand to be a bit longer, but that did not factor into my objection. —

BorgHunter ubx (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks -- I fixed some of the links, though I guess I'll just have to hope the authors can do the citation.--Idols of Mud 13:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Well-written article on a classic album. —This unsigned comment was added by HasNoClue (talkcontribs) .

  • Object. No references. External link sources should follow a format similar to that of WP:CITE/ES, so that in case a page is moved or altered, it can be determined what was cited. The two album images probably don't need a fair use rationale (but should have one, ideally), and Image:Nas making illmatic.jpg and Image:Bow-wow-wanted.jpg need fair use rationales for their inclusion in the article. The former also needs to identify its source. Johnleemk | Talk 19:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but is a good article and we could really use a WP:FA on an album. Reasons for opposition are:
2a -- Trivia section is not brilliant proese. Is instead a random list of information, some of which is not even trivial.
2b -- "Music" section doesn't enter into much discussion of the songs on the album.
2c -- Entirely too little referencing. Only references are external links to websites. Many external links are inlined, and need to be fixed.
3 -- doesn't follow guidelines at WP:ALBUM. Specifically, the track list is a chart with either too much information or too little.
3a -- Lead doesn't summarize the article. See WP:LEAD.
4 -- Images all need Fair use rationales.
Best of luck! Jkelly 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above; consider changing the external links to WP:FOOTNOTEs and adding information about the links per WP:CITE. AndyZ 00:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object for reasons noted by Jkelly. This is almost featured quality, and I would really like to see it get there. --Kahlfin 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Black Sabbath[edit]

This is a very influential band and I beleive it should be nominated because it meets all the standards for a Featured Article. --GorillazFanAdam 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Unfortunately there are no references at all leading to weasel words issues and possible POV issues. Bwithh 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, and would recommend a referral to Peer Review The article needs a complete copyedit for grammar, opinions, and the aforementioned weasel words. An example in the intro, "Even though Judas Priest, Cream, and Deep Purple may have had a profound influence on the emergence of hard rock and heavy metal music, Black Sabbath is generally considered, along with Led Zeppelin, one of the primary forces of the genre. And the founding fathers of heavy metal." The first sentence is a run-on filled with opinions, the second sentence needs a verb. References are needed, and sources should be placed for all the POV statements ("This later became known as a hoax, possibly due to the fact that it was the April issue of the magazine and during the shifting lineups of the 1980s, the Kerrang! staff seemed to enjoy poking fun at Black Sabbath as it then existed.") and references to what the band said ("The eventual fate of the set is not clear, although Iommi has said it was probably abandoned on a loading dock somewhere."). --Ataricodfish 02:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This is a comprehensive article well formatted and obviously reflects a lot of effort. Continue with that effort: you're 90% of the way to FA. Ataricodfish states things quite well. This article needs line citations and a copyedit. Opinion statements in particular need to be sourced. Bring in some music critics, interviews, and news articles. I'm making this an object instead of an oppose, but I know how much time it takes to track down adequate sources so my hunch is this article will get to FA on its second try. Run it through a peer review first to be sure it's ready and keep up the good work. Durova 06:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, (1) No sources. Example: the first paragraph says "They are cited by many as the very first true heavy metal band." There need to be some citations to verify this. (2) Needs a general copyedit. I found a lot of run-ons and other details that need fixing, ie "They were ranked number 2 in VH1's '100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock' (Led Zeppelin was number 1)." should be "VH1's '100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock' ranked them second, behind Led Zeppelin." (3) Needs some cleanup. There are a lot of weasel words (see WP:AWW). There are also some trivial statements. The first sentence reads "Black Sabbath (sometimes called Sabbath by fans)..." Is knowing that they are sometimes called 'Sabbath' really noteworthy? I also noticed that Ozzy Osbourne is referred to as "Ozzy" throughout the article (references should be by surname, not first name).--Fallout boy 07:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above, and I second the idea to submit it to Peer Review. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object due to lack of sources and factual errors. For example, LSD has no effect when taken daily.

Bush v. Gore[edit]

This is not really a self-nomination as the article differs significantly from my first draft and is very complete and well researched. I feel its coverage of the case is uncommmonly good, the endnotes really clarify things and its well cited.

—This unsigned comment was added by Reboot (talkcontribs) . RyanGerbil10 02:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Lacks proper footnoting. RyanGerbil10 02:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This article fails FA requirements on many counts:
    • Please use either {{ref}}/{{note}} or <ref> to cite your sources.
    • Also, the Relevent Law section needs to be expanded so that it makes sense to readers that don't have a legal background. All I see now are exerpts from clauses in the constitution.
    • The verbiage of the three bullets in The issues is non encyclopedic. Rephrase.
    • The article discusses the merits of Bush's claims while not touching upon Gore's claims.
      • Comment. This objection is completely wrong. The merits both parties' cases are discussed in the "issues" section, which (in the interest of full disclosure) I wrote. You will be hard pressed to find a more neutral presentation of each side's case anywhere. However, I agree that this article needs substantial work, but mainly in the "decision" section. Kronius 00:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • In-line citation is very limited in this article. This was a fairly important ruling in what was a controversial election. Appropriate citations are required to justify that the article complies with NPOV requirements.
    • Please move this article to WP:PR and incorporate any suggestions you receive there. AreJay 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, no peer review done before FAC, lacks footnoting does not meet FA standards. I suggest withdrawal of this nomination. --Terence Ong 11:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A peer review is not necessary before an article comes to FAC. A very good idea, but not necessary - The Catfish 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Stable, complete, peer reviewed, current "good article", important topic. Nature reviewed this article, and mistakes were corrected. -- Zanimum 16:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Nice article. (a) The second paragraph of the introduction seems a little technical for the casual reader. Get technical later - but imagine the introduction will be read by a 12yr old kid who is writing an essay for school. I would mention something like electrons, protons and neutrons being made of three quarks and say how many quarks there are. Keep it simple. (b) References work better if tied to statements in the article - I'd recommend embedding the references into the text using <ref>...</ref> so they appear as numbers in square brackets and are automatically listed and linked. This allows readers to confirm a particular key fact by looking at a particular reference. SteveBaker 16:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is indeed a "good article" but not quite at (but also not too far from) featured standard, for me. Generally, I think it needs a good copyedit and unpacking of the rather dense prose to make it more comprehensible to a non-technical audience. For example, "The approximate chiral symmetry of QCD, for example, allows one to define the ratio between various (up, down and strange) quark masses through combinations of the masses of the pseudo-scalar meson octet in the quark model through chiral perturbation theory..." - what? Does this mean something like "You can assign relative masses to quanta by <some unexplained magic>..."? Further, the prose is rather choppy, with little narrative style, and the sectioning seems excessive (many sections have only one paragraphs with only a few sentences). Finally, Finnegan's Wake is mentioned (eventually) but there is no indication of pronunciation. This can, and should, be an excellent article, but it is not there yet. I would suggest a further period of peer review, but the first one does not seem to have done much. Someone at the physics WikiProject could take it under its wing, or the new scientific peer review process could help (when it finishes deciding who should be on which committee and actually starts reviewing things). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose+comment At this point this is not FA quality. Besides obvious copyediting such as in-line citations, the article is not a good read at all.
  • The lead should bring relevance, and the present form is not very enticing, but confusing. The article is about quark, but why mention "antiquark" and why go into detail about "confinement." Looks as if the article is about properties of confinement rather than quark. I think the lead needs a major rewrite: briefly about history of discover, what "gap" does it fill, what is it, and how is it observed.
  • The article goes into property of quark too fast, needs to add a section about what actually is quark. In fact, the current form does not even mention that quark is a subatomic particle until the second paragraph, and was not even explicitly stated.
  • The organization of article is confusing at this point. I suggest this order: a paragraph about fundamentals of atomic physics, then history of discovery, then what gap does quark fill, then properties of quark (1st mass, then color, flavor, and spin...etc), then anti-quark. I think this is more logical. Also, be sure to compare these properties to other more familiar subatomic particles such as protons or electrons.
  • Nobody knows about hadrons and mesons. Rather than giving examples of each, mention about what they are concisely. This should compliment to the first section that I suggested about background of atomic physics.
  • Need to add some key or milestone primary research papers as references. Textbooks and webpages don't count as "good" sources for science articles IMO.
  • Summary Even though I'd like to see more of science articles become featured, and I don't usually oppose sciecne FACs (but rather just comment), I think this article still needs lots of work before getting into featured status. Anyways, I'll come back if I am needed. Temporary account 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Incomprehensible to the general reader, despite the fact that quarks are a topic that might attract a wide audience. As SteveBaker said, you should use this page to explain the basic proton-neutron stuff and put the high-level physics on subsidiary pages. -- Mwalcoff 03:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The trouble with this topic is that the subject's name is just well known enough to attract people who know literally nothing about Quarks beyond their names and that they are subatomic particles. If such people come here, they'll get no further than the first or second sentence before they run out of skills to read further. That's a shame because there is much that may be usefully said to help those people understand what's going on. But then you'll also have people who are perhaps just starting in on a particle physics education who might come here for more detail - and perhaps (we might hope) that there is enough deep information to attract people who know enough to write an article like this who just need to check a number or an obscure fact. This is quite unlike many other Wikipedia articles. It's unlikely that someone will come looking for an article on a really obscure topic such as (say) the Meissner effect - so the 10yr old kid level of discussion might not be quite so important. On the other hand, a subject like Automobile is one where just about every reader knows a heck of a lot about it already and is probably looking there to find links to deeper information that they don't know how to search for any other way. But Quark falls right into that gap where you need BOTH a really simple, basic introduction to the subject for kids AND super-deep techy stuff for the expert. I don't think you need to split the article up or anything that drastic though. I would suggest simply removing the tricky stuff from the introduction and replacing it with a clean, jargon-free statement of what a Quark is - how they fit into the bigger picture - and what they are all called. Then, I would add a section with half a dozen paragraphs of somewhat more detailed information - maybe aimed at an intelligent (but ill-informed) adult. Then all of the existing article could be placed after that - more or less unchanged. SteveBaker 04:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The concerns from peer review have not been addressed: the article is rather difficult to a layman (although not as bad as some reviewers suggested), and the lack of inline citations is a serious problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-While I like this article, I think it should go in one of two directions; I feel that there is not enough information in individual sections, and at the same time I feel that the general reader might find this article too complex. I think it should either be simplified or fleshed-out. --Kahlfin 20:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand[edit]

I feel that this article is worthy of being a featured article due to the accurate information about Miss Rand in the article and also due to Ayn Rand's important influence on Philosophy, the Libertarian Movement, and her general impact on American Literature in general. The only flaw that I can see is the minor controversy in the article (mostly a debate in the talk page) about Ayn Rand's stance on homosexuality but I believe that the issue has already been rectified. The Fading Light 9:08 20, March 2006

  • Object, needs proper footnoting. I also noticed the use of some questionable sources, such as a php forum for the homosexuality section.--Fallout boy 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Object—needs a good copy-edit. Take the lead, for example:

"... was best known for her philosophy of Objectivism and her novels We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. Her philosophy and her fiction both emphasize, above all, the concepts of individualism, rational egoism ("rational self-interest"), and capitalism, which she believed should be implemented fully via Laissez-faire capitalism. Her politics have been described as minarchism and libertarianism, though she never used the first term and detested the second.
Her novels were based upon the projection of the Randian hero, a man whose ability and independence causes conflict with the masses, but who perseveres nevertheless to achieve his values. Rand viewed this hero as the ideal, and the express goal of her fiction was to showcase such heroes.
She believed: That man must choose his values and actions by reason; that the individual has a right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing self to others nor others to self; and that no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force, or impose ideas on others by physical force."

1. Too choppy—why the one-sentence paragraphs?

2. Can you provide piped links for "Objectivism" and "Laissez-faire", without the upper-case letters?

3. "described as "minarchism and libertarianism"—adjectives needed here, not nouns; otherwise reword—perhaps "described as exemplifying ...".

4. "to achieve his values"—no, he has his values to begin with; he perseveres to implement them, surely.

5. The last parasentence is listy and awkward, especially the upper-case T. "She held three basic beliefs: that people must choose their ...". Or do you want to reduplicate her sexism? Tony 07:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object inline citations, awkward subsections, also inadequate treatment of her legacy (institutions, journals); needs broader references. "described as "minarchism and libertarianism" by whom? cite. Kaisershatner 21:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for lack of inline citations (see WP:FOOTNOTE) and other objections provided above. "Early life and education" has one huge paragraph that should be split up. Virtually every sentence in that paragraph starts with "she" ("She admired Rostand for ", "She admired Dostoevsky", "She continued to write", "She also encountered"). Thanks, AndyZ 21:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I feel the spam of categories has been done in poor taste, and may be indicative of deeper problems with the editing of the article. -- infinity0 23:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Still has formatting errors and is poorly laid out - links should be done with Wikipedia:Footnotes or something. Other reasons: redlinks and too many external links. Bibliography should probably be more selective. - FrancisTyers 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Rachel Orange 08:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note:: user's 6's edit, 4 of which were to her user page, and one to the reference desk. The edit after this one was this, basically just vandalism. She's also stated on User:A Man In Black's talk that she just wants to promote her site (which is what her edits to the reference desk and her user page were for). --Rory096 08:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: I'm actually quite impressed by the overall substantive quality of the article. The writing is somewhat spotty in places and there is a very bad situation with regard to the footnotes (as noted by other commentators here). But if these problems can be addressed, I think this would be one of the most informative, reasonably balanced articles on Rand that I know of anyway. Keep working on it. Suggestion: Maybe a Peer Review might have been helpful first?--Lacatosias 12:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. also due to Ayn Rand's important influence on Philosophy and her general impact on American Literature I think most of you know that I obviously don't agree with this. But I do think she was a significant contributor to American politics and that she was an important "character" (for lack of a better word). --Lacatosias 12:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Rand has been often accused of being a cult leader, yet nothing is said of this outside of the title of an external link. -- LGagnon 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Indian Institutes of Technology[edit]

All over the world, graduates of any one of the seven elite IIT campuses are among the most successful and highly regarded professionals in their chosen career, and have greatly contributed to the current impression of India: that the most valuable products the world can import from India are "really smart people". —This unsigned comment was added by A i s h2000 (talkcontribs) .

  • Pictures of one or more of the campuses would be nice. Raul654 05:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I folded the motto/logo and data table together. However, the mottos are incomplete - for some schools, it has only the english; for one, it has only (what I presume is) Hindi; and for two it has none. It would be nice if this section were filled out completely. Raul654 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong object based on following reasons:
  1. List format for inter sports is silly.
  2. You have fact checks that need to be adressed.
  3. You really need more references
  4. I find it curious that you jump from history to admissions to reservation to alumni. Sure feels like you are missing out on probably the most important part - curriculum, faculty, student life, etc.
  5. I am sure their are some criticisms of IIT. What about how IIT is generally weak in its graduate programs? Lack of serious criticisms, especially with the excessive praise, makes this a big POV.
  6. Ahh too many things missing. If you address the things I have raised till now, I will look for more. This really seems like it should be up for review and not nomination.(Blacksun 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC))
Oppose for now. The article needs a thorough copyedit and a rephrasing of several sentences:
There are at least six single-sentence paragraphs, and several other short paragraphs making the text look untidy.
The sentence "In modern age no other institution in India has had such an immense influence on Indian mind, as does IIT." needs rephrasing and a source to show that the influence is indeed immense.
The citations should follow a single format. There is one citation listed at the bottom, and two linked within the text.
There are several quotations of people talking about IIT's but no exact sources are indicated. How is anyone to know whether these comments are accurate?
The entire section on Reservations needs to be rewritten as two or three concise paragraphs.
There is section on Notable alumni which could do with a couple of sentences at least about some of the notable alumni.
The table comparing the several IIT's should have one column eliminated - keep either the Name column or the Location column because it is simply repeating the names (e.g. IIT Calcutta is obviously in or around Calcutta)
Also, the discussion page suggests a peer review was requested but it is a redlink. Did the peer review take place? Green Giant 06:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong Object: There appears to be no flow to the article; there's a whole host of dangling 1-2 sentence paragraphs. There seems to be a distinct lack of references and citiations — I'm guessing that's because this is currently a pretty low-on-content article. In the "a range of views exist" part — I don't really see a "range" per se, all I see is a series of quotes that portray the ITTs in positive light. Please move this article to WP:PR. The problems with this article are to many to summarize here. AreJay 14:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- Needs to go to peer review. History short, no pictures (I can source one on IITB), POV, no inline refs, choppy prose, map seems to have a suspect licence, nothing on courses, Mood Indigo, later sections contain mostly trivia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object --Needs copyediting. Several red links need to be taken care of. --Andy123(talk) 17:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In modern age no other institution in India has had such an immense influence on Indian mind, as does IIT. Echhh...ever hear of neutral? Osbus 02:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we need to close this FA review. The article is yet to get a Peer Review, that I started yesterday. It will be atleast a month before we should think of it as a FA candidate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Responses to the objections:
    • A i s h2000: She has given a very non-neutral comment.
    • Raul654: A lot of pictures have been added. The mottos aren't incomplete as I have checked from their respective websites that IIT Delhi and IIT Roorkee don't have a motto. IIT Guwahati's motto is in English only, so nothing can be done about it. A few missing info in the table has been added. However I admit that student details in IIT Roorkee is missing.
    • Blacksun: List format has been fixed. A lot of references have been added. Scope exists for more. I have started Peer Review to speed up this process. Wherever fact check is necessary (based on the exactness of our knowledge), the parts have been never added or removed if present. If you find any more suspected candidates need for fact check, do mention them. Sections on Academics has been added. Will be adding student life soon. Actually I didn't add it as it was objected and removed from one of the IIT's Article (IIT Kharagpur's), and the cleanup required moving it to Student Life in IIT Kharagpur. A lot of criticisms have been added. Please have a look at them for POVs. Over the past few days I have myself made 50 edits to the page, so many possible missing things are now available.
    • Green Giant: POV sentence has been removed. There are different columns for IIT Name and Location as the names of cities have changed, but the name of IITs haven't. For example IIT Bombay and IIT Madras. There is no IIT Calcutta. I have added citations wherever there are relevant sentences. I am still not sure what consistancy is been talked about, so I encourage you to be bold and show me/us the correct way. The quotations have been moved out of the page to Wikiquote (see external links). I will improve them as soon as possible. The section on notable alumni has been made subsection of Alumni with a paragraph and picture added.
    • AreJay: Quotes have been moved out of the page to Wikiquote(see external links). I know there are too many problems, that's why I suggested Peer Review. FA review shouldn't have started so early.
    • Nichalp: Even I support peer review first. A lot of photographs have been added. Anyone is free to add more. Map has been replaced by a self made one. Most of the trivia was about IITs in the Media, and hence have been clubbed under that.
    • Andy123: I understand that it need copy editing. That's why I suggested Peer Review first. FA review was started by anonymous IP. I need volunteers for removing red-links as most of them are about people/books I have no clue about.
    • Osbus: POV removed.
Please remember that this response in no way endorses my willingness to go ahead with FA review. A Peer Review is utmost necessary for giong ahead with FA review. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons[edit]

The Simpsons is a quality article of Wikipedia and meets all the criteria of a featured article. --DChiuch 08:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • oppose the first paragraph is too long it has a couple of places where it can be seperated. In the Production and history of The Simpsons the dates and years aren't in any chronological order. I've only read this far and these two problems are big enough to suggest that you submit the article to peer review Gnangarra 11:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • object there isn't one single reference/footnote that I saw, that's as far as I got. Rlevse 14:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - No references section. Fieari 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, I note the criteria says that citations should be, in several cases, placed in a references section. As already pointed out, I can't see one. Also, there may be areas where a new peer review may be needed (the last one was September 2005), but I don't feel like investigating myself (although I may notice some anyway at times). --WCQuidditch 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article seems patchy and disorganized, and lacks sources. Weatherman90 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good article with a lot of promise but it needs a references section and it def. needs a peer review before a nomination for featured article status. --Rachel Cakes 10:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object - the article is good, but not FA material; there aren't sources to cite many "Facts". Dee man45 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are major unsupported claims in this piece e.g. The Simpsons are supposed to have had a "huge" influence on post-Cold War popular culture - influence, yes, but "huge"? what evidence is there for "huge" and does this mean only US popular culture? also, what is the evidence that it is such a mark of "definite status" for a celebrity to be featured on the Simpsons. isn't it more likely that most don't see it much more than a novelty and/or a chance for free publicity? Also, the reference to Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in discussing the Flanders is unsupported, bizarre and suggests the person who added that has not really read the Protestant Ethic. Those three instances just from my first 2 minute look. To be more technical about it, these are weasel words and no original research issues. Bwithh 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Just on the issue of celebrity voices: while I don't disagree with the lack of citations, I know there is evidence to prove that guest-voicing on The Simpsons *is* unique and important for some artists; for instance: I just recently read an article where Patrick Stewart named his guest appearance on The Simpsons as the single movie/TV project he was most proud of; JKRowling apparently was over the moon when she finally got to appear; and I read right here on Wikipedia that the Thomas Pinchon appearance is the only time his voice has ever been recorded (he could fit in the 'novelty' category, but still...). Also apparently the creator of The Office (don't remember his name offhand) considers The Simpsons to be the best writing in North American comedy and is thrilled with his chance to guest star and write; and it's not a guest appearance, but also, Gwen Stefani's brother left the hit group No Doubt (he was also their main songwriter IIRC) to work on The Simpsons.--Anchoress 04:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object-This article doesn't quite seem to take the NPOV required by featured articles. It seems to have many weasel words. I would support if it didn't put the show in such a glorifying light. --Kahlfin 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No references and the article is too long. --Maitch 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant object for the following reasons: (1) No references or sources. (2) For featured article status I'd suggest avoiding the bullet-style writing, and there are too many one-sentence paragraphs. (3) I'm reluctant about considering the Halloween episodes completely non-canon, since they are official episodes. Even though events that take place do not affect the continuity of the non-Halloween episodes, the same is true for the majority of non-Halloween episodes.--Fallout boy 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Matt Groening has said in several interviews that the Halloween episodes are non-Canon. I don't have a reference for that though. (He even explained that things like the sound effects used in regular episodes are always realistic - where they relax that rule for Halloween). SteveBaker 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I like The Simpsons quite a lot, but my impression has always been that continuity is never an issue in any episode, if a particular storyline is made funnier by violating continuity. Cryptonymius 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object far too long NorseOdin 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For. Doesn't the TV show the Simpsons count as a source for an article the same name?-- 05:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
That would be a circular reference - the evidence you're providing comes from the very thing you're providing evidence for. it's irrational and does nothing to resolve POV/original research issues. Bwithh 07:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: For those objecting on the gorunds of missing footnotes/references, I have added a reference section for already existing links. Poulsen 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: nominated againBuc 20:11 November 5 2006 (UTC)

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva[edit]

Self-Nomination. Lula is a recognized a leader in the emergent global environmental problems debates and a global leader (words from George W. Bush). Since the third world are gainning attention for their potential consummer markets is very important for Wikipedia feature the leader of this movement. India, China and Brazil lead the new movements of the emergent world and Lula for their life history and for being spokesman of the masses, him becames a very important person in this scenerio. --Phair 15:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, the importance of the article's subject doesn't make the article a FA. The article lacks references and inline citations. Also see Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_not_be_linked; years without full dates should not be linked. AndyZ 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; POV issues—the entire article extols Lula except for a small paragraph at the end and a few quickly dismissed objections over Brazil's hunger problem and his economic policy. While many in the West are more concerned about Chavez, this guy isn't exactly revered. Much more development is necessary as well: "Political orientation" should have at least a few sizable paragraphs, and the biography section is a collection of 1-2 sentence "paragraphs". And what about free trade (does he support Bush or not, etc.) and his position on the Iraq war? Some of the language needs to be toned down/made more encyclopedic: "The single most important member", "Fortunately, Brazilian economy wasn't severely affected", etc. And inline citations are extremely important—you can't say things like "it achieved a US$ 29 billion surplus due to substantial changes in its commercial focus", "This is mainly because of the current disassociation between the political and the economic reality", and "Lula states that one of the main problems in Brazil today is hunger" without giving a source. And obviously, there has to be a references section. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This is the 2nd FAC for this article, but the nominator did not archive it properly (s/he simply blanked the old nomination). Could an admin who knows how (I can't remember) take care of the history move? —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I am inclined to object to this nomination as da Silva is still president of Brazil. George W. Bush was opposed as an FA because he is still in power, and for the same reasons I don't think da Silva can be an FA at this time, especially given the current relevance of South American politics. However, I also agree with other users, this article has POV issues, and needs footnotes. RyanGerbil10 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment There was heavy objection to the George W. Bush article not because he was still in power (Nicolas Sarkozy [sp?] is a FA, although it is currently a FARC candidate) and he is still in power. In the case of the article on George W. Bush it was judged that it would be too difficult to maintain a sense of stability and therefore did not qualify under FA criteria 2 (e). If the article on Lula is not the subject of frequent vandalism and/or edit wars the "he's still in power" argument is invalid and objection on those grounds should be counted as inactionable. Thethinredline 07:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Very well, but I still object on the grounds that the article has no footnotes and has POV issues. RyanGerbil10 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Needs references, plus the Biography section is plainly a list. Although re. currently president, above : Tony Blair got frontpaged. --PopUpPirate 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Danny Deever[edit]

I've recently overhauled this to use inline citations (except for one source, which I'll try and chase up at the library - my copy got misplaced in a move). It's pretty good, in my opinion: it covers the context of the poem, the literary style, the actual content, and the musical settings in about equal detail; it's referenced pretty fully; it avoids excessive quotation of the source text (which is really very tempting); it has useful external links. It went through peer review around Christmas, without getting much feedback either way.

The only major problem with it seems to be that it's short, but then it is an article on a single poem (albeit a rather famous one), and so was never going to be overwhelmingly long without becoming a piece of lit.crit. which we don't want (and I certainly don't want to write). Thoughts? (Note that this is a self-nomination - 99% of the article, at a guess, was written by me) Shimgray | talk | 00:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • comment+suggestion Here are my thoughts:
1. The lead usually is of 2-3 paragraphs. This one is only 2-3 sentences, maybe you will need to add more from the article itself.
2. I think ordering of the article is problematic. Here my suggestion: 1)Poem itself, 2)Summary, 3)Style and Form, 4)interpretation, and 5)critical reaction. Sound more logical this way.
3. Any information about the motive behind writing this poem? Any historical background?
4. Any alternative interpretation to the poem? The summary part of article is direct paraphrase of the poem, but any messages this poem is saying? Symbolism?
5. The critical reaction section consists of only comments from other poets and authors from that Era (except Orwell of course), and modern implications? Is this poem an exemplary piece of literature from that Era that students are still learning now?
I think you probably can find these informaton easily (in libraries, not internet) considering the importance of this work. Temporary account 01:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The lead is a bit of an odd case. I can't really think of three paragraphs worth of summary! I've hacked the article around a bit to work on the ordering, but the internal flow is all messed up, so fixing this will take some work.
Historical background &c - not really. He had the opportunity to write some verse for a literary magazine, he came out with this, people liked it. He doesn't seem to have thought of it as topical poetry, no critical study I've seen discusses a message or any symbolism. It's a ballad, and ballads tell a story; not much room for innovative interpreting.
There isn't much contemporary teaching of Kipling AFAIK - he's popular, but generally as something people read for pleasure rather than for criticism - so I wouldn't expect much contemporary reaction or indeed contemporary education. It's not a deep poem, not one that responds to new interpretations well, and there's a good case of "well, they said it already" to be made. I've dug up another bit of critical commentary, so will add that later. Shimgray | talk | 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The lead should be expanded. My most major concern, however, is with the Summary. The young soldier is unaware of what is happening, at first - he asks why the bugles are blowing, and why the Sergeant looks so pale, but is told that Deever is being hanged, and that the regiment is drawn up in to see it. He presses the Sergeant further, in the second verse - why are people breathing so hard? why are some men collapsing? These signs of the effect of watching the hanging upon men of the regiment are explained away by the Sergeant as being due to the cold weather or the bright sun. The voice is reassuring, keeping the young soldier calm in the sight of death, just as the Sergeant will calm him with his voice in combat. This is probably original research. A wikipedia article is not supposed to refer to the reader with questions (it is an encyclopedia). The voice is reassuring? Unless a citation can be found for such, it definitely shouldn't be in this article. Another sentence, The strong rhythm makes it, as with many of Kipling's ballads, a popular work to read aloud or to sing., needs a citation. I also think the layout is pretty bad; summary should go before a critical reaction. Thanks, AndyZ 01:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"A wikipedia article is not supposed to refer to the reader with questions" - I'm not sure I get this. This section is a close summary of the text of the poem, and these questions aren't anything more than rewording the lines What makes the rear-rank breathe so 'ard? and What makes that front-rank man fall down? for the benefit of a reader not familar with the "language" of the piece. The poem's a ballad, a story, and the summary is an attempt to explain that story as a complement to the actual text. It's a simple and direct rephrasing, and I'm really not sure it counts as original research any more than a plot summary of a book does.
I've found a citation for "reassuring", since I agree with you this is a bit more interpretative than most of the piece - Ayers remarks "In their question and answer session the Colour Sergeant is in his place close behind the 'files on parade' and is trying to talk the men through a difficult time (...) even in the heat of battle the Colour Sergeant still talks the men through the action", and pulled "popular to read aloud or sing" since we have the music section. Shimgray | talk | 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't find anything about the sentence cited with citation 2b in the site linked (the voice is reassuring). Most of my concern now falls into the summary section (and perhaps the structure). The article shouldn't contain personal pronouns like "us" that refer to the reader of the article, as in: The fourth verse brings us the hanging. Otherwise, it looks pretty good. AndyZ 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I've fiddled the summary section around a bit. I'm personally not too happy with the structure as it stands; I'll see if I can think of anything better. The 2b citation is actually on the second page of a two-page article; scroll to the bottom and "Notes on the text" (it's split into general notes and a close reading); notes for [lines 9-12]. I'm not sure if this should be rendered as two seperate links, since they're intended as part of the same article. Shimgray | talk | 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong[edit]

Support - Excellent article! Well balanced, stable, and interesting. Worthy of being shared! Check-Six 23:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. It needs proofreading. For example, I scrolled to a random paragraph, and found mistakes in its first two sentences: "involved in several instances" should be "incidents," and the next sentence is missing a comma. Also, out of 42 references, 37 are to a single book.--Bcrowell 23:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not convinced that two errors identified above are sufficiently serious to avoid supporting this otherwise excellent article, but I'll do a copyedit when I have time. The references point is more of a concern, not least because of a screenful of "Ibid." footnotes, but the "single book" is the "authorized" biography written with Armstrong's assistance and published in 2005. Cross-checking with other biographies would be great, but this is good enough for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support The lead needs to summarize the entire article, without dwelling into specifics. Summarize Neil Armstrong the person, his time in the Korean war, his professional career as an astronaut, and his life after after he stopped flying. Some of the sections (Personal life, and Armstrong in popular culture) look choppy with 2-3 sentence paragraphs. Please consolidate them to promote flow and continuity. Other than that I think this is a great article. I will change my vote to support once these objections are met. I am not too concerned with the references portion — although I would like to see more references, it won't change my vote since I feel quality-wise, this is FA material. Well written article on a fellow Boilermaker! AreJay 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Well written Article the problem i see is the quantity of red links Gnangarra 10:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The number of redlinks is not a criterion mentioned on WP:WIAFA. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose A lovely, well-written article, but the references, as noted earlier, are predominantly to a single reference work. That makes it a good synopsis of First Man, but not encyclopedic. -- Gnetwerker 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I have to agree on the problem with a single source of references. Find some more reference sources and you have my support. – Doug Bell talkcontrib 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Karl Marx[edit]

This is an excellent article. It cites its references, has several pictures, pertains a nuetral point of view and is well written. It is also an article about a very signifigant person. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

  • Object. Article is a bit long (57KB). Summary style should be used to keep the length a bit more manageable; the section on "Marx's philosophy" is probably a good candidate for this. Inlined hyperlinks should be converted to proper citations, and more citations are needed in general (and, in fact, one image caption was already marked with {{citation needed}}). A general "References" section is not enough for featured articles; we need to know what information is connected to what source. Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead section is short for an article of this scope/length. — TKD::Talk 21:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It is true that the article is perhaps a little long, and inline citations need to be completed. Close. RyanGerbil10 22:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The lead is much too short for an article on such a significant topic. There is only one footnote. The very long quote from Engels' eulogy is out of place. IMO the over-all length wouldn't be a problem if there was nothing that looked like it needed to be cut, but there is: the eulogy; the long and inconclusive discussion of his possible relationship to Demuth; the incongruous discussion of communist parties in India, etc.--Bcrowell 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to WP:PR - all of the above points need dealing with (if it is both too long and too short there is clearly a scope/sub-article/summary style issue), and this is not the place to do it. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, a bit too long and lack of inline ciations. Needs a longer lead-in. --Terence Ong 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object.The factual problem with "Zur Judenfrage" (see relevant section) makes me believe that this article shouldn't get such a status. -- 19:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I haven't been involved with this article much before, but I've engaged in addressing all these objections. I've added a longer intro, brought the article under 50kb, and moved the stuff about zur Judenfrage. I'm planning to work on the references next. Just thought y'all would want to know. Mgekelly - Talk 14:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this nomination was archived a few weeks ago. If you want to nominate it again, follow the instructions at WP:FAC. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jan Smuts[edit]

I'm nominating this because it is a very well written article with a large amount of informative content. It's very well organized and is unlikely to be changed in any substantial way. This was the first article I read where I immediately thought that it would be a good condidate for a featured article. It's a bout a well-documented, historic figure that many people don't know that much about. - DNewhall

  • comment I think having two templates giving the same info is not good. Keep just the footer or just the series one, I say. Circeus 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object While I agree with Circeus my objection is due to only 1 inline citation, and only 5 refs total. Staxringold 21:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object on the simple grounds that in the main editor's own words the page is not ready. It is an excellent article, but does need better referencing. However, all this is secondary to the fact that it is not yet finished! Batmanand | Talk 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Batmanand is correct that there is a heck of a lot of work to be done on it. I've done very little in the past few months, but, if someone considers it to be within striking distance of that target now, I'll redouble my efforts, in conjunction with those that want to help to improve it. I'll also bear in mind the comments about the templates and citations. Bastin8 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For some with such an extensive military service and rank I find it rather unusual that there are no references to any service Medals. Gnangarra 16:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to WP:PR - the existing sub-articles are rather impressive, but some comments: (i) the five-paragraph lead seems rather long for the length of the article at present; (ii) some sections are too short (e.g. "Soldier, statesman, and scholar" has just one sentence on his academic contribution; "After the [Second World] War" seems rather short; and the "Miscellaneous" section is also poor - lots of single-sentence paragraphs with no coherent narrative, most of which could be added to more relevant sections). (iii) The many succession boxes seem rather excessive, particularly as most are full of redlinks. (iv) The references and footnotes seem rather thin. (v) The single image is rather striking, but some more would be nice. Good luck. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Not enough references or citations. I'd like to see this article make it as I am a fan of Smuts, but it needs work still. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now.Add a few more references, tweak it out, and ask for a peer review or send it to WP:GAC first.--Wizardman 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


Self-Nomination. This is one of the first articles which I worked on using the Wiki knowledge that I've learned. I hope to see it reach featured article status and I will try to address any objections you may have. Tarret 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Nice layout. Jkelly 23:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Consider using less obvious text under the images, ie facts rather than a plain description. --PopUpPirate 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not bad, but it could use more and stronger references. For example, "Some people get dermatitis from touching mango peel or sap. Persons showing an allergic reaction after handling a mango can usually enjoy the fruit if someone else first removes the skin." is not referenced that I can see, and the claims about antioxidant and anticancer etc. properties are referenced, but merely repeat what a vegetarian site says about studies that it does not name. As an aside, one neat mango item I've had was a hard mango-flavored candy, with a sliver of real mango inside it. Шизомби 00:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
    • I'm a little suprised that every reference is a web reference; I'd think a subject like mangos would many book references that could be used.
    • A few random errors still exist, like poison-ivy instead of poison ivy and thast instead of that in a caption. Give the article a copy edit.
    • I notice that the article uses mango for both the name of the tree and the fruit. If it is the legitimate term for both, the article needs to make this clearer, as it is a little confusing.
    • Terms like cultivar are introduced with explanation. When I first saw the word I thought it sounded like an occupation.
    • Over 492 species of insects, 17 species of mites and 26 species of nematodes have been reported to be attacking mango trees. By whom? This needs a citation.
    • The leaves are toxic to cattle. This isn't enough for an entire paragraph and doesn't belong in the Pests and diseases section, as that section dicusses diseases affecting mangoes.
    • Mangoes have been believed to ... Have been believed or are believed? There's a big difference.
    • About half of all... This paragraph doesn't flow very well, One fact is that... in particular.
    • In the United States fruit eaters now regularly choose mangos... The rest of the paragraph after this sentence is made up of choppy sentences and needs a rewrite.
      • Says who? I want to know how regular they eat mangos and how many do it, preferably for people outside the States as this is an international encyclopedia. - Mgm|(talk) 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Consider using {{cite web}}.
I think this article can reach FA with a little work. Pagrashtak 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Pagrashtak's concerns. Most importantly, I'd like to see someone go to the library and replace some of the web references with books. Of the sources cited, only two cite their sources: this one and the PDF. Now, the sources from the universities, the USDA, and the UN are probably acceptable despite not citing their own sources. But stuff like Vegetarians in Paradise and Golden Drop are a bit more suspect. — BrianSmithson 17:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Checking out the first reference, I have become concerned that the article text is so similar to the source's so as to constitute a possible copyright violation:
Article text Text from

Cultivation and domestication of mangos most likely began in the Indian subcontinent, where they have been grown for more than 4000 years. Buddhist monks were known for taking mango plants on voyages to Malaya and eastern Asia in the 4th and 5th centuries BC. Around the tenth century AD, Persian traders took mangoes to the Middle East and eastern Africa. When the Portuguese arrived in India in they then took it to South America, the Philippines and to western Africa.

In the early stages of domestication, the fruits were probably very small and fibrous without much flesh. The Mughals and Portuguese selected and grew generations of mango plants. Many centuries of development have produced varieties of mangos free of both fibres and unpleasant flavours. This eventually led to the large fruits with thick flesh that we are most familiar with today.

Cultivation and domestication of mangos probably began in the Indian subcontinent, where they have been grown for more than 4000 years. Buddhist monks took mango plants on voyages to Malaya and eastern Asia in the 4th and 5th centuries BC. By the tenth century AD, Persian traders had taken mango to the Middle East and East Africa. With the arrival of the Portuguese in India in the 15th century, it was later spread to South America, the Philippines and to West Africa. Mangos are now cultivated commercially throughout tropics and subtropical areas.

In the early stages of domestication, fruits were probably very small and fibrous without much flesh. The Mughals and Portuguese selected and grew generations of mango plants. Centuries of development have produced varieties of mangos free of both fibres and unpleasant flavours. This eventually led to larger fruits with thick flesh that we are familiar with today.

I stopped reviewing the article at this point, so I'm not sure how prevelant this sort of problem might be, but it needs to be gone over carefully. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, this objection is rather devastating. The section was added here by the nominator, so I assume he will be along to address this. Meanwhile, the section is rm'd. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Further to the above issue, that (copyvio?) text was carelessly inserted between a ref link and its related text, suggesting that the referencing of this article needs a careful once over. But checking the rest of the article carefully for copyvio is the main thing that needs to be done. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and Object If the author of that part of the article wishes to use the wording from the source material it must be treated like an extensive quote, and not as original material. Also, sections like "Uses# Australia" and "Uses# Research" consist of only one sentance, which looks bad and sloppy. Perhaps they should be integrated into a part of the article which s more appropriate, or expanded so that they can be considered legitimate sub-sections. Thethinredline 10:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Copy vio is very devastating, and no print sources for something like a mango is just not good. Staxringold 18:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've found four more probable copyvios in the prose without trying too hard, they are listed at Talk:Mango. This is very upsetting. I've gone ahead and delisted the artile from WP:GA, for what it's worth. While checking this, I've run across a few other problems in the article:
    • Some footnotes appear to be misplaced, for instance footnote two appears after "Mangos were introduced to California (Santa Barbara) in the 1880's", but the source doesn't appear to mention California.
    • Some material, while paraphrased enough from the source material to not be a copyvio, has been altered in a somewhat arbitrary-seeming way, so as to no longer be true, either. Example: the article says "Mango flowers are used in India to make a fragrant oil known called an otto. It is called am attar when it is produced by steam and distilling the young flowers." The source [4] says "Fragrant mango flowers were used in India to make a fragrant essential oil known as an otto. It was called am attar and was produced by steam distilling the young flowers." I guess this is paraphrased enough (though note the copy/pasted typo "am" instead of "an"!), but the paraphrasing has both changed and garbled the meaning.
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Remove the first image from the text — it's tedious. The article requires a complete rewrite and I'd like to see more paper references. A universal topic does not solely sit on the internet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - No written sources? For a fruit? Uh-oh....Dee man45 16:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose. The editor who posted the above copyright violation located and removed four more at Talk:Mango. I tested five paragraphs and discovered three additional ones, two of which even fail to name the source. In ten days the nominator has failed to reply or address the problem. I am referring the matter to Wikipedia administration. My findings are posted below. Durova 08:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
From Mango#Uses
"The taste of the fruit is very sweet, with some cultivars having a slight acidic tang. The texture of the flesh varies markedly between different cultivars; some have quite a soft and pulpy texture similar to an over-ripe plum, while others have a firmer flesh much like that of a cantaloupe or avocado, and in some cultivars the flesh can contain fibrous material. Mangoes are very juicy; the sweet taste and high water content make them refreshing to eat."
[5] "The taste of the fruit is very sweet, with some cultivars having a slight acidic tang. The texture of the flesh varies markedly between different cultivars; some have quite a soft and pulpy texture similar to an over-ripe plum, while others have a firmer flesh much like that of a cantaloupe or avocado, and in some cultivars the flesh can contain fibrous material. Mangoes are very juicy; the sweet taste and high water content make them refreshing to eat, though somewhat messy."

From Mango#Pests and diseases
"Over 492 species of insects, 17 species of mites and 26 species of nematodes have been reported to be attacking mango trees. Almost a dozen of them have been found damaging the crop to a considerable extent causing severe losses and, therefore, may be termed as major pests of mango. These insects are hopper, mealy bug, inflorescence midge, fruitfly, scale insect, shoot borer, leaf webber and stone weevil. Of these, insects infesting the crop during flowering and fruiting periods cause more severe damage. The insects other than those indicated above are considered as less harmful to a mango crop and are placed in the category of minor pests."
"More than 492 species of insects, 17 species of mites and 26 species of nematodes have been reported to be infesting mango trees, about 45 per cent of which have been reported from India. Almost a dozen of them have been found damaging the crop to a considerable extent causing severe losses and, therefore, may be termed as major pests of mango. These are hopper, mealy bug, inflorescence midge, fruitfly, scale insect, shoot borer, leaf webber and stone weevil. Of these, insects infesting the crop during flowering and fruiting periods cause more severe damage. The insects other than those indicated above are considered as less injurious to mango crop and are placed in the category of minor pests."

From Mango#Medicinal uses
"Dried mango flowers serve as astringents in cases of diarrhea, chronic dysentery, catarrh of the bladder and chronic urethritis resulting from gonorrhea. The bark contains mangiferine and is astringent and used against rheumatism and diphtheria in India. The gum from the trunk is applied on cracks in the skin of the feet and on scabies, and is believed helpful in cases of syphilis."
From [7]
"Medicinal Uses: Dried mango flowers, containing 15% tannin, serve as astringents in cases of diarrhea, chronic dysentery, catarrh of the bladder and chronic urethritis resulting from gonorrhea. The bark contains mangiferine and is astringent and employed against rheumatism and diphtheria in India. The resinous gum from the trunk is applied on cracks in the skin of the feet and on scabies, and is believed helpful in cases of syphilis."

One final note on the above: I left a polite message on the editor's talk page and the editor blanked the statement without reply. [8] Durova 07:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Alan Turing[edit]

This is a very interesting article about an influential man. It has all the components of a featured article.Gilliamjf 08:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It's good, but I think a lot of work is still needed for this to get to Featured quality. 1) It could do with a liberal sprinkling of inline citations. 2) The "Turing in fiction" looks very crufty: ("In White Wolf Game Studio's World of Darkness role-playing universe, Turing was a leading member of the mage faction known as the Virtual Adepts" etc). Perhaps split this into a subarticle Turing in fiction? 3) The "Posthumous recognition" is a collection of one- or two-sentence paragraphs. 4) The section "Pattern formation and mathematical biology" is very short; it could do with expanding. 5) We should expand on the description of ACE (computer) and its place in computing history (what is did first, what influence it had on other computers etc). 6) Generally I think the "Early computers and the Turing Test" needs to be fleshed out more. 7) A photo of Hut 8 (the section at BP where Turing was in charge) would be nice. 8) The "Cryptanalysis" section needs an overhaul (that's my fault, of course, having rewritten much of it). — Matt Crypto
  • Object as per Matt Crypto. I especially find the posthumous recognition section terrible because it's a jumble of things which don't really go together well -- it strikes me more as trivia than anything else. Why not write a legacy section about how Turing's work has influenced modern computing science? Appropriate references to his inclusion in pop culture could also be included here. (As a general rule, I think any article should only include instances of where the person/thing in question was a major component of the pop culture medium in question. For example, Theodore Roosevelt makes multiple appearances in the McDuck comic books, so it's a good example of his inclusion in pop culture. What isn't a good example would be some random inclusion as a minor character. That doesn't illustrate the person's influence on pop culture -- if any -- IMO.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Matt and John. The "Turing in fiction" section is crufty and should at a minimum be converted to prose (rather than a bulleted list). Preferably, that section will be moved to another article or axed completely. — BrianSmithson 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "Turing in fiction" and "Posthumous recognition" sections should be cut, and the article needs footnotes. Also, the organization of the article doesn't make much sense to me. Looking at the section headings, I can't puzzle out why they're in the order they're in, whether a given piece of information would definitely belong in one particular sentence. A lot of good work has been done here, but this is an important topic, and deserves a better treatment.--Bcrowell 07:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The claim that Turing developed the Bombe method for solving Enigma ciphers is false. The method was developed by a Polish cryptographer named Rejewski in ~1937. Source: Solving the Enigma: History of the Cryptanalytic Bombe, National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland
    • Not quite, and your NSA source doesn't say that. While superficially similar, the Turing (and Turing-Welchman) bombes operated on an entirely different principle to the Polish bomby. At best, we can suppose that Turing's version was inspired by the Polish version, but it can't really be seen as a refinement or upgrade or any such: the machines are just too different. I'd recommend: Donald Davies, "The Bombe – a Remarkable Logic Machine," Cryptologia, 23(2), April 1999, pp. 108–138 — a journal article that directly compares the two machines on a technical level. — Matt Crypto 17:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

University of Oxford[edit]

University of Oxford is the model of universities worldwide. It is the oldest university in the English-speaking world. Should this article be a FA? --Cheung1303 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object for huge lists of non-prose at the bottom, absolutely no reference section or inline citation, a very thin Reputation section, and a very small history section for a nearly 900 year old school. See Hopkins School and it's first FAC for a similar complaint. I've expanded it much further, and Hopkins as only been around since 1660! Staxringold 11:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to WP:PR - this is getting there, but many areas need to be expanded - history is cursory (seemingly nothing happened from 1688 to 1830); too many sections are too short (single paragraphs for academic year, degrees, reputation) - and there is no need for the long lists of "Events and organisations officially connected with the University include" and "Oxford in literature and other media" - turn these into prose and/or a sub-articles - and is there really a need for 4 wide templates at the end? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object- shift to Peer Review- Several long lists, some of which would be better off in prose. No references or inline citations at all. Many of the sections are too short, and "Other students in Oxford" seems not to do anything with students. For an example to follow, see University of Michigan. AndyZ 13:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - At the moment, it needs a lot more detail to be considered for FA status. For example, it doesn't cite enough in the 'Admissions' section, the 'Academic year' section is too short, and the history is a bit sloppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schizmatic (talkcontribs) 16:43, March 15, 2006

Stargate (device)[edit]

(Partially a self-nomination). I think this article is very well written, certainly complete, informative, and detailed where it needs to be. It has appropriate pictures to illustrate its points. It carefully explains what a Stargate is in an interesting way, and how they work, and provides background and context as well.

Being about the Stargate itself, the article acts as a kind of lead-in, or introduction, for people who don't know much about the Stargate series. Stargate is one of the biggest science fiction series in popular culture, and this device is the core of it. -- Alfakim --  talk  02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose I just skimmed thru it quickly, and it seems to be comprehensive about its uses. However, there are some problems:
    • For any fictional articles, we'd like to see more about development, art direction, and basically the "making of" of that fictional object. The earlier uses of Stargate section reads very unprofessional, and there's no implication that the "gate" in Stargate was inspired or based on these "gates." The other uses of Stargate section also reads amateurish, and there is also no developmental connection between the Stargate and these gates. It's like writing an article about tigers, and then mention every incidences of tigers in anything you can think of. Thus these sections are extraneous and should be deleted.
    • There are no in-line citation or any references, and bars have risen and currently these are part of a good FA.
    • Reads comprehensive at first about its functions...etc. But then these are just tons and tons of baloney (sp) without citations.

Temporary account 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Making of" sections could be added, yes.
References are present. Formal ones are given for quotations, and references to the episode the information came from is given where appropriate all throughout the article.-- Alfakim --  talk  03:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm a member of the Stargate WP, but this is still very short. Two references do not a featured article make. The lead needs shortening/tweaking also. Staxringold 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The tone of the article is not quite right. The level of information is very good, but it must be presented differently. In my opinion, the article is written too much like the Stargate is a real-world object. The information must be presented in a way that makes it more evident that a Stargate is a fictional concept. I know that it's obvious that Stagates aren't real, but it is important to make sure that articles detailing fictional and real objects are written in different styles. In addition, there are formatting issues, such as the lack of inline citations. As ridiculous as I think they are, they are now a standard FA criteria. RyanGerbil10 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking at the additional debate that has taken place, I feel I should clarify my objections. I don't have any problem with citing the episodes as sources, because the nominator has a point: it is difficult to find sources for recent, pop-culture items. I wouldn't even have a problem with citing the same episode over and over, as long as the footnotes are done correctly, showing how many times a particular episode is referenced. Now, I don't know anything about this topic, so I would have to defer to someone else when it comes to comprehensiveness, but if the references and footnotes are taken care of (which sounds like the case), and someone knowledgable about the topic says it is suitably comprehensive, I would support. RyanGerbil10 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To: People with problems about references.
A fictional thing can't really have references or citations. The only references it can have are in the individual episodes of the series, and these are mentioned in ("brackets").

  • comment Are you implying then there's nothing much to say about the gate, or that this subject is so barren that nothing important has been written on it? If there's nothing, I don't see how this can be FA at all. Compare to Donkey Kong (arcade), it's fictional, but see how much source it has. Temporary account 04:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The Stargate mythos is hugely rich. But ultimately to cite anything other than the actual episodes is wrong. It's like if I said "Alice goes into the woods" and then cited a commentary on Alice as proof of this, rather than the book itself.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I disagree. You could cite to supplementary materials on DVDs (commentaries, making ofs) if there are any that cover the subject, or magazine (or web) articles with interviews with the special effects people, writers, producers, etc. Шизомби 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Also, the actual prop's construction definetly needs some refs, which is not something referenced from episodes. Two other fictional examples, see The West Wing or Cheers, which have numerous references, even for their fictional aspects. Staxringold 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry Alfakim but i'm goning to have to Oppose too. Although I wrote a portion of this article, and came up with the idea of nominating it as an FA, I didn't think it was ready. I was watching this one closely to see when it was ready. (My intention was to nominate it when it was.) There are still 4 major problems with this article. One, it only refrences two episodes even though it refers to dozens. Two, There is a chart of all Milky way gate symbols but none of the peagasus. Three, there is a place on the Table of contents where there is only one subsection to a section. I think this looks bad. If there are goning to be subsections there should be 2 or more. Four, there is no See Also section. this is vital. I'm goning to add it soon. Tobyk777 04:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay I accept your reasoning. If these problems are sorted fairly soon we can keep this all to one nomination.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only two references, too many fair use images.--Bcrowell 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose nowhere near Featured quality. -AKMask 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Way too many lists that need to be converted to prose. The "Making of" section appears to be appended as an afterthought and should instead be the focus of the article. It is important to remember that the Stargate is a fictional item in our own universe and to approach the subject from that angle. — BrianSmithson 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If there aren't references for the material it's original research and we shouldn't be covering it; also per WP:V. If that means shrinking the article drastically that's fine, there are many things that Wikipedia is not for, and there are many places fiction fandom is more suited to. The shows are only suitable references for limited facts. - Taxman Talk 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No real references, no secondary sources -- this is original research. Perhaps impressive OR, but OR nonethless. Also, it is too long - it isn't an encyclopedia article, it is a tome, way out of proportion to the notability of the topic. Corrections would be a vast shrinking of the article and the provision of appropriate secondary sources. -- Gnetwerker 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This comment makes no sense. this isn't original research at all. This was taken from a TV show. The only thing a vast shhrinking would do would be to delete information. And I have to say that I don't have a clue what you mean by the phrase: " Perhaps impressive OR, but OR nonethless. " This vote shouldn't be counted due to it's invalidity. Tobyk777 00:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "OR" == "Original Research". In any case, I stand by my comment. The page editors created it from scratch (i.e. from studying the series and discerning these fictional "facts" about the device), therefore it is original research. Perhaps we shouldn't count Tobyk777's vote because he doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's". :-) -- Gnetwerker 01:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The ediotors didn't study anything, they watched TV. The editors didn't research much, they simply watched TV. Last time I checked, if you don't research then you arnt doing original research. How could this possibly original research? It's not like we are making the cure for cancer here, we are documenting a TV show which is a source. I'm saying that votes which state incorrect facts shouldn't be counted due to their invalidity. If I vote that the sky is red it wouldn't be counted. And who gives a damn about the apostraphe in it's? Tobyk777 04:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • There's no fictional discerning going on. In the show it simply says "THE STARGATE IS ....X..." and so then in the article we say it's X. Really, no Original Research. Check out the Italian featured Stargate article which is even longer. This is all pertinent, backed up information about the Stargate. i dont think we need to shrink it, but i do agree we need more sources.-- Alfakim --  talk  15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in. You can't have any more sources except from the episodes themselves. It's like trying give sources on a Family Guy episode. Where else are you going to pull from? We know what we know from watching TV. It isn't something you can look up. The Italian version doesn't have any referances either. The only thing you can cite besides the episodes is DVD commentaries but unfortunatly, they reveal absolutly nothing about the actual device that is the Stargate. You could most definantly use them for the main Stargate SG1 article but I believe that you will find it quite difficult to cite anything but the episodes. However, I still feel that this article needs work before it is FA. American Patriot 1776 01:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, one can find secondary sources for TV shows like "M*A*S*H", "All in the Family", and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If you can't find secondary sources for this, it shouldn't be a Wikipedia article, much less a featured one. Bottom line, it hasn't existed in popular culture long enough, or isn't significant enough culturally, do be anything other than fandom unless you can find appropriate sources. -- Gnetwerker 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is about a device in the show, not about the actual show itself. The Italians got it to featured with no referances but the episode, why can't we? And just a usless FYI, Stargate is the longest running American sci-fi show ever when it passes X-files next season. So to call it non signifigant would not be correct. American Patriot 1776 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This is because the different language Wikipedias all have different policies, guidelines and procedures. Either the Italian wiki doesn't care as much about references, or it's Featured Article standards are significantly lower. Knowing what I know, I'd imagine the latter, as any Encyclopedia effort would want solid refs. Also, length of the show alone does not always factor into notability. Ask a random Joe on the street to summarize the central themes of the X-Files and the Stargate TV show. I'd guess more would be able to tell you the X-Files general ideas. -AKMask 21:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Well put, well put. American Patriot 1776 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I think this is a really good article. The only thing wrong with it, in my humble opinion, is some of the pictures;
  • Most are too small on the page, and too dark, although this may just be my PC (likely). Nothing good Photoshop skills can't sort out.
  • The images with the 'Sci-fi' logo look a little silly. Anyone who has the DVDs and a screen capture facility could replace these, alternatively there may be a few fansites who may be willing to lend a few shots. I'm assuming the source of those pictures will not take too kindly to us airbrushing out their logo.
Some pictures from the original film wouldn't go amiss, either. Apart from that, and the odd spelling/grammar error, I can't see anything wrong with it. I think that the shows themselves should suffice as sources, although having a look at the official site would help, also this site looks promising too. CaptainVindaloo 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix[edit]

This is now among the best of the rock music bios and, I think, a model for biographies of any sort. Jgm 00:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Object I've only skimmed the article, but inline citations are now required. The quotations section should go; all those quotes should be at the linked Wikiquote page, and those that are really important (if any) should be incorporated into the prose. - The Catfish 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Catfish, he said it all. Staxringold 03:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. per Catfish. The depth of the article is impressive, however. Could easily be an FA with some added care and attention. RyanGerbil10 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Catfish. Also needs proofreading ("its" vs. "it's," "had accepted to promote," etc.). Lots of sentences are poorly written, e.g., "She later noticed his face on a record store album cover and began courting him during his Stockholm concerts (January 1968 and January 1969), leaving him love notes and flowers backstage, which Jimi would oblige by taking her along with him on his post-concert social engagements, the latter of which ended in an overnight stay at the Hotel Carlton." In terms of content and depth, this is very close to being an FA, and people have obviously worked very hard on it, but it needs more work.--Bcrowell 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I added inline citations to the article, but 5 inline citations for a 63kb article seems far from enough. Also needs copyediting, per Bcrowell. AndyZ 13:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Any artist whose inspiration began with Elvis and ended with Wagner deserves more inspiration -and perspiration- than this article reflects. Bordering somewhere between the portentous and the puerile ("there was something in his playing truly his own"), within its own borders no better illustration of the limitations of both Rock and Roll and Wikipedia (jammed knowledge?) can be found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Stuyvesant High School[edit]

After many problems with previous revisions were addressed, I would like to resubmit this article for featured status - it is definitely up-to-par.--Zxcvbnm 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to previous nomination is here.

  • Object. 1) Lacks an explicit references section, and the embedded HTML links need to be converted into full citations as per WP:CITE. 2) The article has multiple single sentence paragraphs that need to be combined with each other or other adjacent paragraphs. 3) A single paragraph lead is too short. WP:LEAD recommends three paragraphs for an article over 30K in size. 4) The list of alumni killed during the September 11, 2001 attacks needs to be reworked to comply with Wikipedia is not a memorial. 5) The external links not being used inplace of footnotes need to be thinned as per Wikipedia:External links. --Allen3 talk 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Any comments on the content? Pcb21 Pete 16:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 1) Done, following suggestions by Tito below. RossPatterson 05:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 2) Zxcvbnm has cleaned up several of these. The others appear to be standalone thoughts that probably bear expanding rather than coalescing with other paragraphs. RossPatterson 01:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      There are still a number of examples of single sentence paragraphs left in the History and Academics sections. --Allen3 talk 17:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 3) Agreed. I have rewritten the intro and I think it does a better job of summarizing the article. RossPatterson 02:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per Allen3. RyanGerbil10 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't want to offer a vote either way, but regardless how the nomination goes (and, if the last two are any indication, it may not go so well) I think the Stuyvesant article is the best high school article on Wikipedia, and, perhaps with some work, will definitely become a FA. --DanielNuyu 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why does the school have two different newspapers? Шизомби 06:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It has had more than that at times, they tend to take different perspectives and serve different readership groups. RossPatterson 05:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Years (as opposed to full dates) and decades are linked; please delink them, as per WP's policy. Tony 11:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object due to the needs-fixing reference section and linked years. As an aside to Daniel, I'd personally swing towards Caulfield Grammar School currently as it's the only FA thusfar. Staxringold 11:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Year links done. RossPatterson 13:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • References done, following suggestions by Tito below. RossPatterson 05:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Stax: Caulfield's article is indeed impressive; I was not aware of that article (or school for that matter). Thanks for the info. --DanielNuyu 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I've just finished reading Caulfield Grammar School and the comments from its successful FAC nomination and the previous failed attempt. Frankly, I don't get it. Both articles look pretty good to me, and I'm at a loss to see why CGS succeeded and Stuyvesant appears to be failing. I do see that the advocate (Harro5) was pretty agressive at pressing commentors to make their objections actionable, but that doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL to me. For my own education, and for the next time this article goes up on the ballot, can someone give me the short version of why CGS works for you and Stuy doesn't? RossPatterson 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I'll take that as constructive criticism shall I? Water off a duck's back. But the article does look very good; people are surprisingly fickle when it comes to passing schools at FAC. See Hopkins School for the prime examples. Harro5 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Most of my issues are dealt with, now this is just a matter of citation, I'm guessing. I'm happy to support this, as its promotion would be a good sign for Hopkins' eventual FAC. Some examples of things requiring citation:
              • "Stuyvesant High School is named after Peter Stuyvesant, the last Dutch governor of New Netherland before the ownership of the colony was transferred to England in 1664. The school is also commonly referred to as "Stuy," an abbreviation of Stuyvesant."
              • "The school was established in 1904 as a manual training school for boys, hosting 155 students and 12 faculty. In 1907, it moved from its original location at 225 East 23rd Street to 345 East 15th Street, where it remained for the following 85 years. Its reputation for excellence in math and science continued to grow, and the school had to be put on a double session in the early 1920s to accommodate the rising number of students. In the 1930s, admission tests were implemented, making it even more competitive. During the 1950s, a $2 million renovation was done on the building to update its classrooms, shops, libraries and cafeterias."
              • "In 1972, Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, Stuyvesant High School, and Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts were chosen by the New York State Legislature as specialized high schools of New York City. The act called for an uniform exam to be administered for admission to Brooklyn Technical High School, Bronx High School of Science, and Stuyvesant High School. The exam would become known as the Specialized Science High Schools Admission Test (SSHSAT) and tested students in math and science."
              • "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Stuyvesant was stricken by the AIDS epidemic, with at least four teachers dying from that disease."
            • The facility and basic class information don't need a lot of citation, as they are things observed and known simply by being on campus (like not needing to cite the sentence "Jesus Christ is a key figure in Christianity"), but things like all these history quotes definetly need sourcing. Also, if you're keeping Stuyvesant High School student body as a split-off, it could use a clean-up. Staxringold 00:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some formatting is required with the positioning of images especially the centenary and maths survey images which are positioned past the actual section and into the following. Aside from that I read the Caulfield Grammer School article and the Scotch College article currently nominated. Of the three this one reads better, more informative and well laid out(except as stated) Gnangarra 15:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. I never realized how jarring some of those image/text flows were until you pointed it out. RossPatterson 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article should be considered the standard for any school wanting to get FAC. It should also be noted as How to operate when nominating for FAC well done. Gnangarra 06:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, due to the references only. Add <ref></ref> around the bare URLs, then add a <references/> tag in a separate References section to get them all in one place. Afterwards, convert them to {{cite web}}. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for the tips on technique! RossPatterson 05:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a malformed nomination: it was created by erasing and overwriting the previous nom, as can be seen in the History. Please read the project page instructions for how to renominate while preserving the old nom as an archive, and fix this. It's quite important for the archive to exist. Reviewers need to be able to read the previous nomination, and preferably not by digging into the history of this one. I, for instance, made major objections which were ignored, and I'd be interested to see if they've been fixed now. Also, please put back the recently erased facfailed template for the old nom on the talkpage (and make it link to the archive, when you've created that). Bishonen | ノート 02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
    • It appears that Zxcvbnm did what the rules say - there's a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stuyvesant High School/archive1 that was created by him/her before he/she started this re-nomination. As noted in the previous nomination, there doesn't seem to be any record of the one before that. RossPatterson 05:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've put the facfailed back on Talk:Stuyvesant High School and updated it as you suggest. RossPatterson 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you'll find your objections were heard and acted on. Looking over the archived comments, I see the following from you:
      • the nickname right in the first sentence,
        • That's still there.
          • Zxcvbnm has moved this out of the lead where it is no longer quite so prominent. RossPatterson 01:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • the humorous claim that the building is sinking,
        • Gone.
      • the old prank made obsolete by the swimming pool.
        • Gone, although there's a side-reference to it in the Pop Culture section (the joke was incorporated into a feature film involving the school).
      • "large glass [yeah..?] windows",
        • Gone.
      • "computers for work or play",
        • Gone.
      • "a popular hangout",
        • Gone.
      • "hundreds of square feet of carpet for sitting and socializing",
        • Gone.
      • "being caught in the elevator without a pass guarantees one a trip to the dean",
        • Gone.
      • "when the escalators do break down, groans can be heard as Stuyvesant students grudgingly clamber up the steps".
        • Gone.
    • RossPatterson 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Ross. Those were just examples, so I'll take a look a bit later. I've put a link to previous nom up top for ease of location. Bishonen | ノート 08:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC).
        • I should have pointed out last night that the changes I mentioned above weren't made just now - the article has been cleaned up a lot since the last nomination, and all I did was check to see if the items you mentioned were still present. Anyway, thanks for the critique - it's a tighter article today than it was then, and criticism helped make it better. RossPatterson 14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
          • About the "nickname in the first sentence" thing...the thing is, it's not just a nickname, even the administration refer to it as "Stuy," and the website is So it should remain in the article. Also, a reference section was added, so there should be no objections due to lack of references.--Zxcvbnm 00:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd like to acknowledge that the article is a whole lot better than last time. However. You need to try harder to avoid speaking to a US audience exclusively. By "speaking to", I mean things like assuming US practices to be default, or failing to explain or link American cultural specifics ("varsity") or, say, acronyms for government bodies (EPA). For instance, there's a section about "feeder patterns" (a non-obvious phrase to most non-Americans, surely, but that's a side issue), which turns out to be about the fact there there are no such patterns. At least remove the first "paragraph" in this section. But preferably the whole, because it's weak: it's too short to be a top-level section, and consists of too short paragraphs, and the claim that students "often" use deceptive pracices to get into the school is simply impressionistic—how on earth can I verify it? Source it, please (not from somebody's blog). Altogether it's very easy in a school article to fall into the trap of excluding readers by assuming they'll know what an American student knows; I'm not really blaming the authors, but it should be fixed. What is "the international FIRST competition"? What's PSAL? Feel free to link or explain words like varsity etc, preferably at first appearance (I just found FIRST linked further down, but that's sort of unhelpful). These are nits to pick, and I'm certainly not opposing over them, but here's the big one, over which I am opposing: the many dead or irrelevant links in the references section. The authors seem to be aware of them, dubbing them "Unknown, offline", but, uh, you can't source things in the article to a dead link just because there was one there in January 2005. Links are going to always keep deteriorating, and the idea is that you keep updating them, if you want the article to be one of Wikipedia's best. Please find the new URL, if it exists, or another source, or remove the info in the text. Or at the very least remove the null "reference", but if you take the last option, I think the Reference Police will get you. Oh, incidentally, the account of the centennial celebration is incredibly uninteresting to the general reader. Please keep Stuy Struts and gala dinners and their guest speakers to the inner circle, don't put them in an international encyclopedia. There is such a lot about this school that is of general interest, after all. Bishonen | ノート 11:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC). (P.S., the movie Hackers should only be mentioned in one place.)
  • Support - as if there was any doubt from my comments and actions so far. RossPatterson 04:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - This article is an exemplary piece of wikipedia's collaboratory efforts and a model for other school pages abulanov 13:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As much as I love to support high school articles on Wikipedia, I have to support what Bishonen is saying. He did great work to help get Caulfield Grammar School up to scratch, and should be listened to here as well. Harro5 21:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We Belong Together[edit]

A lot of work has gone into the article since it was last nominated. A sound sample has been added, a complete list of the credits and personnel has been included, and a heavy copy-edit was conducted. In my personal opinion the only thing that is missing from the article now is a chart of the U.S. and UK chart trajectories of which I have in my possession, but I can live without excess detail! Although it was not resubmitted to peer review, information at the most recent nomination was successfully engraved into the article (permanently)! This time around, I am convinced that the article is ready to become a featured article. It meets all of the criteria, and objections have been addressed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support, of course. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Could we get citations for the first paragraph of Structure and music? That seems to be more opinion, IMO, so we should just cite reviews describing the song (which shouldn't be too hard to find). The last paragraph of Chart performance has no inline citations. I find the article a bit uncomfortable to read at times, mainly because it's a bit hagiographic (IMO), but since I feel I might be too biased to judge and this is one of the better pop articles I've seen, I won't object yet. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been searching for references concerning the structure and music paragraph but have been unsuccessful. Although it's not really the best example, would you feel more convinced if the song itself spoke for the paragraph? I'll continue searching for references, of course, but it has been difficult. Which portion of the chart performance are you referring to? Is it the part before "free downloads controversy" or the very last paragraph? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and sourced that section; it can be synthesized from the two sources.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The part before the free downloads controversy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, that section has three inline citations. As the entire point is from one source (Billboard itself), it was best if we placed the citations at the end of the paragraphs, and not in individual sentences. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The Canadian, UK, Australian, and French charts have been sourced. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Having worked on this, i think it now fits the criteria. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It needs a lot of copyediting (punctuation, coordination of tenses). The images are all claimed as fair use, and appear to be there mostly for decoration. The "structure and music" section isn't very complete, uses nonstandard musical terminology ("phases"), and doesn't even mention, for example, whether the song is in a minor key or a major key. The lead doesn't do anything to convince a read who's not a Carey fan that there's anything noteworthy or interesting about the topic; it states that the song was a commercial success, and that it was well received by critics, but the footnote for the latter claim links to a fan site.--Bcrowell 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that this user is no longer actively contributing to WP, so he is unable to reassess his oppose vote. The editors however, have addressed (or have attempted to address) the objection. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't want to reassess my vote. I stand by my oppose vote. Please don't put words in my mouth.--Bcrowell
      • I have no intention of reassessing my vote, because the minor improvements have not been enough. I have already responded to this comment by saying that I'm still following this discussion, but someone deleted my comment. The fact that such a lousy article could be considered seriously for FA was one of the things that made me decide to quit WP and intentionally mung my password. Since orane feels the need to shout by boldfacing his/her comment, I've done the same in my reply. Note, however, that I would not sink so low as to delete orane's comment, as was done to my comment. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe me when I say that I'm really bcrowell, in which case it was sneaky and dishonest to delete my comment; or I'm you don't, in which case you can feel free to count this as an additional vote to oppose.--Bcrowell
      • Eternal equinox has deleted the above comment. This is the second time it has been deleted. Eternal equinox's comment on the second deletion was "Removed possible vandalism; if Bcrowell would like to make comments, he should do so from his own account." But of course the content of the comment makes it clear that I cannot make comments from my own account, because I've intentionally disabled my account. Also as explained in the comment, the supporters of this article can't have it both ways: either I'm who I claim to be, in which case it's dishonest and despicable to delete my comments, or I'm not who I claim to be, in which case this should be counted as a second vote against the article.--Bcrowell
      • Let me intervene (sorry EE). I have done some copyediting, and have replaced "phase" with the correct musical term — "section". I've also mentioned the key the song was in etc. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • A lot of copy-editing has already been conducted, and the users who wrote this article feel as though it is ready to be accepted as a featured article. All of the images are tagged properly and none are being used in the article for decorative purposes. Mariah Carey accepting an award for "We Belong Together" is not decorative — it presents the singer in an uplifting mood because of her win. The images from the music video present Carey's sheer frustration when she pleads for her lover's return and to show her wedding dress which caused much publicity. The "music and structure" is an effort placed in the article based on research; it does not require proper "music terminology"; it needs to be communicated so that non-musicians understand the language. We could not find a reference or which key it is in, therefore it was not included in the article. If the lead doesn't convince you that the song was a commercial success, well then there's nothing we can do about it: we're here to summarize the facts, not convince a reader that it was a hit or a failure. There are links in the "Critical reception" portion of the article stating the positive and negative reviews it received, which makes the article stable instead of purely provided teeter-totter POV on either the good or bad side. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If you can't find out whether the song is in a major or minor key, maybe you simply don't have enough sources of information to write an FA-quality article. It seems implausible to me, however, that you couldn't track down information of that kind. Why not just walk into a music shop, find the sheet music on the shelf, and look at the key signature, chords, and melody? It seems odd to me that you don't think standard musical terminology should be used in an article on a musical topic. If this was an article on geometry, we'd expect words like "line" and "angle" to be used correctly, rather than ad hoc, idiosyncratic terms like "straight thingy" and "wedgy bit." Someone who has a deep knowledge of a subject can often get across the relevant ideas while finding creative methods to avoid an excess of obscure terminology; but the impression I get here is that the people who wrote this section simply don't have the relevant musical knowledge. The lead does convince me that the song was a commercial success, but it does not convince me that it was a critical success, nor does the mixture of positive and negative reviews later in the article convince me of that. The biggest issue IMO is simply that if the article was well written, it would do something in the lead to capture the interest of someone who wasn't already a Carey fan. It simply didn't do that for me.--Bcrowell 20:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I found a source that says that the song is in C Major, but another editor told me to remove it as it was not note worthy; C Major is considered "home key". I can replace it if you wish. "Phases" could be changed to "verses" or something similar. I think that the images are appropriate (though I have my doubt about the last one at "awards"; its not particularly vital). The lead tells that the song is her comeback and signature song; and the article itself expands on this. I think that this is convincing and interesting enough. "It states that the song was a commercial success, and that it was well received by critics, but the footnote for the latter claim links to a fan site". I think that theres a litte confusion here. The bit about the song achieving huge commercial success is not sourced at all — the bit about it becoming her comeback is the point that is sourced, and in any case, none leads to a fansite. Lastly, I recognise the verb/tense shift. Its use here is correct in that, while discussing the song's success and recording preccess, it's appropriate to use past tense, but when discussing the plot and the lyrics, you should use present tense (a common rule in literature that applies to songs, poems, novels, etc) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What I said was that it was not a notable thing where it was, and it wasn't (it was in a sentence that said that it was composed on a piano in C major; on a piano, C major is a natural 'home position,' while on a guitar that would be an unusual key). I.e. "on a piano in C major" is no biggie. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about the music, though, as music, then it makes sense to use the proper terminology, to talk about the key, etc. My larger point was that the music wasn't very unusual, that the song isn't very unusual, that the whole song is rather run of the mill, and I felt like discussing the music was padding. This song isn't "Satisfaction" or "My Generation." It's a fairly standard R&B ballad. Geogre 04:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. All of my issues from the prior FAC, which I initially opposed, have been addressed. Changes and sources have been added, noted a song sample has been included, and song is no longer a "current event", as it has dropped off the Billboard 100 and most other charts. --Ataricodfish 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that the article is well written. Khalif 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A concise, well-written song article. If only every song article could be so to-the-point. RyanGerbil10 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with regret, due to acknowledged omission of chart info, which is essential. But, aside from that, I do find this nom to be very pleasing. Would happily support if chart info was included. Everyking 07:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll also note that I'd be even happier if the chart info was not included in this article, but a subarticle dealing with all chart info in detail was created. That's really what we need here, especially considering how much chart info there is to talk about. But in the short term, I think it would suffice to have a trajectory table of at least the U.S. Everyking 07:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid that I disagree and believe that the article includes a well-balanced portion of the single's chart performance. Much of the information is focused on the U.S. market because that is where its success was most overwhelmed — the Canadian, UK, Australian, French, etc. chart performances are not as in-depth as the former because of the lack of sub-charts. Since the U.S. chooses to display over twenty charts on, we are capable of writing a vast outlook of the "We Belong Together" trajectory and what-not. The other nations do not have sub-charts that are displayed on the official websites—although sub-charts indeed do exist—and therefore it is not as simple to expand upon international appeal. There is a large amount of U.S. information included, beginning with the single's Hot 100 and Airplay success and its performance on the contemporary charts. I don't think that excess information should be added to the article — see Cool (song) for a recent single that reached featured article status: there is not much talk on its chart performance but more so on the writing and inspiration. You may want to see various Beatles' songs (Yesterday (song), I Want to Hold Your Hand, Something) for examples on articles with almost no chart history whatsoever. The article shouldn't go into over-drive on the international chart base. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't say you had to write it. Anyway, my vote stands. The chart information is important. Either include the trajectory or create a subarticle. I see disturbing hints of deletionism here. Everyking 04:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And let me point out that those Beatles articles are the work of User:Johnleemk, a deletionist who has destroyed at least as much music-related content on WP as he has created. Those articles are hardly good examples to point to. If they are weak on chart info they should lose FA status. Everyking 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
          • A sub article just for the purpose of showing the chart performance of a pop ballad? Is it that notable? The chart performance is lengthy enough already (in fact, it is the longest section of the article). Oh, and you may also want to check out Request for comment/Pop music issues. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Of course it's notable. Why are we limiting ourselves, and placing restrictions on our readers? I think we should have all the chart information on this song that there is to write. Everyking 04:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
                • We are placing restrictions on our readers because an encyclopedia is a general source that is supposed to summarize the most notable points of an entry. We are limiting readers becase "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We are limiting readers because noone except a bonafied fan will read an article that stretches for 40 kilobites on a pop ballad. And finally, we are limiting our readers because the FA criteria states that the piece must be tightly focussed without delving into unnecessary info. Frankly, if fans of Carey need to know more, they can look at the external links of the article etc. And if you look closely, there is additional chart info in the "see also" section at "sales and chart achievement". Oran e (t) (c) (e) 05:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, you said I was jumping to accusations, but it looks like I was 100% correct: that's classic deletionist talk right there, right out of the textbook. Some people, I think, don't look at FA with enough theoretical grounding. I've been guilty of this myself before. If something looks nice, and obviously a lot of work went into it, the temptation is to support. You can see that up and down this page. "Oh, looks good, support." But being an FA is much more important than that. Look at how EE pointed to the Beatles articles as examples to bolster his position. FAs set examples, precedents, and collectively they shape the whole idea of what Wikipedia content is supposed to be about. So I refuse to let my guard down and support a deletionist-oriented article just because it looks nice and tidy and referenced. It's evident to me that wrongheaded thinking has been at work on the article, and unless I see some change in that respect I will continue to oppose. Everyking 05:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I think that you are taking this too personally. Secondly, while being a FA doesnt mean that it should look nice and well-referenced, it sure does not mean that the writers should plaster the article with every bit of information that they can find. What would be the focus there? I see that you have commented on EE's examples, but you havent commented on my quotes of the policies and conventions that everyone here seems to follow. And its funny how you think that you are the one who is right. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Also, let's not jump to accusations here (User:Johnleemk and "hints of deletionism")Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Personally, I don't really see how mentioning every single weekly chart position of any single or album is useful in the context of an encyclopedia. Also, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think FAC is the most appropriate place to discuss this, though. Extraordinary Machine 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In response to Everyking, the Beatles articles are absolutely fantastic when looking at musical-related aspects of a song, which I had been attempting to note in my last edit toward your objection. I am not bolstering my position by selecting them because they lack the information you would like to see within them — I chose them because they are well-written, do not contain fan-cruft-related activity, and concentrate on what a song is principally about (which I have just noted): the music and lyrics. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I do—it informs the reader, which is the purpose of this whole project. You have a Britannica-based conception of an encyclopedia: a collection of tidy summaries fitted onto the printed page—well, it's worth remembering that if we were doing things Britannica-style we wouldn't even have an article on this song—or on Mariah Carey herself, since from that viewpoint, the elitist viewpoint, all of it's just trivia, mindless diversions for the "ignorant masses" and such, unworthy of inclusion in a real collection of knowledge. You should think a minute about the basis of your ideas about the nature of an encyclopedia. Where does your viewpoint start, in philosophical terms, and where does it lead? Everyking 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The use of chart trajectories is a contentious point, but I think the purpose of this forum is to assess an article against established criteria. There is nothing about chart trajectories in any of the Wikipedia policy or guideline pages, nor in any of the project pages - if it does exist and I've missed it, please show me where it is. This should not be a forum where any of us push our own particular bias and bargain for a support/oppose vote. Push for the chart trajectories by all means, but do it in the correct forum so that when articles come up for nomination, the chart trajectory is part of the agreed requirement. What we should be deciding here, objectively and dispassionately, is : does the article meet the current established and agreed criteria for a featured article? Yes or no? How can a contributor work to create a featured article if it's going to be judged and condemned against unwritten criteria? That you have a vision for the future of the project is admirable, and possibly a lot of articles will need to be reviewed in time as they might no longer meet standards, but the article should be judged against the current standard, not the future standard that we haven't yet agreed upon. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The issue is comprehensiveness, of course, and that's as standard an objection as they come. I believe the chart trajectory is necessary to comprehensively cover the subject. Everyking 10:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Sure, comprehensiveness is mandatory, I agree, and in general it's a standard, valid objection. Defining "comprehensiveness" is the grey area and I guess that's the point we really don't agree on; the line between comprehensiveness and excessive detail can be very fine. Rossrs 10:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Yeah, on one end there's a single sentence in an article on the history of music that mentions general trends in early 21st century Western popular music, and on the other end there's a whole family of lengthy articles dealing with every aspect of "We Belong Together" in delicious detail, enough to satisfy any and all readers. My real idea of what is comprehensive is the latter. But because that's years ahead of where we're generally at right now, my comprehensiveness standard in present-day practice is way less than that: I just want the inclusion of a basic chart trajectory that we already have access to and which we already know readers want. I see things in terms of movement to one end or the other of that spectrum and try to push for a goal that keeps things going in the right direction. Everyking 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • I don't think you're wrong to push, but I don't think this is the right venue. We'll have to disagree about that. "Delicious detail" won't necessarily "satisfy any and all readers", in fact it will repel many of them. If it's true that "we already know readers want" trajectories, I can only wonder why none of those readers seem to be commenting here, only the ones that don't want it. You seem to be suggesting that you are speaking on behalf of a majority, and I think that's doubtful. In any case, your oppose and my support effectively cancel each other out ;-) and the finer points of this conversation really should be discussed elsewhere. Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to support because of the addition of the chart. Everyking 03:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - it's well written, well referenced, as good as or better than other song related featured articles. Fair use images are well chosen and used sparingly - fair use rationales seem to be good. Comprehensive without delving into the mindless trivia that populates so many pop-culture articles - I like that it's thorough without being exhaustive - well done. In your nomination you said that it's missing chart trajectories and although I know the trajectories have their supporters, I think they clutter up articles with exactly the type of mindless trivia you've cleverly avoided. My opinion only, and I won't change my vote if you add them (but I hope you don't) Rossrs 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, in a quick read-over, it passed inspection. -- user:zanimum
  • Oppose as per Bcrowell. Plus too many copyrighted images to be reasonable, and the final image is out of focus and has little to do with the song itself. We have already got the message as to what she looks like. Giano | talk 09:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There are not too many copyrighted images. Each image does not have to directly relate to the song itself — that would be unusual and would leave us with two images from the music video, which are both in the same section. The rest of the article would become full of text, and uncolourful. The image is not out of focus on my monitor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • OK no problem! I'll stick with oppose. Giano | talk 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It should be noted that this user has already voted and that they have bolded two "oppose" votes. Also, Giano, please refrain from making such comments as "hollow". Please see Wikipedia:Civility. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Bcrowell. Also, the writing is too rigid, it lacks chutzpah. My biggest concern is that the images in the article all look blurry and out-of-focus. HeyNow10029 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • HeyNow10029 has been asked several times to reanalyze her vote but has simply ignored both Journalist and myself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The writing is not supposed to contain "chutzpah". It is supposed to qualify as "brilliant prose" so that others are able to read it very clearly. None of the images are out-of-focus on my monitor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't have to be bland for people to understand it clearly. And the images are out-of-focus, I wasn't the only one who mentioned it. HeyNow10029 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree: the writing does not have to be "exciting" as it is not listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured article. What images do you claim to be out of focus? —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Who said anything about exciting. All the images look blurry, but specifically the first one where she's leaning against the wall. Stick by my oppose. HeyNow10029 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Image use policy says in part "Wikipedia allows low-resolution images of copyrighted material if they are unlikely to affect the potential market for the material, are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism, and for which there is no alternative, non- or free-copyrighted replacement available" (the bold is also from the official policy page). Crystal clear, high resolution images are not to be used. The images are to be only of sufficient quality to do the job of illustrating/demonstrating points addressed in text. This part of your objection is therefore not actionable. With regards to the writing lacking "chutzpah", it would help people understand your position if you gave examples or suggested ways of improving it. Objections must be actionable, and it's up to you to make your opinions clear so that other users have the opportunity to fix what you identify as faults. Rossrs 09:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
              • My objections are actionable. First, fix the pictures: the pictures are blurry which has nothing to do with the resolution. The last picture was screengrabbed at a moment when she was waving her hand, which makes her hand look blurry and the picture poor. And like I commented on before, the first image where she has her back against the wall is way too blurry. Those are my biggest concerns, the writing isn't featured article-worthy but that's a secondary concern. HeyNow10029 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is stated in the licence "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots..." I fail to see under this statute the justification of three pictures of the same woman at the same stage in her life and career. This is pushing the spirit of the law too far. The same woman is also illustrated on the album cover featured in the lead thus negating the need for further images of her under this licence. There is also a world of difference between "low resolution" and "out of focus" as in the final image. Giano | talk 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It's odd. You and HeyNow10029 are both seeing the images as out of focus. Eternal Equinox said the images are not out of focus on his monitor, and they're not on mine either. On mine they have a "low resolution" look but they are all in focus (except for Mariah's hand in the last one). Rossrs 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have consistantly on this FA, and on the previous, only complained of the last picture being out of focus, I note you agree on that. The first image is just a poor reproduction, the others I query the reasonable legality of their inclusion due to their number. Giano | talk 13:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry, my mistake. Only HeyNow10029 said they are all out of focus. And yes, I agree the hand is out of focus. Rossrs 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also have concerns with the images, which apparently suffer from poor resolution and compression artifacts. I'm particularly unsettled by the unexplained presence of what closely resembles an NBC Olympics logo in the bottom right corner of the Radio Music Awards photo. Zoom-in analysis seems to indicate that it is superimposed on the scene, although it may be part of the backdrop curtain. What is it doing there? What does it mean? --Tsavage 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be removing that image; it is out of focus in a way and does present a logo of some sort in the bottom-right corner. I'll be replacing it with an image of better quality, in the least. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support This is weak for one missing ref, and will immediately be turned full if you can ref it. The phrase quiet storm is used twice in the article, once in the lead and once in the structure section. The structure line is fine, as it is sourced to Yahoo Music summarizing it as quiet storm (among other things). The lead, however, has a supposed direct quote from a critic, ""We Belong Together" has been noted by critics for its "quiet storm ambience", laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocal delivery." that I would really love to see cited. I think it's a great article for a song! By removing the quote I feel fine about it nowStaxringold 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It has been cited. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • While I thank you for that, neither of the two sources you cited it with use the phrase "quiet storm ambience", or even just "quiet storm" anywhere in themselves. That still needs citing, or it shouldn't be a quote (and it would probably be POV in that case). Staxringold 01:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 Radio Music Awards image has been replaced with a clearer, logo-less image of Carey accepting an award at the 2005 Teen Choice Awards. Hope this makes everyone happy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do not shout at us in "red". You are not a teacher shouting at pupils in school are you? Giano | talk 22:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not shouting. Some users (not intentionally) miss out on important information and therefore, I chose to make it obvious. And no, actually, I am one of those pupils. Why do you want to know about my professors? Please respond on my talk page since this is unrelated to the FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I have no interest in your professors at all - merely a figure of speech. For some reason, I thought you were a teacher. I don't like the new picture, why is she standing next to a thing like a surf board, is that relevant? Giano | talk 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The surfboard is the award, as noted by the writing on it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a funny thing to give somebody for singing a song, is there a connection that should be in the page? Giano | talk 23:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't believe so, as far as I'm aware. It is, after all, just an award, regardless if it's a statuette, moon-man or surfboard. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Eternal Equinox, that latest picture, did you screengrab it yourself? HeyNow10029 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Well then you should check with whomever claims they screengrabbed it. Because the picture you uploaded with a screenshot tag is an almost exact copy of this picture: [9], which is not a screenshot but a photo released by the Reuters organization. A simple Google image search and you would have found that photo on the first page. If the picture is actually a copy of the one above, which I think it is, then Reuters would own the copyright not the network that aired the program. Furthermore, on the image's page, under summary, you credit: Copyright of the image is owned by MTV and related distributing networks. Do you have any proof that MTV owns the rights to the Teen Choice Awards. The 2005 Teen Choice Awards were aired on FOX, which is a subsidiary of News Corp., MTV is a subsidiary of Viacom. Two totally different groups that I'm sure wouldn't appreciate someone getting mixed up. Please address my concerns, which -considering this is up for FA status- are pressing.HeyNow10029 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it did not come from that location, but from a UK media release. You are right about the copyright, however, and I have corrected the original distributer, who is indeed Reuters. The violation notice has been removed as the appropriate licensing was appointed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Hold on, not so fast. If it came from Reuters, it's obviously not a screenshot, and if it's not a screenshot you should change the screenshot licensing and fair use rationale that all refer to the image as a screenshot. And have you received permission from Reuters to use this image? If I'm correct Reuters is a subscription service that charges fees for the use of their images, I don't think Reuters licenses their images under a free license and I don't think their images are public domain. Plus, there's no link to where the image was copied from. You should really double-check all this before you upload an image on to an article. Eternal_Equinox. HeyNow10029 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • And please don't remove the tag, Eternal. It's good that you corrected the mistake you made in crediting the distrubuter, but the issue still stands as to whether or not the use of that image is a copyright violation. Until the issue is resolved the tag needs to stay on the image.HeyNow10029 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Worthy of FA status. Gflores Talk 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many images, article looks cluttered. 3 copyrighted images for one single is definately stretching fair use, and the graph at the bottom is uneccesary. -AKMask 19:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there a policy that dictates the number of images that are to be used? I'm simply asking because some people say its enough, then others oppose on that ground. My knowledge of the policy is that the images are acceptable if they are used sparingly and are important to the article and adds to its content— the images in the article do add significantly to the content. Again, with conflicting views: Everyking opposed until the graph was put in the article, but here another editor is opposing because of it's inclusion. Can both of you discuss it further so the editors can decide which action to take? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • At one level, it's simply a personal taste. a FA has to look good, and many feel too many images results in a cluttered page. It's a perfectly reasonable objection. On a completely different level, copyrighted images are utilized under the standard of 'fair use', which means we are legally allowed to use such images, generally in a non-perfect form (web-resolution and small in wikipedias case) just to the point of critiqueing and getting our point across. An album cover is fine. 3 fair use images for a single is pushing it too far, the points been made with one. Not a FA point, mind you, but fair use is the minimum to get the point out, not to make the point look pretty. cut the images from 3 to 2, only the cover being fair use, and dump the graph, and I'll support. -AKMask 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Considering Everyking suggested the inclusion of the chart, and changed his vote to support, I'm very reluctant on doing so. If it is removed, we still have take out another to receive your vote. That wouldn't work in favour of the FAC. The first image is supposed to indicate Carey's sheer frustration that is mentioned throughout the writing of the song. The second is supposed to present her wedding dress that was speculated as a publicity stunt; it also shows others that participated in the filming of the video such as Eric Roberts. The final image is of Carey accepting an award, which is appropriate for the section it is included in. "Article looks cluttered" is by far personal taste as I believe you have noted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Up to you, but as of now, you're either at the 'no consensus' level or one more oppose vote away, depending on the closing admins favored percentage level. -AKMask 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually, only User:Raul654 is responsible for promoting articles, where (I think) he looks at the object votes and judges if they are actionable, valid, reasonable or just plain trivial, then he promotes it (or not). It's not done by percentage. Therefore, an article can probably receive 10 supports and 5 opposes, where the opposers nitpick and oppose on some really trivial, subjective and inactionable grounds, but still be promoted. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You may wish to review wikipedia policy. Yes, Objections must be actionable, but all currently are. The goal is to reach a community consensus, which is generally felt to lie somewhere between 66 and 75 percent of the views expressed. -AKMask 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, you have misunderstood me: I wasn't implying that the objections here aren't actionable; they are. You, however, might want to review the policies, as you are wrong; its not, nor was it ever, about the percentage of support votes that an article received (you seem to have confused this with the RFA process). If you still have doubts, go to the FA director himself— or anyone else who has knowledge of the FAC process. Anyway, here isn't the place to discuss it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Images have been removed. All that remains are two from the video and the single cover. The single cover is important (obviously) and so is Image:WBT2.jpg, which depicts the singer's frustration that is mention and commented on in the article. Image:Weddingdress.jpg at music video is also vital— afterall I think that you will agree that we need a screencapture of the video if we are to discuss it at length. I hope that some of the objections here have been addressed. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Not confused, I just throw that percentage out because it is whats most reffered to as consensus, since we dont go for a straight up or down vote. Alas, the graph is still there, which is fine from a copyright view, but I fail to see how it does anything but clutter the page. High points in the charts and overall sales are all that is needed. And while im still wary of 3 fair use images, it is a 25% drop that you did with little objection, so im fine with that. Find a way to dump the graph, and you have my vote -AKMask 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. However, can't we come to a compromise? If we remove the graph, we will have another oppose on our hands. The thing is, you can choose not to support, but still strike out your oppose vote i.e abstain. Does the graph really lessen its quality and makes it unworthy of FA status? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The awards image has been removed. Now only two images from the music video and the one image of the chart trajectories remain. I would appreciate it if the objectors reanalyzed their votes. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Could the users who voted object please reanalyze their votes? The image at the awards ceremony is long gone now. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This just isn't really Featured-quality writing. The prose is uncompelling and there's really a dearth of encyclopedic information about the subject. Featured Articles on songs / singles like Layla, Get Back (song), or Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) present a vast amount of information on songwriting, recording, historical impact, and so forth, with nearly no divergence into (arguably) trivial stuff like describing the plot of a song's music video or listing its positions on the Top-Whatever charts. This article, however, gives us a couple of hundred words on those topics, some direct copy-and-paste quotations from various reviewers, and then the music-video rundown and charts data. When looking for Featured Articles, we must ask "what makes this particular article special among other articles on the same subject?"; the answer, in this case, is "absolutely nothing", and I cannot support it. --keepsleeping slack off! 04:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, your concern about the "historical impact" of the song is going to have to be overlooked mainly because it has only been public for eleven months. There is information in the article regarding recording and songwriting, it just is not very expandable. What is it that you would like us to accomplish? Perhaps search out for more information on the writing process? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing is, you have given examples of the few songs where "songwriting", "recording", and "historical impact" are the strong points and the composers are known for their artistry (like the Beatles, or Temptations ). "We Belong Together" (like "Cool") is a contemporary pop song, where these things are not emphasized as much. ie, nothing was special about it as to merit lengthy discussion. You have to admit that today, there is bearly any real artistry behind pop songs— people just sit and write anything, then they make a good video to ensure its success. You can't use the examples of 70s songs to dictate what info is to be included on a 2005-06 pop song as 1)people's expectation of what info to look for has changed, 2)Unlike the 70s where no one cared about music videos and ficussed solely on music, music videos have now come to the forefront of any pop song, and 3)Chart placements dictate the commercial success of the single. However, I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not equally easy to write an FA-quality article about any topic. Although, for example, shoe polish made it to FA, if they had wanted an easy topic for an FA, that wouldn't have been it. Orane, my main complaint about the article has always been that it wasn't sufficiently well written to interest a reader who wasn't already a Carey fan, and that the lead, in particular, didn't explain what was noteworthy about the topic in a convincing way. The article on shoe polish didn't have to convince me to become a big fan of shoe polish; it merely had to convince me that it would tell me something noteworthy and interesting about the topic -- and it did. It seems as though you're saying now that the song is without artistic merit, and therefore there's no need to discuss the actual music in the article in any depth. If that's the case, then I'm more perplexed than ever as to what the article is claiming is noteworthy about the topic. It seems odd to me to state a POV value judgment about the artistic merits of the song -- one that the lead appears to contradict -- and use it to justify the article's lack of any musically literate discussion.--Bcrowell 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I understand. I'm now working on including the recording and songwriting, though there's little information to go on (online or off) with such a recent pop song. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The article has gone under some long and drastic changes. I've added info on the recording, inspiration, writing, studio sessions etc. Bcrowell, I've also changed the intro. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job, exceedingly well sourced and comprehensive, everything I would want to know if I liked that song :) Judgesurreal777 04:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the "music and recording" section has undergone a complete rewrite and an image of the opening notes from the song has been added. Could the users who objected please check their votes over to see if anything remains relevant? As it currently stands, I'm almost positive that a few objections have been addressed and are no longer applicable to this debate. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The article is too long for a single. Too many fair use screen shots of the video that don't really have anything to do with the song. Also, I strongly object to the image of the sheet music. This fails the fair use test because the subject of the article is the esthetic aspect of the song and its notability as a successful pop single, not a critical interpretation of its musciality. On this basis, the song is not very notable. The scant critical interpretation of this song is merely that it is in the key of C (a highly dubious statement in itself because most piano sheet music transposes to a key that is easy for a novice or intermediate player). Sheet music falls under the publishing license of copyright. The sound recording falls under the mechanical license. The article is about the sound recording and thus any argument of fair use of the publishing licence is moot. Furthermore, the image is taken from a site that sells sheet music. It is unclear if the uploader even purchesed the product or simply copied the image from the site. To paraphrase Tolkien, an administrator should know better. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
How do you mean that the article is too long? Is there a set limit for a single? It does not go over the 32 kb limit. Furthermore, all the information presented in it are notable for a pop song in this day and age. In order to make your oppose actionable, I (very kindly) ask that you take the time to go through the article and give examples of what section needs trimming.
Yes, the site sells the sheet, but they offer that small section (the first few notes and first two words of the song) for public viewing. I don't think its copyright infringement to use that single page in an article — it falls under one of the blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, how can you say that two images of the music video are too many? The first image (Image:WBT2.jpg), as explained earlier, is vital as it is used to identify and comment on the songs progression and the emotional states of the protagonist, which is discussed at length in the "music and structure" section. The other image Image:Weddingdress.jpg is used at the music video section to show the state of the protagonist, and it represents the theme and central plot of the song, which is also commented on in "music video". How are they meaningless to the article? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A music video is a work of art separate from the song. I wouldn't object to a FU image in a section describing a video based on the song, but a screenshot tells the average reader nothing about the quality of a song. I'm referring to Image:WBT2.jpg which is in a section titled "Music and structure." The argument that the fair use of this copyrighted image provides information about the musical structure of the song is equivocal.
As for being too long here are some examples: Carey and Dupri decided to include portions of what they considered classic R&B singles in an attempt to make "We Belong together" special. How? Where is a citation for how this is special? The section then goes on to paraphrase the lyrics of the song. It is somewhat notable that the song references other songs and borrows lyrics, but it's not entirely unusual. This section could be shortened to The song references and uses lyics from Two songs, Bobby Womack's "If You Think You're Lonely Now" (1981) and The Deele's "Two Occasions" (1987, featuring Babyface as lead vocalist). We can't conclude the meaning of the inclcusion of the references to these songs without a citation of a critical review pointing out the relevance. Carey transitions into the third and final section by raising her voice an octave, which is meant to emphasize the sheer frustration and desperation of the protagonist as she gives one last plea for her former lover to return. I find this statement questionable. How do we get into the composer's mind that going up an octave relates an emotion? I can't check the references at my location, but I hope that they include a critical review that states this. I always question the inclusion of chart performance because I doubt this will be useful information ten or twenty years from now, but that's a debate for another forum. However the inclusion of this material is one of the things contributing to the article being over-long. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
First, your above post requires that I go into detail to explain the point about the reference of other songs, not tweak it. And, yes there's a source for that section, which I will cite momentarily. The lyrics are notable enough to be included — all other featured articles have them, and no one has objection on its inclusion until now. Does it lessen the article's quality as a potential featured article? I really doubt it. I believe that the point about the octave shift is, in fact, sourced. No, its not a critical review, but an article from an interview with Carey herself. Yes, the source says the exact same thing —I could even quote it if you wish. Come to think of it, I do have a critical review that says the same thing; I could cite the two. Charts are important, and if we remove it, we risk being opposed by EveryKing. (See above discussion.) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Given your objection, the sheet image has been removed, as it is too risky. However, I really think that its inclusion was harmless. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Journalist, I don't believe that the sheet of music should be removed — it is perfectly acceptable in a music-single article. See various Beatles song articles for other examples. I'm not so sure if many of Malber's objections are actionable, especially considering the broken wikilink they have provided us with. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A Hard Day's Night (song) contains a piece of sheet music and this article has featured article status.Eternal Equinox | talk 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Even though the sheet music from A Hard Day's Night (song) is public domain, it still boasts fair use rationale, and therefore, makes the situation similar to this one. Just because they are public domain, it doesn't make the image special (but it does make them free!). —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A Hard Day's Night is NOT public domain and that image is certainly non-free (I've clarified the conflicting templates on the image descrption page). However, because the article discusses in detail the melodic structure of the song, the lead sheet qualifies as fair use. The We Belong Together article does not go into this deep of musical interpretation. Furthermore, the image of the sheet music not only infringes on the copyright of the composer, it infringes on the arranger of the sheet music as it is undoubtably an arrangement of the song, not the actual score. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You're speaking nonsense; one sheet of paper attempting to present the first four lines of a song does not infringe any copyright holder and does not distort the article in any way. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use because you're currently overdoing this procedure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose A lot of work has gone into this article, including much activity to meet FAC objections. A fair amount of information is present, however, I still find serious problems with many FA criteria. The actionable specifics (below) also add up in this case to a larger, separate, and quite disturbing problem: a relatively small amount of core material has been torturously fashioned into an overlong article that seems to be striving, painfully at some points, for a "scholarly" and "fully explored" feel. This fails, because of poor writing quality and ultimately, lack of substantial information. Some specific examples:

  • Inflated lead In describing the song, a third of the lead features redundancy and statements of the obvious. Phrases like "a blend of hip hop, soul and quiet storm ambience" are so vague (and oddly worded, how do you blend broad genres with an "ambience") and "classic sensibility" are near meaningless generalities that could be used to describe quite different-sounding songs. They don't put the reader further in the ballpark than would simply succinctly getting to the point with something like "R&B ballad", "hip hop-influenced ballad", "ballad", there are many easy picks... (The sources cited also don't seem to have been well-mined. The NY Times article referenced for these bland conclusions also notes, far more interestingly, "It's the most melancholy song to rule the summer in years." and traces Carey's "pioneering" of the "thug-love" duet, through rap-styled vocal and lyrical approaches, to "We Belong..."'s vocal style.) The lead then goes on to "analyze" the lyrics by quoting such emotionally evocative (?) words as "stupid", "foolish" and reminding us, despite the TITLE OF THE SONG, that she believes that they "belong together".
  • The lyrics are quoted because that is the way the protagonist feels in the song. I'm not sure what other may to put it. "She believes that they 'belong together'" is included because this is another emotion the protagonist expresses. We are not going to leave it out because the song is titled "We Belong Together"; it is important that all of the information is summarized and that we clearly communicate the message. It should not be vague or even misleading. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You've responded to only one of three specific examples, which may be summarized as 1) music description vague and inflated with ambiguous descriptive phrases, 2) relevant material from cited source not included, 3) analysis of lyrics vague and inflated with unnecessary, literal detail. Your reply to 3) doesn't address the central point of the objection, "inflation" (aka padding). FA concerns include writing style and summary. If this is a song about recriminations and regrets after a breakup, that or many other straightforward, succinct phrases are available to clearly convey the point. Particularly in a LEAD, drilling down to the point of quoting individual words the lyrics is absolutely unnecessary, and obscures the overall description of the song and its real-world context. And the other examples remain unaddressed. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comprehensiveness Even within the "quoting and echoing pop media" style, an examination of some of the sources shows that more interesting conclusions have simply been ignored. For instance, in addition to the NY Times above, the VH1 Road To The Grammys: The Story Behind Mariah Carey's 'We Belong Together', cited four times, presents a much clearer and compelling pop account to the song's creation, in one-third the words (and, although much of that material is included here, the cohesive reading experience of a light entertainment article is missing). The same potential goldmine of a NY Times article notes that, despite the simple sound, "the liner notes credit no fewer than 3 producers and 10 songwriters", and this is nowhere mentioned. The lead fails to mention that this was a "summer hit", when such a thing is a well-recognized, at least in harsher climates, and the article doesn't develop this simple fact, except for a cuople of mentions in critics' quotes). And so on...
  • I'm afraid that I don't understand this portion of your objection. One reviewer noted the song as a "summer hit", not all of them, so I don't see why this should be included in the lead section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, you've selected only one of several examples. I clearly explained that I examined the source material and found information there that would seem to belong here. A "summer hit" is a common phenomenon, at least, in certain areas of the world like the US where this had its biggest success: a pervasive track that huge numbers of people will associate with the summer season of a particular year. This is interesting and relevant, and belongs at least in the lead, and developed more than in critics quotes. Then, that a song described as musically simple, stripped down, vocal-oriented still involved 3 producers and 10 songwriters is also interesting and notable. There are other examples. The selection of information included is questionable, and so comprehensiveness (and here from readily available, cited sources) is in doubt.
  • Awkward musical discussion (writing quality) While it's great to include a discussion of the music itself, here the language is often odd and stilted. "in an effort to attract attention to Carey's vocals", "A piano playing the melody of the refrain opens the song, and at once establishes its melody and harmonic structure., "she employs a state of vocal restraint, phrases several words per note, and occasionally sings counter to the rhythm", is an uncompelling and literal way to dissect music that doesn't read well.
  • What I gather from this objection is that you don't want the information to be literal. I'm going to correct some of the text, nonetheless. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, not simply "literal", but, awkwardly written. "Literal" was part of an attempt to describe the nature of the awkwardness. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Overemphasis of chart positions There is far too much detail of what, with the passing of time (like, a few months), becomes extraneous, trivial data. Four paragraphs of chart performance could be collapsed into one (the first para, with a sentence from the third). The article confuses the prevalence of chart chatter in pop music media and marketing (with countdown shows, radio patter about the current hits, and so forth), with what is of any lasting importance. Listing "weeks on", and what passed what is entirely meaningless in a general historical record. There may be a future use for trainspotting type recording of every detail of every music release, but an encyclopedia article isn't it. The Billboard et al archives are a good source for that source of thing.
  • Not an indiscriminate collection of facts applies here. 70% of the chart material is of no importance or use to the vast majority of general encyclopedia readers. How do I "know": common sense plays a part, as I can't conjure up a situtation where anyone but a hardcore fan or chart fanatic would want to know such specifics about a single song. For that audience, there are other sources (e.g. Billboard books and back issues). WP, or any general encyclopedia, is not a repository for all facts or even a majority of them, SUMMARY is the goal. An encyclopedia is essentially a shortcut and starting point to learning about many areas and topics, not a place to pack in lots of trivial detail. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I second that. It should be a starting position to give broad overview without leaving important information out. Encyclopedia is not an almanac or trivia book, that's for sure, even though I have a feeling that students (or other people) are going to start using wikipedia as primary source for their homeworks, which is sad. Temporary account 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No coverage of remixes As critical components of a modern pop song release, remixes are as important as music video. What about the DJ Clue remix — featuring Jadakiss and Styles P., and the Reconstruction radio and club mixes?
  • See my comments below. Mention of remixes are not incredibly notable, and one has been cited within the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In modern pop music, remixes ARE as integral a part of the story of a song as music videos. Remixes, which may bear little immediate resemblance to the album version, are used to reach different market segments, and may be responsible for breaking a song (e.g. a remix in a certain dance genre may cause a media buzz that leads to wider interest and so forth). World-class independent producers, DJs and artists work on essentially parallel versions of the release track. Remixes are as significant to the marketing effort and the cultural impact, as a music video. Whether a remix or the "primary" version (album track or edits thereof) had most impact for a particular release doesn't diminish the importance of covering the remixes; their substance, production, and impact should be noted for song coverage comprehensiveness. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary emphasis of "Free download controversy" As digital methods collide with traditional practices, these wrinkles occur. From the account, "We Belong..." happened into one of them. A sentence or two should suffice to sort it out, instead of a subsection that essentially retries the case.
  • See my comment in answer to the comment about "chart positions". SUMMARY is the goal here. Balancing the relative importance of the various events and facts, and relaying them in a clear, concise, contextually cohesive manner is the goal. An overly long section 1) taxes the reader unduly with extra reading, 2) puts undue relative importance on an aspect of the whole topic, and thus, misrepresents. The download controversy did not impact the song itself, or its massive airplay and market penetration, and the resolution was routine. As described in the article, this is a notable minor event, given unnecessary prominence. And I'm not quibbling about a word or two, by word count this is around 10% of the main text, with its own subheading title. --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Confusing, pointless sheetmusic image I imagine it will go before this is over, but it's there now. What is it meant to illustrate. Are we to equate the opening notes of "We Belong..." with the opening notes of, say, Beethoven's Fifth? Is it intended to add stature and depth (although what sheet music is a symbol of, I'm not sure, "culture", "serious music"?)? What does this image do for the aritcle? --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is featured to demonstrate the music explained in the article (time signature, quarter notes, rests, etc.) —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How many general readers are likely to want or even have the skills to examine sheet music to learn important details about a recorded pop song? People who want to play the song buy a songbook, not look it up in an encyclopedia. Indiscriminate collection of images applies as it does to facts. And is the actual score used in the recording, or a transcription of the music as recorded—what direct relationship does it bear to the recording in question, as the article is specifically about a recorded instance of a song? --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Forcing the reviewer to reply in excruciating detail to back up objections does a disservice to common sense. This can't be the place for such things. But, given the FAC Director's apparently at times quite cursory way of evaluating objections, it seems necessary, if a review is to be "bothered with" at all, to follow up, lest any reply be seen as sign that an objection was "fixed". --Tsavage 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I don't have a problem with the topic, which seems quite notable as far as the category of current pop songs goes, and there is enough material here to do something with, but the way this article is assembled is not comprehensive, not summary, and far from a compelling read. As noted above, I got much of the info here in a more entertaining read, from one source that is a third this length. I'm not the "punisher": being blunt and...detailed seems to be the only way to even attempt to critique articles where counter-argument is a main support tactic. --Tsavage 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an FAC without the backlash from Tsavage. Anyway, most of your objections confuse me. Do we need to include coverage of all Carey's remixes? By the way, in case you missed it, the DJ Clue remix is included in the article, though only briefly. I personally don't believe that the "Free downloads controversy" should be removed because it was a critical part of the song reaching number one on the U.S. Hot 100 and there were many accusations of Carey manipulating the charts. Your concern of the in-depth look at the chart performance also confuses me; Wikipedia is here to summarize the facts. If somebody wants to know what position it reached on the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay or the German Singles Chart, they should feel the need to access this website because we have the information. It's not a matter of what won't be relevant in six months or ten years. The rest of your objection—at least to me—appears personal and rather trivial. The piece of sheet music is supposed to illustrate the opening bars and melody of the song, the time signature, etc., which is included in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, from what I've gathered, you've not been satisfied enough with any FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, why not attack the reviewer along with, or even instead of, the review... I've still posted clear, actionable points against the criteria, and I'll conscientiously follow up if they're addressed for a reasonable length of time (let's say, up to a month). And it'll maybe be thumbs up, maybe thumbs down from the FAC Director. And all will be hunky dory in FAC... (Do you think I'm out of my mind and making up these objections from another dimension? And if you're so concerned with my overall FAC reviews, take a look...the archives are all there.) --Tsavage 22:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not attack you, it was merely a figure of speech. I still believe that most of your objections are trivial. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. And I guess it's nice to be missed. Hope the "non-trivial" objections help... --Tsavage 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey no kidding. I just found out that you (Eternal) supported the Ford Taurus FAC, and even said it is "good work." That FAC has clearly serious problem in prose and grammar, and why you supported or didn't mention a single word about the grammar is TOTALLY beyond me. This seems to confirm my stance that people have double standards or are not critical enough (or reasonably critical), as I have said on the infamous Bulba FAC. Anyways, don't take this as personal attack. Temporary account
And by the way, you (eternal) supported Philosophy of Mind, which I think also is good, but haven't finished reading. And you said that "writing could be improved at times." For a good article, you are pretty picky, but for Ford Taurus, you give unconditional support. Just boggles my mind. Temporary account 21:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Your rambling about a topic irrelevant to this FAC boggles my mind. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been keeping quiet about this FAC for a while because I don't really care whether this article becomes featured or not, but I should note that Tsavage provided a lot of helpful feedback on Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. I know he and Monicasdude (talk · contribs) tend to be abrasive (and more than occasionally stubbornly pedantic) on FAC, but I found their objections a lot more helpful than the supports. (YMMV, though.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we just quit the quibbling? Aren't we all adults here? Please behave in this manner, and let's not get distracted here. I'm goint to get to work and try to address Tsavage's lenthly, but very helpful and detailed comments. Give me a couple days though. School is back in session :). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I concur with most of what Tsavage (talk · contribs) has said. In my original comment I stated that the article was over-long. I believe Tsavage states it better that it's bloated without providing additional detail. For example, take a look at the referenced NY Times article. It concisely states that the song borrows from earlier R&B songs without resorting to quoting the material itself. Tsavage also re-iterates what I stated about the unnecessary and copyright infringing sheet music. Eternal Equinox: you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the FAC process. For every actionable item in this discussion, you have come back with a rationalization of why the edit should not be made. Tsavage has given you a gold mine here and you fail to recognize it. The FAC process is not supposed to be a popularity contest where you justify the article, it's supposed to be a crucible. You should welcome oppose votes as they are here to help you make the article better. You may want to step back, take a break, and try to look at things objectively. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just went through the figures only, and it seems where's the source of that chart position graph? Did somebody just draw it? I am not familiar with the music industry, but is "chart trajectories" a proper way to title it? Temporary account 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The sources are provided under "References". Yes, "chart trajectory" (or chart run, whatever your preference) is the correct title for the graph. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on misconduct by Eternal Equinox. There is a problem here with Eternal Equinox deleting people's comments. The edit history for this page shows both me and Tsavage complaining that Eternal Equinox has deleted our comments. As explained in my comments, I've intentionally disabled my original WP account (Bcrowell) because, after several years of participation and thousands of edits, I feel that WP is now headed in the wrong direction, due to fundamental flaws in its design. I had been responding to Eternal Equinox's deletions as an anon, appending the string "--Bcrowell". However, Eternal Equinox has been deleting everything I say, with transparently dishonest comments in the edit history. Therefore, I've created a Bcrowell2 account. I'm aware that this could be interpreted as a sockpuppet account, but since Eternal Equinox seems to feel free to delete anything I post without logging in, I don't seem to have any choice than to create a new account. I feel that Bcrowell2 does not really qualify as a sockpuppet account because (a) I'm being completely upfront with everyone about being the same person as Bcrowell; (b) I'm not attempting to vote as Bcrowell2, but merely to point out Eternal Equinox's misconduct; and (c) I'm in the same position as many other users who have forgotten their passwords and simply created a new account.--Bcrowell2 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This is not the way to get an article past FAC Eternal Equinox. As noted earlier, embrace the oppose votes and the discussion. They aren't here to fling crap on the candidate, they're there to tell you how to make it even better. This ones not gonna go through, looks pretty no concensus to me, but learn. The articles almost there. Most of your oppose votes are on formatting and images, not on content. Spend a couple weeks making it look pretty, resolve any last little copyright issues and you're there. So come on. Sit back. Deep Breath. We're just here to help. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Previous commentors have up a number of legitimate issues with this article. Since these issues have not been dealt with, the article should not be promoted to FA status.--Alabamaboy 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Robinson[edit]

Self-nom. An article about the actor I have been working on for the last two months. After submitting for a peer review, I received only minor technical suggestions (which I have already corrected). Compared to other actor FAs this article may seem rather short, though I should mention he is rather niche and information is hard to come by.--Fallout boy 07:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Good job with, as you admit, tough material. However, I would make some of your cutlines shorter, especially the one under the Dirty Harry still. That information is already in the adjacent text, and to have a cut that takes up almost as much space as the image itself is distracting. You could also shorten the text under the Garak image to just "Robinson as Garak in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" or something like that. Daniel Case 18:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Fallout boy 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Any chance you could find a promo still of Robinson to use for the lead pic? I can't believe an actor doesn't have headshots out there? I just checked the IMdB myself and Google Images, and I begin to understand. But I find it just amazing that he seems so camera-shy. If I were you, I'd call his agent and ask for some photos if I could. Daniel Case 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Article needs more words from the mouth of robinson himself. how does he see himself, his career etc? what do other actors/directors who have worked with him say? there are some critical reviews, but these need to be further expanded. so non-comprehensive. Zzzzz 11:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

National emblem of Belarus[edit]

The last official symbol of Belarus to be taken through FAC. The length is about the same as My Belarusy, but it is not as picture heavy as Flag of Belarus. I hope that I hit on the needed points and perhaps try and get this done before the March 19 elections commence in Belarus. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 07:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems to be enough comprehensive. Brandmeister 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Poorly written. Not enough eyeballs. Full of POV aimed at bashing this bastard Lukashenko (I am deleting most of it right now). I'd say a vanity nomination, by a major contributor, who still lacks critical evaluation of himself, despite his obvoius important, large, and good job done here and in many other articles. I strongly oppose any FAC nominations if an article did not go thru Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Turnig a FAC nomination into an AID done hastily is a bad-bad habit forming recently. mikka (t) 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If all FACs must go through AID first, we'll have a total of 4-5 FACs per month (that's a 80-90% reduction). Needless to say, I think such a requirement is ridiculous. Furthermore, insulting Zscout's work here is uncalled for—he put the article up for peer review, where I commented on it, saying that it was in good shape. At least spread the wealth and tell me that I'm incapable of judging the quality of articles as well. And finally, unilateral and mass deletion of text is uncalled for—bring up your specific issues here or on the talk page, or fix it yourself; don't just delete material you don't like. --Spangineer (háblame) 21:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • So you are replacing AID by FAC. Right. A wider bandwidth. As for the article, your opinion, and wholesale revert clearly show that you are not qualified to judge the topic by its content. Let's better talk about Salsa Rueda, a topic where we can probably find common grounds. mikka (t) 21:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
        • This is absolutely ridiculous. AID is a tool for improving articles, not by any means a requirement or even a suggestion for articles to become featured. In any case, comments from those not familiar with the subject are just as helpful as those not, primarily becuase those familiar tend to be wrapped up in their own biases about the topic and also often miss problems the article has in communicating its subject to the layperson. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • This is not ridiculous. If an article arrives to FAC in such a poor shape, AID is where it must go. My point is don't turn FAC into AID. mikka (t) 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I've been doing FACs for awhile now and have written four FAs, and this is only the first accusation of incompetence that has been levelled at me, so I'm going to continue to assume that my work here hasn't been totally useless. Regarding your deletion, I'm not sold on the necessity of keeping the information you eliminated, but it is sourced and just deleting it (twice!) without discussion suggests to me that you'd rather cause problems than solve them. --Spangineer (háblame) 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, everyone has his first one. Relax. A person physically cannot be competent in everything. I specifically wrote "by its content". Of course, excluding the English langugage, the article appears to look good. But is is still ridden with other minor problems. I also wrote "too few eyeballs," and 3 minutes ago I reaffirmed myself in my opinion. The person is aware of his level of English. It is worse than mine (which you may notice is mikka (t) 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
              • You see to have missed the fact that it has already had a peer review, which is widely considered a sufficient number of "eyes". AID is not for just any article that needs to be improved, it is for important articles in dire need of attention. While I hate to bring this up here, your own edits seem to be designed specifically to remove sourced and relevant information from the article rather than to improve it. "Some have alleged" is not POV if it is true, as the sources have indicated. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
                • I am sorry, colleague, you still seem not to read the article talk page. If you have objections, please post them there, i.e., where the actual article content is discussed. Here we discuss its overal quality. My opinion it is bad and it is "in dire need", yours whatever. Please continue specific questions in the appropriate place. Right now I've just detected still another nonsense in the article and I am afraid I will have to delete another "sourced" but irrelevant piece, whether you like it or not. mikka (t) 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Mikka, sorry for overreacting; I misread the intended meaning of your reply. I reverted not to suggest that your edits were incorrect but that they were needlessly impolite toward a good editor who has done alot of work on this article. In my experience, calling someone's hard work poor and deleting it (even if that really is what is necessary) is a bad way to get your point across. Sometimes, discussion before action is wise (though perhaps I failed in this respect as well). Thanks for expressing your concerns on the talk page, and kudos to Zscout for being more level-headed than me. As for getting more eyes on FACs, I think a much better solution than requiring AID is to get more people involved in peer review. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
                • To everyone, just relax, the point of FAC (and PR and AID) is to make sure our articles are pretty good, accurate and show what Wikipedia has to offer to the world. While as I said earlier that the elections on March 19 motivated me to perform this FAC earlier, I am glad we figured this out now before the elections happened.. I thank Mikka for fact checking, Sprangineer for a grammar check and Petaholmes for her POV check. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 04:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Fantastic article, however, it requires a heavy copy-edit. Once this is conducted, I will change my vote to support. (For example, portions of the lead section are a bit awkward.) —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "This emblem" in the lead—does that refer to the subject of the article or the Byelorussian SSR? --Spangineer (háblame) 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    1. Screeshot is not referred to in the text and appears to be included for decoration. Not very useful or relevant anyway as there is a good image at the top of the article.
      This is my fault. I deleted a piece of text that was going, like "the law specifies emblem usage, but this bad dictator lukashenko uses it as he likes", which is (a) a misreading of the law (b) a distortion of facts. Still, the screenshot is not as useless as you think: it is an example of everyday usage of the COA. mikka (t) 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    1. Section order is a bit odd. The selection of the symbol should probably come before the current legislation for use.
      partially agreed, but I think selection must go into a slightly rehashed "History" supersection, which is separate from "Description" supersection. mikka (t) 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    2. Who actually designed the symbol?
    3. The grammatical structure of the article needs work.
--nixie 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned about the screenshot at [10], but it was removed in the various editing. I'll take that out now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I moved the section that you mentioned. As for the question of who designed the actual symbols, I will look that up soon. Yes, the grammar needs works since I wrote this article, mostly, in a span of about 5-5 hours. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Although I dislike mikka's political motivation, I don't think it is a FA stuff. Sorry. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose. The article seems just a little bit thin, it is very close to perfect for a subject such as this. Has the symbol been a major part of some piece of popular culture? Was there public reaction, either way, to any of the legislating over the symbol? Also, I think this could use a few more references, especially for sentences such as "The Pahonia was used as an official coat of arms on several occasions, with the first being used from 1366". Where did you learn that date? Staxringold 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object On comprehensiveness. The outstanding problem for me is that there is no description of the symbolism involved, what the various design elements refer to. --Tsavage 03:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No official symbolism was given for each element of the arms. Placing what the symbols "mean" with the absence of law is WP:OR. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 03:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Is it usual in the world of flags and emblems and whatnot, not to have any provenance or evolutionary history of the symbolism involved? Apart from guessing (WP:OR), I would've thought at least these things usually incorporate elements used previously that have some known significance. I think in an article about an emblem, where each element in the design is described, this should be dealt with. A basic test I use in FAC reviews is to see whether and what sort of questions an article itself raises but doesn't answer, and after reading the design description, I definitely wondered what wheat-ears and all the rest represented... --Tsavage 17:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Tsavage, I understand what you mean, since I agree that each element of the emblem has some sort of meaning. Other than the "general" meaning that I found while browsing on FOTW, I have not found anything truely specific yet. I will try and browse around as soon as I get home (I am at Univ. now) but sooner or later, a reason will be tracked down. But I highly think the wheat ears are for farming. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong object Thank you for the announcement in "portal Russia", which let me find this discussion. First, "various other elements" in the lead section should be reworded, I think - just say "the main elements are" or something like that. Second, it should be said, by which "election observers" it was considered "flaw" and "undemocratic" ("OSCE" should not be hidden in the footnote), what about other, e.g.Russian, observers, what did they say? Third, it should be mentioned, why referring to it as the "coat of arms of Belarus" is incorrect, if not, then just don't say that in the lead section. Fourth, I think, everyone can compare the emblem of Byelorussian SSR and the current one himself/herself, hence just a description, not comparison should be provided in the section "Byelorussian SSR".

I didn't read all the article, when somebody will have taken care of the above mentioned topics, say this here, please, I'll come back to look at the article again. Cmapm 22:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the lead, and added some more of the elements that were in the current emblem. Two, I added the note that the Belarusian emblem is missing elements that a full coat of arms has, so that is why it should not be called a coat of arms.. The only observers who went to the election were the OSCE and the BHHRG, all others were barred (well, foreign ones. There were some local observers according to the BHHRG). I also added to the BySSR emblem section. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It became much better, but I'm neutral now, because that TV screenshot doesn't look nice, although I don't know the way, how this could be changed. Cmapm 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That is the best screenshot I could get, since I downloaded the stream of TB a week ago to record My Belarusy for my own personal collection. I could try and and see what other frames I could get, but I mainly chose that one so I could one pic for both this article and for My Belarusy (thelyrics are at the bottom). I still intend to keep the screenshot in, but I can get it without the lyrics and nuke the picture from My Belarusy and from WP servers. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
on second thought, the image is bad, so I will just nuke it. I will keep the text, though, since that is something that can be verified (I own a recording of My Belarusy from TB). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


  1. Who observed the election and declared it was flawed? Can we have a more reputable source than the second of third hand quote from Flags of the World - please.
You are probably talking about the referendum. It was considered flawed by opposition for two reasons: (1) bundling of questions (2) underparticipation. This can be found. mikka (t) 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I want to know who observed that it was flawed. Where there UN observers, or is it the opinion of local "independent" individuals, the media, or the opposition? For the sake of verifiability and POV this needs to be made explicitly clear.--nixie 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
USAID said the elections were flawd [11]. This election not only involved the Belarusian emblem, but also the flag, the use of the Russian language and also the election of members to the Belarusian parilament. It occured on May 14, 1995. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No USAID says that " May 1995 parliamentary elections were judged less than free and fair and low voter turnout invalidated results in most districts. Observers noted lack of press freedoms, campaign restrictions and a flawed election law. A new legislature did not convene, leaving Presidential power largely unchecked." That is discussing the 1995 elections, was the referendum held at the same time, otherwise this statement is totally irrelvant? The USAID information is also unsourced. Who were the observers? The article needs to provide verifiable information on who oberserved the referendum so the basis of the claim that results were unfair can be established. --nixie 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The parilament elections and the vote on the national symbols occured at the same time. A vote about the Russian language also occured on that same day. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about Human Rights Watch and the CSCE? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The CSCE source is probably the most balanced.--nixie 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Added. One of the things that you suggested was a copyedit. Can I go ahead and place the article in the category of articles that need a copyedit? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Other than AID and the grammar check, is everything kosher now with the article? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The assertion in the lead that the referendum was unfair needs a cite, and as you mentioned the language still needs work.--nixie 23:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In the lead it says "the current emblem, which is sometimes incorrectly referred to as the coat of arms of Belarus," but the caption to the picture refers to it as the "Belarusian coat of arms." Someone needs to reconcile that. Foxmulder 16:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Day-Lewis[edit]

This is a self-nomination, I've been working on this article for a while now in hopes to get to featured status. It has had a peer review where I received a few pointers that I have fixed and/or explained, although I'll admit that I cut it short in order to simply nominate it for featured article status since I have a lot of confidence in it......... but let's just see how it goes. The Filmaker 05:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, very comprehensive and well written. However, I'd suggest having one "career" sections split up into multiple subsections.--Fallout boy 08:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you explain what you mean in more detail? Are you suggesting that I split say "My Left Foot" into it's own subsection? The Filmaker 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Obviously I'm supporting it since I'm nominating it and I'm working on it. :) The Filmaker 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The writers seem to have struggled with converting fawning press copy into a proper article, and not quite succeeded. Things like However, it has been denied by several crewmembers that he actually slept with the musket as well and Day-Lewis reportedly immersed himself once again in the character he was portraying come across as too po-faced. There's also some over- (or just plain mis-)writing: this film would showcase his last role ever; Daniel Day-Lewis felt eerily empty of emotion. I can't see any justification for four fair-use images of Mr Day-Lewis Markyour words 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean, I've taken out the "Ballad of Jack and Rose" photo, in addition to changing the "Gangs of New York" photo to a new close-up poster. The Filmaker 04:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The justification is to show him in different roles. It does not make any difference in fair use law how many different films we show him in, just that there is an acceptable reason to do it and we are only showing a very tiny portion of the product (one frame out of thousands). Arniep 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Using four fair use images is not going overboard. Provided that they all aren't from the same movie, and are used for illustrative purposes, the image use is acceptable.--Fallout boy 00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Hmm, I think I'm going to flip-flop and agree with fallout boy, and Arniep on this. Four images is fine as per the comments above. The Filmaker 18:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Corrected: I've rewritten the article to correct the over-writing. I hope it is to your satisfaction. :) The Filmaker 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some comments from my PR review remain outstanding. Overall, this really needs a copyedit, I think. The paragraph beginning "His acting continued along with his unruly behavior" is still a problem -- that first sentence should be a topic sentence for the paragraph, but the sentence focuses on the acting, and the paragraph on his drug problem. "locked him in a room with a nurse's supervision" is more detail than really seems relevant; being hospitalized for a drug problem is the central thrust, and if more details were warranted, the fact that he was under a nurse's supervision would not be one of them. Anyone hospitalized (at least in a developed country) is under a nurse's supervision, and, as a matter of fact, under a doctor's supervision too. I don't mean to be too picky about this one paragraph, but it seems woefully out of place and is giving all the wrong details. Some other things to look at:
    • "is exact whereabouts and actions in this gap of history are not known" (makes it sound like a historical mystery, but I bet there's at least one person that knows).
    • Pay attention to where you refer to him as "he" vs "Day-Lewis" -- generally, the first use in a paragraph and definitely the first in each section should be "Day-Lewis"; otherwise it can be mostly "he"s, except of course where ambiguity is an issue.
    • Why a "Selected filmography"? That should be complete -- if there's too much to add, make a separate page like Daniel Day-Lewis filmography and then keep a summary of the most important stuff on this page.
    • Any way to cite "Many fans on message boards and websites across..."?
    • "On one visit from his English agent" -- why are we specifying that the agent is English?
  • Tuf-Kat 08:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If I could belabor the paragraph - the central problem is that it doesn't make it clear if he was imprisoned or hospitalized. It implies the latter, but I can't imagine that in the UK, you can be hospitalized against your will for simply hallucinating. And you certainly don't have to be prove yourself "sane and sober" to get out of a locked room. (probably only have to prove you're not a danger to yourself or others, or something along those lines) I know that paragraph is cited, but still... what precisely does the Jenkins biography say? Tuf-Kat 15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that I have been gone for so long. I've had a lot too do in the last few days. But for the moment I'm only going to address a few points.
The paragraph that Tuf-Kat speaks of, I'm beginning to feel is a little too ambigous. The problem being that I don't have enough information. I can fully recall reading about the incident in the Jenkins bio, but I can't recall what was said exactly and since I do not own the biography, I can't simply look it up. This is speculative I know. How do I absolutely KNOW it is in the biography? I don't. This and all of the other red tape centered around the paragraph have simply led me to the decision to delete it. There are too many questions and I don't have any answers. So I think this is the best decision.
As for "Selected filmography" obviously Day-Lewis has appeared at Award shows, and has done guest appearances on one or two shows. I don't believe that they are, shall we say, worth putting up. If you think otherwise, let me know. But the fact that they are not up, warrants a "Selected filmography" title.
I don't know why we are specifying "English agent", so I've corrected it.
I've changed the "whereabouts and actions" sentence to be less mysterious and more straight forward.
The "message boards and websites" can be cited from my memory and my diary. But that probably won't work so I've corrected the sentence. :D
  • I will correct the "he vs. Day-Lewis" problem in the morning. Take comfort in that all of your problems you've brought to my attention will be fixed very soon. :) The Filmaker 06:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Corrected I have corrected the "He vs Day-Lewis" problem to what I hope is your satisfaction and to my knowledge all of your notices have been corrected. I hope I've earned your support vote, Tuf-Kat. :) The Filmaker 19:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The screencap from The Unbearable Lightness of Being cannot be fair use currently. It is only discussed twice in the article; once by an image caption (which only states what the image is), and once by a sentence that mentions Day-Lewis played the leading part. The other images are very much fair use, because the roles Day-Lewis played are extensively discussed by the article (which delves into how he prepared for the role, the accolades and criticism he got, etc.). However, his role in The Unbearable Lightness of Being is not critically discussed at all. Under this circumstance, I must object. Please try to write more about his role in the film, or remove the image. Johnleemk | Talk 10:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've researched and added some new information to the "Unbearable Lightness of Being" paragraph in order to make in a fair-use image. The Filmaker 06:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to support, but I've found some terrible prose in the article. I'm in the process of trying to repair it, but until then, I can't support. Johnleemk | Talk 07:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, done. Tentative support, since I'm not entirely sure if I got the writing right, and there still might be some bits I missed. Johnleemk | Talk 07:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Object Overall, an interesting article (DDL is...intriguing), but there are problems with writing, structure, and I think with comprehensiveness.

  • Lead is poorly organized The extended explanation of his English/Irish citizenry seems unnecessary, and is not further developed in the text. Positioning it as the second sentence is odd: is there an importance to this? The intro of his family seems relevant because they are all involved in show business, but that probably should be explicitly set up ("He came from a family of..." type of thing). And the stuff in the third para should be moved up. Overall, it just didn't read smoothly.
  • Overall writing needs tightening up It is an easy enough read that's unfortunately sprinkled with long, near run-on sentences. This is an extreme example, but there is more throughout: "After his three year absence following completion of production on The Boxer, Day-Lewis was convinced to return to his acting career by Martin Scorsese (with whom he had worked on The Age of Innocence) and Harvey Weinstein to play the villain of Scorsese's Gangs of New York opposite Leonardo DiCaprio, with a glass eye an intense racist attitude as New York gangleader and butcher, William Cutting."
  • Sections are poorly organized "Five year absence" and "Return to acting" seem to belong within the Career section, not as main sections. Also, "Five year..." is not accurate, since the text identifies it as three years; and, these subsections don't really make that much sense, like divisions just for the sake of (it's not really established why the three year gap is such a big deal). Also, "Early life" and "Personal life" don't work well, especially the latter seems just dropped in there. Perhaps combining all that into one Biography section would be better.
  • Some things missing? This may not be the case, but after reading about such a single-minded, possibly eccentric character, I couldn't help wondering, what else? DDL must have been involved in other things than acting and woodwork? No causes? No other side adventures? Nothing else about him? His woodworking and protection of privacy are noted, maybe that's all there is. If so, the section set-up, with "Personal life" at the end, left me with more questions...

The "story" is good, but it overall seems thin. The references also iffy, a couple of sources, like the plain text page off a site are not good, but right now I think that's secondary to the basic issues outlined above. --Tsavage 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Guerrero[edit]

A great man, a great article... Arnemann 16:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object and greatly underreferenced. No inline citations, images lack fair use rationale, images such as this need better licensing tags, and the end of the article is all smashed to one side. Pagrashtak 16:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Pagrashtak. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, no sources.--Fallout boy 06:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I could forgive the non-use of inline refs, but one obituary is not enough to reference the entire article. At least use notes to refer to the external links if they contact info used to create the article. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object It's understandable that multiple referrence are difficult to achieve where an individuals career is clearly controlled by corporate operations that those controlls including copyright and contractual restrictions. What is needed is information about his life outside the ring, more information about his schooling and childhood. Did he have associations with any community organisations. At the moment its an exceptionally professional career profile only Gnangarra 02:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lots of very unreferenced text. Not a single ref on his cause of death? Something like that, that is not widely known or assumed should not be left unref'ed. Staxringold 01:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Scotch College, Perth[edit]

Old nomination: archive 1, peerreviews: Archive 1, [2].

Since its last nomination, this article has been peer reviewed, and I have fixed its problems mentioned in the last FAC. This time, I think it is of a standard required in the critera. This article is currently featured on the school portal too. (See talk page for article).

  1. Nominate(self-nom) and support. --HamedogTalk|@ 06:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I feel like a real gripe, but for an article on a school to be promoted, it should be very special. There are millions of schools (probably about 6M), and WP will be swamped with FA articles on them unless the criteria are strictly applied.

Criterion 1 says that an FA "exemplifies our very best work". One of the problems here is that some of the information is plain boring to anyone who didn't attend the school, and perhaps to some who did.

Who cares that "Senior School students have two ties - a house tie and a school tie. On most days, students will wear the house tie...."?

Too much of it looks as though it was written by the marketing department, e.g., "Scotch gives students the chance to learn instruments during class time in the senior school. Students may also join the pipe band if their playing skills and marching skills are of a high standard. The pipe band traditionally lead the school in marching." (Should that be "leads"?)

The writing is certainly not "compelling, even brilliant" (Criterion 2a). Most sentences contain redundancies. For example:

"For all students in the high school, sports is a compulsory activity. Teams will usually have training two times per week". What about:
"Sport is compulsory for all students in the high school; teams usually train twice a week."

Tony 06:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    • A Single (song) is a candidate 3 places down the page - there are millions of songs just like there are millions of schools, why should that effect it? --HamedogTalk|@ 07:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the only featured school article I know of is Caulfield Grammar School. --HamedogTalk|@ 10:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Quite right: A single song should not be a featured article, unless the editors can make the case that that song is culturally significant and culturally or historically active. This is why, for example, "Satisfaction" or "Blowing in the Wind" would be potential FA's but not why the #4 song from the #4 Queen album isn't. Geogre 16:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Note For those that dont know what George is referring to the 4th song on Queens 4th album (A night at the opera) was You're My Best Friend and it has an article quite right though it isnt a FAC but it does have an interesting perspective in its creation and performance. It was the 11th track that is historically significant. Gnangarra 16:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I'm from Perth Western Australia I would really like to support any article that promotes here. This Article just fails to entice the reader, it has lots of potential maybe it needs to be more colaborative. I wouldn't describe it as written by a marketing department, to me it reads like the quite significant efforts of a single Year 12 student, impressive as that is the focus on the current school enviroment isn't sufficiently balance with previous periods in time. The part about successful students is more directed at recent students, last 15-20 years. Surely there have been significant achievements by pass students before 1980. Gnangarra 12:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The part about successful students is more directed at recent students, last 15-20 years. Surely there have been significant achievements by pass students before 1980
Probably. Will try and find some information. Good suggestion. --HamedogTalk|@ 08:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article simply does not have an encyclopedica enough tone, especially in the history section. Also, the sectioning of the article seems to be inconsistent. The history section is very long and undivided, but the other parts of the article are frequently divided, comprising small sections with single-sentence paragraphs. This article needs a good copyedit before it can be an FA. The writing is just not yet up to par. RyanGerbil10 21:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object. A few stylistic things and a slightly unencyclopedic tone are my only problems, all easily fixable (and I'll gladly change to support if they are fixed IMO). First, the lead should probably be tweaked and reorganized to conform to WP:LEAD style, as it's a little hodge-podge right now. Second, the History section is crying out for subsections of some kind. There must have been some notable turning point in the school's history to use as a divier, and if not just go "1897-1950" and "1950-present" or something similar (with better names, obviously). The encyclopedic tone is the more major issue, still fixable, but it will require a careful review. Sentences like "Scotch College describes learning as "more than an academic issue; it is a 'total picture' which provides a balance between a student's intellectual, physical, emotional, relational and spiritual needs"" (in the lead to boot) are probably unneeded or need an edit. Also, not a complaint but a note: Why not make articles, at least stubs, for the redlinked famous alumni? They should be notable enough to warrant WP articles or they aren't notable enough for this list. Staxringold 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"Scotch College describes learning as "more than an academic issue; it is a 'total picture' which provides a balance between a student's intellectual, physical, emotional, relational and spiritual needs"
That was pretty much based on the fact that Caulfield Grammar School, which is a featured article, has a sentance like that in the lead. --HamedogTalk|@ 08:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Also what do you mean by encyclopedic tone. If you can explain this I will attempt to revert this problem. --HamedogTalk|@ 09:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
For posterity's sake, we have discussed this on Hame's talk page. Staxringold 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jordanhill railway station[edit]

Meets all the criteria - Lets roll with this --Nick Catalano contrib talk 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Good job! Some minor fixes needed:
  1. The info in note 3 is repeated at the end of the lead. Either delete the former or the latter. (I suggest the former)
  2. "The 2005 book White Rage, by Campbell Armstrong, includes scenes at this station." should either not be included or put in a trivia or "in popular culture" section. (doesn't fit under "History")

Mikker ... 02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Wow...our millionth article has gotten so much attention that it's a FAC in a week. Just wow. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Impressive work in a week, but object:
  1. No discussion of station itself: building materials, architectural qualities, etc. Possibly a map of the station interior would be helpful here.
  2. "The 2005 book White Rage, by Campbell Armstrong, includes scenes at this station." - is there some significance to this? Why is it in the "History" section, of all places?
  3. "In the area" can't really qualify as a fully formed section (or as actual prose, for that matter).
  4. The gallery looks out of place in such a small article. If the pictures cannot be positioned within the text, perhaps they don't need to be included, as we already link to Commons?
  5. The narrow-wide-narrow set of templates at the bottom should be arranged in a more aesthetic fashion. Maybe remove the third one entirely, as I don't really see what it adds to the article.
Finally, some more information on the type of trains servicing the station—both currently and throughout the station's history—might provide some more substance to the article; but this isn't strictly necessary. —Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, quite inadequate at the moment -- needs information on the history of its construction, e.g. who designed it, how much did it cost, physical improvements through history, etc. How many employees does it have? etc. And I concur with Kirill Lokshin on some of the aesthetic concerns. Well-referenced, but the paucity of physical references suggest that the current article is mainly a result of combing internet sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe an article doesnt need to be the work of a literary genius, given the historical number of this article and simple prose. It highlights that there are a significant number of this style of article within wikipedia, it recognises the efforts of all editors. An article like this one would also attract more editors and increase the involvement of others simply because anyone can do this. Gnangarra 01:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs to have some discussion of the actual station, but the progress this article has made is indeed impressive. RyanGerbil10 05:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I admire the enthusiasm, but this is not featured material. The history section is too long relative to it's importance to the topic and there's almost nothing else in the article. The article practically needs to come out and say it is an unremarkable station because the length of the article makes it look as if it is more important than others. You could cite the article in one of the Glasgow papers that was mentioned in the Signpost. The in the area section needs to either be rewritten as prose or removed and just allowed to stay in th Jordanhill article where it is more appropriate. Don't fill the article up with fluff to make it featurable, just make it the best it can be. - Taxman Talk 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree - it would probably be best to refer this back to WP:PR for a period of maturation. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to peer review. Good try, but valid issues have been raised, and in the process of fixing them, new problems will undoubtedly crop up. Get this on PR, fix the article, then call us when you're done and we can comment on PR. Then we can go to FAC. :) Johnleemk | Talk 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not close to FA quality. I agree with many of the points raised above including those by Christopher Parham. Interior and exterior photos of the station itself, more historical background (historic designations, if any) regarding its construction and use, anything else that makes this subject worthy of a stand alone article. A good starting point IMO is Union Station (Los Angeles), which is not in FA shape at present but has a good foundation in place. I'd withdraw this and put up a PR for now.--Lordkinbote 20:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Just one of twenty reason? It's currently on peer review and failing in many aspects. -- user:zanimum
  • Object. It's short, its peer review was short, it has many one-or-few sentence paragraphs, and things like the book note should either have a "References in popular culture" section or not be mentioned at all. Staxringold 00:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note I didn't mean to come off negative, the article has made amazing progress and is very nice for a small train station. It just needs more work and time is all. Staxringold 00:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Article feels much too short right now, and I think was nominated prematurely due to all the excitement around it being the millionth article. Although the article is good for a small, random station, it feels too small at this stage.--Ataricodfish 02:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. If it weren't the millionth article it wouldn't have even been nominated. It's a very comprehensive article for such a little-known place, but it's not of featured article quality. Seeing as the article is only a week old, it probably still has a chance to become featured ... just not yet. AmiDaniel 04:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It's a good article and I'm designating it as such (since the FAC appears unlikely to succeed this time). It's well referenced although a printed reference or two would make a good addition. Mainly it's just too brief for an FA. Durova 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Maybe a GA for now but not a featured article. It needs a thorough peer review to fix many shortcomings but I can see it going places. American Patriot 1776 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per all, but primarily because of the "Gallery" section. How is it significant to the article? An additional load of fair-use images just doesn't cut it. Also, it could be expanded. Otherwise, keep up the good work and renominate the article in a few weeks. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The article is high quality, but subject is too small for an FA. ike9898 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This objection is inactionable and therefore is invalid. Johnleemk | Talk 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst this is evidently a pretty good article, and is arguably of FA quality, do we really want to put this same article up on the front page when everyone already saw it just a short time ago when it was the millionth article? I wouldn't want to deny a great article the status symbol of FA if it deserves it - but perhaps we should wait a few months before we actually stick it onto the front page. SteveBaker 19:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Just because an article is an FA doesn't mean it will appear on the main page immediately. Johnleemk | Talk 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object It's a good article, and i find no flaw with it, but it lacks the "wow" factor that a FA needs, it's by no means exceptional. NorseOdin 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It may be short, but come on, it's a railway station. How much info can there be to tell? A Clown in the Dark 17:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although a front page could wait... ~Linuxerist L / T 13:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Balloon Fight[edit]

This article is about Nintendo's 1984 arcade game, Balloon Fight. Although this article may be short, as far as I can see it meets all the criteria. I think if this article became featured it would tell people that just because an article is short, that doesn't mean it isn't good, and it would encourage them to improve short articles. Gamerforever 23:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment This article seems to have a really short intro (maybe more facts can be found?) Also, the article is maybe a little bit too short. I'm not saying it needs to be very long, but I'm sure that more information can be found. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Agreed; too short. Someone needs to research the game's development, sales performance, etc., expand the article, and then resubmit. — BrianSmithson 23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A game article needs information on more than gameplay to be FA quality. Staxringold 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article needs major revision before it can even be considered FAC. I agree with the above. And I have to disagree on nominator's comment on length. For any subject you think is of FA quality, there should be works about that particular subject so that you can write substantially on that. Temporary account 01:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree that a lot of work needs to go into this before it is FA quality. For example -- critical reviews? Has it stood the test of time? Was it influenced by any prior games? Did it sell well? Video game articles should have the same attention expected of an article on a musical artist, or movie, etc. --Ataricodfish 02:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's not enough critical detail, it would only marginally fit the "Good Article" standards in its current form.
  • Oppose I agree with Ilyanep, the lead most certainly needs to be expanded, and for that matter the entire article. I'll see if I can dig up some info on the game, because it really was a fun game back in the day :-) --lightdarkness

(talk) 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, needs a lot of work, detail. Phoenix2 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Rugby union[edit]

I feel this article exemplifies the standards of wikipedia. It is extremely informative, well-linked, and non-biased. If an individual completely unaware of the sport of Rugby Union were to come across this page, I feel that they would leave with more than adequate knowledge to be able to watch a match and understand the principles of play. Rowlan 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. This article needs some attention. It has a lot of content, which certainly is a big plus, but needs a lot of work before it can become an FA. First, it needs references and footnotes. Then, it needs some better organization, and consolidation of sections- many are simply too short, or contain too many short paragraphs. Also, the lead section is a bit lenghty, it can be trimmed. I recommend that the article be referred to Peer Review first. RyanGerbil10 05:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object and refer to peer review. No references, large blocks of unlinked text, lead seems a little long, Image:Lineout from French wikipedia.jpg needs a better licensing tag. Pagrashtak 05:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Even though I am doing some work on the article and suggested it for the collabortaion of the fortnight, it is not near the standard required. It is not stable at the moment and needs inline references. It should of been peer reviewed first. --HamedogTalk|@ 12:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Lots of text is nice, but a lot of that needs sourcing. Also, it's still the Rugby union collaboration! It's still being worked on, so we should probably let that take its course, at the very least. The lead is also very dense, maybe move some of it off into the main article (see Wikipedia:Lead section)? Staxringold 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not ready. It is still being worked on as a COTF. The to do list on the talk page is still not all complete. Still needs work. Not even ready for a peer review in my opinion. Cvene64 03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Remember that a lot of people who use the English-language Wikipedia are Americans who most likely have never seen a rugby match. Try to put yourself in their shoes, turning on the international-sports channel and seeing a bunch of people seemingly running into each other aimlessly. Here are some specific things you should take note of:
    • You should include something about strategy in the article. If you get 5 points for a try and only 3 for a penalty or drop goal, why do teams ever kick penalty or drop goals? And why do they kick the ball out of bounds so much?
    • Is the 22-meter drop-out a drop kick? And who kicks the 22-meter drop out: the team that grounded the ball in the in-goal area or the team that kicked it there?
    • You say the opposition cannot touch the ball in a ruck, but it appears the team can heel the ball. Do you mean they can't touch it with their hands?
    • "Referees generally call scrums for knock-ons, where a player drops the ball forwards, a forward pass, or for other accidental infringements" -- does that mean that a knock-on is "when the player drops the ball forwards," or are those two different offenses? If the latter is the case, what's a knock-on?
    • Shouldn't the "sin bin" be mentioned?
    • You need to define what a scrum is, even though there is an article that gives more info on it.
    • Do rugby teams have set plays in which they plan who's going to pass the ball to whom and where, like in American football, or is it all spontaneous? -- Mwalcoff 01:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Geo Storm[edit]

Got peer review, cites cources, I think it is ready --Karrmann

  • Conditional support. This looks like a very nice article. Although I'm not a car freak, the article did keep my interest. Could we get some clarification about the legal status of the photos, however? There is a photo by Joey Maier, and a photo by Walter Maier, both of which were uploaded by user Evenprime and said to be self-made and GFDL'd. User Evenprime doesn't have a user page. Is Evenprime one of these people? If, for example, Evenprime is Joey, then isn't the GFDL template for the photo by Walter inaccurate?--Bcrowell 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • they could be related. I know I uploaded images done by family members, and liscenced them under the GFDL. If they are self GFDLs, I will change all the tags to just normal GFDLs. How does that sound? --Karrmann
  • I changed all tags to GFDL/ --Karrmann
There are two problems here. One is that someone has struck through my objection, and it wasn't me. The other problem is that only the people who took the photos can license them under the GFDL, and as far as I can tell, neither Karrmann nor Evenprime is the copyright holder.--Bcrowell 23:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I, Joey Maier, often use the nom de plume of evenprime. I am the creator of all but one of the photos in the geo storm article. I would like the copyright of all my photos in this article to be GFDL.
The only photo in the article that I did not take is the one of me driving. That photo was created by my father. I explained the GFDL to my father and had him upload the photo of me autocrossing under the new name StormAutoX3.jpg. (We could not figure out how to overwrite the old file, so we had to create a new filename.) I've registered an account under my actual name, and will gladly upload the photos again with that username if need be. However, I'd like to know how to delete the old ones and use the same names so I don't have to change the article. Please advise. Evenprime 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The images dont appear to comply with copyright. User:Evenprime needs to be identified to establish authority for uploaded images. Gnangarra 16:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Uniformly mediocre writing. If you want a few examples, I'll provide them. Tony 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to the article, Tony1. Are there any further changes to it that you would recommend? Evenprime 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support that the issues with the images are ironed out. If not, oppose. Also, the dimensions section is incredibly thin. Maybe make it a subsection of Performance, since the main conclusion seems to be "This extra length reduces the cornering ability of the Storm." (which could actually use sourcing, come to think of it). Finally, maybe combine Image:1990StormGSIFront.jpg and Image:1992StormFront.jpg to make comparison between the two as easy as possible with the least wasted space? Staxringold 01:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The image poblems have been ironed out, to quote Evenprime
Removed conditional part of support, although it'd be nice to see the third image from the same angle as the other two for the '92 Base. Staxringold 21:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I just drove across town to another storm owner's car (the 1992 Base model that has the other two pictures) and took the third picture. I uploaded it as 1992StormBaseback.jpg. I did this using a JoeyMaier account I registered to avoid the confusion that my previous photos appear to have created. Evenprime 23:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"All the images except one are ones I took. My dad took the one of me driving with the wheel off the ground. (I had another autocross picture in the article - one I took of my dad autocrossing the same car - but removed it because apolloboy said there was too much motorsports emphasis.) Tell me how to set the copywrite on these pictures so it is no longer a problem.... Evenprime 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "" --Karrmann

Glacier retreat[edit]

This article was renamed to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and renominated as a FAC on 29 March 2006.

This article discusses the retreat of glaciers worldwide over the past 150 years, and especially addresses the events of the last half of the 20th century up to the current date. The article had a peer review and the issues raised have been addressed. Helpful comments will be greatly appreciated and addressed.--MONGO 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object 1. Why have you used a left aligned Toc? (fixed) 2. The continent sections look very unbalanced to me. A huge amount of text pertains to North America, and specifially Alaska, whereas Asia has a thin summary. Since the page content is large, I suggest you summarise the NA and Europe sections. The continents should be subsections rather than sections. 3. What is ==Summary== doing at the end? It should be merged with another section. (changed; though still summary-ish ending) 4. Avoid overlinking. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. A worthy topic, and a great example of a collaboration, but I think the organisation could be improved. Having an "Overview" and a "Summary" section is rather unusual. I'd start with an expanded "history" section, followed by a "glaciology" section subsuming "data sources" and "dynamics". I'm missing a discussion of what glaciologists propose to do against it (for instance, covering glaciers in foil during summer is mentioned only once; and fails to mention that the method has also been tried on an experimental basis in Switzerland). Then there are some phrasing issues, such as:
    • "This process has increased markedly since 1995, leading to such bizarre steps as covering portions of several Austrian alpine glaciers with plastic to retard melting."—First, "bizarre" is the writer's judgement, and second, it isn't the process that has led to this, rather, this process has led the authorities to try out this measure on an experimental basis. (removed POV term)
    • "Many glaciers are being lost to melting further raising concerns about future local water resources in these glaciated areas."—This somehow doesn't parse.
    • "A glacier with a sustained negative balance is out of equilibrium and will retreat."—Isn't a glacier with a positive balance also out of equilibrium and will advance? (it now says this)
(These are just examples, there may be more.) Most of the article is a listing of numerous glaciers that retreat. I suspect many more placenames could be linked, e.g. Vatnajökull. (I certainly don't see overlinking like Nichalp does.) I am not sure what to do about all those retreating glacier examples. Move to their own article (but what title?) and leave a summary? Pare down to just give pertinent examples instead of an extended survey? Finally, the images:
HTH, Lupo 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Most TOC are on the left I think, but may be can be changed. Asia has the least amount of reference material available but it definitely should be expanded. The summary is there to summarize the content of the entire article. Merging it where? Maybe we could retitle in the subheading, but we needed a way to tie all the sections together in some form of a conclusion. I too find the examples to be very numerous, but I think that was the aim...but it could be trimmed. Both graphics mentioned leave me with a question mark as well and they need to be summarize in the text or within the thumb if that is possible. As far as I am concerned, the covering glaciers with plastic is an extremely localized situation that hardly deserves mention as far as worldwide glacial retreat is concerned. I don't think glaciologust propose to do anything about glacier retreat except submit the data and say, well here is the best evidence we have of global warming. I'll work on the issues mentioned for sure and I appreciate the time spent looking this over.--MONGO 09:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess Nichalp was wondering why {{TOCleft}} was used instead of letting the software use its default TOC with the default placement. I would further guess that the reason for doing so was to avoid excessive whitespace right of the TOC, as it is rather long. Giving the background data on the images on their image description pages would also be good. Lupo 10:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Lupo...I tried the default TOC and there was a huge chuck on the right that was whitespace, unless one hides the TOC that is. The major contributors will all address the concerns I'm sure. I'm for reducing the number of glaciers mentioned or at least tying them together better...the facts just go from one to the other in places without a lot of dialogue or set up for partcular items. I surfed for some more on Asia, but it is scanty...I'm sure we can find more, or at least do more trimming elsewhere perhaps.--MONGO 14:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support seems more than worthy to me Not perfect, but good enough.Gator (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - comments like this always surprise me - FAs are supposed to be the very best that we can produce, and 'good enough' somehow seems a little bit less of an endorsement than an FA should be looking for! Worldtraveller 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Perhaps I'm biased since I worked on the article. But several editors (including me) have addressed most of the issues raised by "oppose" comments (already, and without any large difficulty). It seems to be down to tweaking. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    While I do acknowledge the good work you all did on this article (thank you), I do not agree that it is "down to tweaking". I still find the organization somewhat awkward (see above), and Image:Alps-glaciers.png still doesn't say where the underlying data came from. Much of the article is essentially "just" an enumeration of many examples of retreating glaciers. After reading and re-reading it, I am still left wondering about several things, such as: what's the effect (if any) of the Antarctic Ozone hole? If it has no effect, why not? When did the first reports about retreating glaciers appear? What was the initial reception? How long did it take until the phenomenon was understood and generally accepted to be significant? Who proposes to do what against it? What effect has e.g. the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf on local fauna and flora such as the Krill population? The intro says "Glacier retreat has widespread impacts on habitats, species, sea level and fresh water supplies.", but this is not elaborated later on. Does the pack ice also retreat? I also still think these experiments with foil covering glaciers deserve more mention. Not mentioning Switzerland in that context just means that the article is not complete. Also, why did some environmentalists oppose that measure? Was it successful at all? And why was it tried at all? (In other words, what secondary effects of glacier retreat should be avoided? Destabilization of formerly permafrost soils?) And then there's still awkward phrasing, such as "Since the end of the last glacial maximum 14,000 years ago, glaciers across the world have receded, i.e., glacial recession; this article is principally concerned with the retreat of glacial ice over the last few hundred years." in the intro. This is awkward for two reasons: first, the "i.e., glacial recession" is somewhat grammatically unconnected to the rest, and seondly because of the self-reference "this article". Lupo 08:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    P.S.: If "glacial recession" is not the same as "glacier retreat", we should have a second article about the former, too. Lupo 08:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    We started an article about Holocene glacial retreat and it is still just a baby...we did this so that there would be a understanding that what our discussion here covers the retreat of glaciers since 1850...the end of the Little Ice Age, whereby Holocene glacial retreat deals with the time period that is from the end of the ice age until about other words Glacial recession of the massive ice sheets that dominated northern Europe and North America. The narrative is weak in places and does come across as an assembledge of facts and figures, but (and I am not trying to downplace your concerns), this is a scientific article that leaves little room for much narrative by it's very nature. The proof of the argument can only be demostrated with applicable facts and figures. We can also discuss the foil and plastic covering attempted in the Alps but I don't find that signifacant personally only because it steps us away from the point of this article, which is not to discuss what means are going to be employed to stop glacier retreat...any more than we would expand on what efforts are being suggested to stop burning fossil fuels. We hardly even touched global warming as well. We did mention how some areas are arid and the lack of glacial ice may adversely affect these areas...see Asia and S. America. We can make a mention of the Ozone hole, but to expand on it here would again take us away from the main direction this article goes in.--MONGO 08:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    Looking over again Lupo's comments...I have to agree...we need to definitely explain a number of areas better...when did it "start" when was it recognized as a general retreat...when did the bells start ringing in other words. Thanks for taking the time, Lupo, to chime in.--MONGO 09:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment, though I think there's a great deal of fine content here and my opposition is mostly about style. Here's why:
    • First, I really don't like the citation style. Maybe lots of other people do, but I much prefer the smaller and less obtrusive superscripts generated by {{ref}} and {{note}}, or else by the new Cite tags (m:Cite.php). With the current system, I'd at least suggest superscripting the reference links.
      I pretty strongly prefer the Harvard refs for this, having worked with all the styles on various pages. Using sup's around them might be OK though. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      Fair enough. I just made them all superscripts, I think it improves the look of things quite a lot - what do you reckon? Worldtraveller 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      And I thought it improved the look so much that I templetized the format in {{ref_harv}} and removed all the superscripts. – Doug Bell talkcontrib 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      Mmmm... I don't really like the superscript as much. Maybe it's because I use a minimum font size in my browser settings, so superscript is not as reduced as for some viewers. But that's OK, it's no big thing to me, and if other editors like this better, I'm more than happy with it. As I say below, I just like seeing the author name of the authority cited, rather than just a number (for this type of scientific article, for other types it doesn't matter). I must compliment Doug Bell on his clever new {ref_harv} template that automates this. Way cool, and very usable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Second, I don't think the article's structure is the best at the moment. I don't like the very confusing title of the first section which baffles me and puts me off reading it, and I think having the article dominated by the continent-by-continent descriptions makes it seem unbalanced. I agree with Lupo's suggestions on structure.
    • The lengthy discussions of what's happening around the world could be summarised more - much of the text is a little bit dry and laden with figures at the moment - and more should be written about why these things are happening, what the effects will be (like, what's the contribution of glacial retreat to sea level rise, which major cities will suffer increased flooding, etc), what is being done to combat glacial retreat, how this glacial retreat compares to other warming periods in the Earth's history, and so on.
      • Further to this I also agree very much with Lupo's review above in which he points out all the further questions this article would do well to try and answer. Worldtraveller 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Minor point - A WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) report... I don't think the history of the name of the organisation is relevant here. (fixed)
    • Another minor point - Breiðamerkurjökull is the correct spelling. I feel strongly that we shouldn't anglicise placenames which use different varieties of latin script. You might feel strongly that we should, but if you do can I suggest at least using 'th' rather than 'd' for the ð? (fixed)
    • And another minor point - a copyedit would be good, I spotted several capital letters in the middle of sentences, missing apostrophes and the like.
    • Content point - I believe several glaciers from the South Patagonian ice field are actually advancing - the Moreno Glacier is one example. The article states that there are no advancing glaciers. Worldtraveller 00:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      I was attempting to state that no glaciers were in disequilibrial advance, not none advancing at all. I think that is true, but I defer to the experts (which I'm not). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      You mean that while all glaciers advance as ice moves under the influence of its own gravity, none are advancing in the sense that the equilibrium position of the snout is moving forward? It is in the latter sense that the glaciers off the south Patagonian ice sheet are advancing, unlike most other glaciers, I believe. Aha, here's something that backs that up: [12]. Worldtraveller 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      I thank User:Worldtraveller for taking the time to review this article. The format is my mistake...when we got going early, I built the outline and it has remained basically the same since...I think they all may need to go. The flow is a problem as well...there does need to be more of a conversational style between all those facts and figures. I also appreciate the mention of Moreno Glacier and I'll look for a cite for that to continue to give the article balance. I'll review other featured articles of similar content to see if there is a better way of organizing all these sections and elaborating on some of the causal issues too.--MONGO 04:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • One thing you might consider is sketching out a content list as if you were about to start the article from scratch, then rearrange the content you have to fit it and fill in any blanks that you might have identified. I followed this approach to get Hubble Space Telescope up to FA standards. Worldtraveller 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: I performed a number of minor edits and wikification while reading the article (including fixing the use of dashes) so as not to need to list them here. Please don't lose these if you are working on an off-line version of the article. Here is a collection of comments about the article:
    • I agree with Worldtraveller on the reference style. Perhaps superscripting them would help make them interfere less with the content, but then I wonder why this isn't part of the {{ref_harvard}} template. Also, regarding the references, why are some references repeated, such as Pelto and Pelto2? These should have two notes tied to a single reference.
      In an updated version I am working on in my userspace, the harvard style references are superscripted
      The Pelto/Pelto2 duplication was an error that I just fixed. The refs were not quite identical in citation details, but obviously referred to the same article. This is why Harvard is better, the error arose from the earlier sequential footnotes which each needed their own refs. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      Actually, the sequential references don't each need their own notes if you use {{ref_label}} and {{note_label}}. And you don't need to make them sequential either. These templates will also superscript the reference links. These have become my preferred templates for referencing. – Doug Bell talkcontrib 21:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      That's true. I was thinking more of the m:php.cite style. But also, MONGO and some other editors seemed to want the order of the references to match their occurence in the text using {{ref_label}} (which proved very difficult to maintain as sections were rearranged). I guess if we were fine with, e.g. the lead referencing "Foo is bar.[27][12]", we could still just alphabetize the notes. Nonetheless, it reads more like a science paper to me to put the author name as the link; for other topics I wouldn't want that style, but for this I really like to see right away that a certain claim is supported by "Pelto" or "Mölg" (not that I know who they are, but I presume people who know the field do). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • In "Glacier mass balance impact on terminus behavior" it states: "A glacier with sustained positive balance would also be out of equilibrium, and will advance, but none are currently in this state." Later in "Scandinavia" it states: "...found that 14 glaciers are retreating, one is advancing and one is stable" and "By 2005 only 1 of the 25 glaciers monitored in Norway was advancing...". In "Iceland" it states "...28 are retreating, four are stable and two are advancing." In "Alaska" it states "Of the glaciers in this region, only the Taku Glacier has advanced." In "Oceania" it states "Several glaciers, notably the much visited Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers, have periodically advanced..." Why the contradiction?
      We can change the word to "few", don't hesitate to make a small edit like this as it is certainly not unjustified.
    • The term "surging glaciers" is introduced in the "North America" section without explanation.
    • While not a problem per se, the quote "A 2005 aerial survey of Alaskan coastal glaciers identified more than a dozen glaciers, many former tidewater and calving glaciers, including Grand Plateau, Alsek, Bear, and Excelsior Glaciers that are rapidly retreating. Of 2000 glaciers observed, 99% are retreating." seemed out of place with the rest of the article which did not directly quote any of the references except for the shorter quote "The presentation went on to state that "Sometime between 1994 and 2000 the Meren Glacier appears to have disappeared" used within the context of a sentence. Also, the italicized formatting was not consistent with the later quote.
    • The term "calving" is introduced in the "Alaska" section without explanation.
      We can adjust that, it's the same thing as creating icebergs essentially.
      Yeah, I did know what it meant, I just meant it needed to be introduced. :-) – Doug Bell talkcontrib 13:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe this use is obvious, but the term "downwasting" is introduced without explanation in the "Alaska" section.
      Probably needs to simply go away
    • In the "Himalayas" section it states: "A WWF report concluded that 67% of all Himalayan glaciers are retreating rapidly." Since this is the first numerically quantitative statement on rapid retreat, it should define what constitutes rapid retreat. Also, this same section states: "In examining 612 glaciers in China, 53.44% were found to be retreating...". The precision of the percentage should be reduced (certainly no more accurate than 53.4%, but I would argue for just 53%).
      I google converted the imperial figure to a metric one and got too precise.
    • In the "Himalayas" section it states: "Some of the more famous glaciers in the area indicate that all the glaciers are retreating." This sentence doesn't seem to make sense. How do these glaciers indicate that all glaciers are retreating?
    • In the "Himalayas" section it introduces the term and acronym Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOF). This would be a great term to explain in a child article, or if not worthy of a child article, then in this one. I mean the term seems somewhat self-explanatory, but if it has usage common enough to warrant an acronym and proper name, then it seems like it should be explained.
    • In the "Himalayas" section it states: "Its neighboring glacier could generate a GLOF up to two-and-a-half-times that which caused major devastation in October 1994." Since the article is providing a relative numerical comparison to this event, the size of the October 1994 event should be stated in the article.
      We were asked earlier to show some side effects of glacier retreat akin to sea level rise, so this was just an attempt to do so, the section needs an overhaul.
    • In the "Oceania" section it uses the figure 13.9 x 106 m³ (18,180,513 yd³). This should be in cubic km and mile³ to be consistent with the units in the rest of the article.
    • In the "Oceania" section it states: "The third larger area that was once part of the icecap and is now known as the Northwall Firn, had split into several smaller glaciers by 1972." The term third larger area is not defined and does not appear to relate to anything previous in the article.
      Meaning that there was once just one icecap and the Norhtwall firn is now one of the three dissected parts, will reword this.
    • In the "Andes" section it states: "Chacaltaya Glacier lost two-thirds of its volume and 40% of its thickness over the same period and it is expected that by 2010 to 2015, Chacaltaya Glacier will no longer exist and the glacier is only 10% of its size since first examined in 1940." This sentence is hopelessly confused...I wasn't even sure how to fix it.
    • In the "Andes" section it uses the figure 10 acres. This should be in km² and mile² to be consistent with the rest of the article.
    • In the "Greenland" section it states: "The acceleration rate of retreat of Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier is even larger." This seems at best poorly worded.
    • In the "Impacts of glacier retreat" section I kept wondering to myself what the contra effects are. That is, if the glaciers are melting faster, what would the impact be if they were not retreating and melted slower? Would hydroelectric output drop noticably? Would some arid areas no longer get enough runoff to support current irrigation needs? And what about the contra effect on the food chain? Would warmer waters actually produce more food, or less? Just wondering if there has been any attempt to investigate these effects.
    • In the "Impacts of glacier retreat" section it states: "It is this rise in what is referred to as Greenhouse gases that are raising the temperature of the planet and melting the glaciers away." I don't mean to sound like a denier of global warming (I'm not) but isn't the causation between the rising temperatures and greenhouse gases actually a widely-accepted theory, and not a proven cause? At least the global warming article lists it as a theory. I would suggest a rewording here along the lines of "It is this rise in what is referred to as greenhouse gases that are presumed to be raising the temperature of the planet and melting the glaciers away." ('presumed' could also be 'assumed' or 'considered')
    Doug Bell talkcontrib 11:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    I answered a few of these...will address each one, one at a time, in article space. Thanks! You and a number of others here have spent some valubale personal time asking questions and surveying the article and I am very happy to see such commitment to helping us make the article better.--MONGO 13:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments on refactored arcticle from March 6th. Generally, I think this reorganization is more encyclopedic. I guess I don't understand why the mid-latitude glaciers are divided by east and west instead of north and south. Also, the individual sections "Tropical glaciers", "Eastern hemisphere", "Western hemisphere", and "Polar regions" are each still organized by continent/region. I think these large sections should be broken into the individual subsections to make them easier to navigate.
    I made quite a few edits to fix errors, improve wording, and for consistency. The following general comments apply to changes I didn't make:
    I am not in favor of breaking it into sections that are north and south because there are so few mid latitude glaciers in the south that the sections will be hopelessly unbalanced. I am also not in favor of creating more and more subsections. The reason to continue to discuss the glaciology still to to ensure we don't go and talk about the Cascades, then the himalayas and later come back to the cascades...that would break up the flow of the article way too much, and I don't see what this has to do with anything to be honest.--MONGO 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Tropical glaciers
      • "The Snows of Kilimanjaro may be gone in less than 30 years." and later in the same paragraph "...the glaciers atop Kilimanjaro will disappear between 2015 and 2020." These time periods don't agree. Why doesn't the first statement say "in less than 20 years"?
        Fixed, I simply removed it.--MONGO 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "Since 1912, the glacier cover on the summit of Kilimanjaro has apparently retreated 75% and just from the period of 1984 to 1998, one section of glacier receded 300 m (984 ft)." There is no reference in the article to allow the recent retreat (300 m) to be compared to the overall retreat (75%).
        Slight rewording, I don't see what one has to do with the other...we discuss one period and the glaciers overall, and then another period and one small section of is this confusing?--MONGO 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "Therefore, the glacial retreat evidenced can only be attributed to a general warming trend." This is a bad conclusion. Since the preceeding discussion states that these glaciers have been in retreat since first observed, these glaciers could have been retreating from a stable temperature for a long period of time.
    • Mid-latitude glaciers
      • I don't agree that it is a bad conclusion, but removed it anyway.--MONGO 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe the map of mountain glacier mass balance changes could be moved to this section? (I know it includes other glaciers, so perhaps not...)
        That graph is in support of the section it is in as we discuss mass balance.--MONGO 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Eastern hemisphere
      • "Glaciers across the Alps..." I still have issues with this paragraph (see Talk:Glacier retreat#Graph of advancing glaciers in Alps). It is giving comparisons of percent of retreating glaciers between a recent period of advancing glaciers and today, when that period of advancing glaciers is not typical of the last 150 years. I think this provides an unbalanced and distorted view of the current number of retreating glaciers, and worse (or maybe not worse, since at least it demonstrates an attempt to present the baseline data), this unbalanced view is immediately evident by looking at the accompanying graph. Eventually, at the end of the article in "Projected future trends" there is acknowledgement of the rapid retreat illustrated for the 1925–1945 period, but it should be discussed at this point as well.
        I think that Peltoms adequately answered this question on the article discussion page. We discussed in the intro the little ice age, a meltdown, then a small advance during the mid 20th century and now another we have to mention this repeatedly in the article?--MONGO 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "In India, the Gangotri Glacier, which is one of the primary sources of water for the Ganges River, retreated 34 m (111 ft)/yr between 1970 and 1996 and has averaged 30 m (100 ft)/yr since the year 2000. The recent increase in retreat rates and melt rates has led to a recent expansion and creation of glacier lakes in the Himalayas." The first sentence states that the most recent rate of retreat is slightly less than the preceeding years, yet the next sentence goes on to discuss the "recent increase in retreat rates."
        I went and reworded this section, see if it is okay now.--MONGO 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • From my previous comments: it introduces the term and acronym Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOF). This would be a great term to explain in a child article, or if not worthy of a child article, then in this one. I mean the term seems somewhat self-explanatory, but if it has usage common enough to warrant an acronym and proper name, then it seems like it should be explained.
      • From my previous comments: "Its neighboring glacier could generate a GLOF up to two-and-a-half-times that which caused major devastation in October 1994." Since the article is providing a relative numerical comparison to this event, the size of the October 1994 event should be stated in the article.
        I'll try and create a stub so that this phenonmenon can be expanded.--MONGO 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "Most of the glaciers have been reduced in size and the accumulation zone had a corresponding rise to higher elevations as the 20th century progressed." Not sure how this should be reworded, but corresponding rise to higher elevations really means a corresponding reduction in the accumulation zone to the higher elevation areas.
    • Western hemisphere
      • "With 65% needed for equilibrium..." this statement needs a reference.
      • "A computer model indicates..." this statement needs a reference.
      • From my previous comments: Maybe this use is obvious, but the term "downwasting" is introduced without explanation in the "Alaska" section.
        I'll look for references tonight for these, check it in 24 hours.--MONGO 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "Mean annual balance has been increasingly negatively averaging −1.04 m (−3.4 ft)/yr from 1990–2005." I think this needs to be reworded.
    • Polar regions
      • From my previous comments: "The acceleration rate of retreat of Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier is even larger." This seems at best poorly worded.
        I think the acceleration rate of retreat means the acceleration of the rate of retreat, but I'm not positive, so I left it alone for now.
        Reworded this section to try and remove ambiguity--MONGO 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "The front of the glacier has also retreated and has rapidly thinned by more than 100 m (328 ft)." Just checking, but is it only the front of the glacier that has thinned, as this states? Also, it is not clear from the context if the "more than 100 m (328 ft)" is for the period from 1988–2001, 2001–2005 or 1988–2005.
        I rewored it to show that it was the entire glacier...I'll check the dtaes and update that.--MONGO 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "The rapid thinning, acceleration and retreat of these three large glaciers in close association with one another suggests a common triggering mechanism, such as enhanced surface melting due to regional climate warming." Can this be accurately reworded to replace such as with most likely?
      • "The collapse has been due to warmer melt season temperatures..." It would be great if figures could be provided for the temperature differences.
      • "Recent studies by the British Antarctic Survey have attributed the potential breakup of the George VI Ice Shelf to warming ocean currents due to global warming." Maybe it's just me, but attributing the potential breakup seems like the wrong way to phrase this. Attribution would be for something that has actually happend, no?
        I think I cited a source that is saying that this has happened before and it looks like it is going to happen again...I'll try and reword it.--MONGO 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "Additionally, the Dakshin Gangotri Glacier, a small outlet glacier..." Where is this glacier? Small outlet for what?
        Reworded this to show it is off the Antartic icesheet.--MONGO 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Impacts of glacier retreat
      • "Alterations to the ocean currents and the thermohaline circulation of the worlds oceans may seriously impact the fisheries of the world, which may mean less fish and shellfish for human consumption." This needs a reference to support this statement. Otherwise the opposite statement, which may mean more fish and shellfish for human consumption, is equally valid since at least in theory, the consequences of a disturbance in the current balance could just as easily cause increases of some species that would outweigh the decreases in other species.
        Did a minor rewording of this section.--MONGO 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • "Since at least the end of World War II, glaciologists and those in related professions have been informing the scientific community and the public that glacier retreat is a situation of potential concern." I really don't like this sentence in the article. I really don't think it is adding anything worthwhile, and in my opinion, detracts from the neutral, scientific tone of the rest of the article.
      • "It is this rise in what is referred to as Greenhouse gases that are raising the temperature of the planet..." As I stated in my previous comments:
        I don't mean to sound like a denier of global warming (I'm not) but isn't the causation between the rising temperatures and greenhouse gases actually a widely-accepted theory, and not a proven cause? At least the global warming article lists it as a theory. I would suggest a rewording here along the lines of "It is this rise in what is referred to as greenhouse gases that are presumed to be raising the temperature of the planet..." ('presumed' could also be 'assumed' or 'considered'...even 'widely assumed', 'widely presumed' or 'widely considered' would be fine)
      • "The organization has also claimed..." This is the only place in the entire article where the conclusion of a scientific study is characterized as a "claim". Is this really less scientificly supported than the rest of the references in the article? If not, can it be reworded to be more neutral?
        Reworded this passage.--MONGO 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    Doug Bell talkcontrib 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: the first graph under 'Glacier mass balance impact on terminus behavior' containts a grammatical error. The caption should read '1980s', not '1980's'. You may think this is a minor point, and you would be right, but nevertheless since a featured article is supposed to represent the best of wikipedia, it really isn't good enough to have this simple grammatical error. Otherwise, great article. Bigdaddy1204 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, where is the WP style guideline that specifies decades are listed w/o apostrophes? I'm not denying it, but different external manuals of style vary on this, so WP correct usage is not immediately obvious. Are you by chance Commonwealth, Bigdaddy1204? Not that it matters, but the "1980's" style seems more common in American usage (but not uniform here either). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the specific guidelines are on this point for wikipedia, but certainly I was taught in English class that 1980's with an apostrophe was wrong. The reason was that there is nothing ommitted: all you need is the plural form of '1980' to indicate any year from that decade, which is accomplished by putting an 's' after 1980, like so: 1980s. As it happens I am Commonwealth, (England), but I am weary of bringing nationality into it: before long, people will be hurling accusations of cultural imperialism at each other, and users will be lining up on both sides of the Atlantic to declare that their version of the language is the only correct one. Over the top, I know, but it happened during a long-running argument over whether to call the article on 'gasoline' by the British English name 'petrol' instead! Anyway, I would recommend the form '1980s' as the one most likely to be correct, but I'm not forcing it on anyone. Bigdaddy1204 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the ones I could find that had apostrophes...I am a big fan of finding balance between British and American english spelling personal style is to make sure if an article is about an American, or an American event or taks place in America, that the spelling be in American English...and vice versa if it be about Britian or non American english subject the case of Glacier retreat, this is an international article, so hopefully the editors thathave worked on it, who are mostly American, haven't misspelled things that appear biased to our perspective...this is entirely possible. With that said, I prefer your style of plural numeration...1980s looks better than 1980's.--MONGO 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with the no-apostrophe decades, naturally. It just seemed like Bigdaddy1204 was alluding to something in WP:STYLE rather than a personal/regional preference, which seems not to be so now. The article mostly tends towards American spellings where they differ, but I don't really care about that. The only thing, up with which I cannot put, is the use of a space-padded n-dash where God intended a non-spaced m-dash :-). (...and maybe that perverse "-ise" verbal suffix to spell words that end in '-ize'). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your personal approach - I think it is the best way to do things. My thanks to you for making the changes :-) Bigdaddy1204 20:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. I also like the way MONGO responded to my comments. Bigdaddy1204 20:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson[edit]

This article has been nominated for FA status before, but failed. All opposing comments have been addressed. It has been a very long time since this article was last nominated. Since then, it has really improved dramatically. This article definately deserves FA status. - Street walker 06:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. There should be a References section with full citations of all the refernces given throughout the article (see Wikipedia:Inline Citation and WP:CITE). Also, years are overlinked in the lead (see date formatting). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Is this what you mean? I've only done the lead so far. Street walker 12:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, pretty much. Although a numbered list with full citations would be better (see Kylie Minogue for a Featured Article on a similar topic that lists the references that way). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Support. In the case of this particular article, citing a book doesn't add too much. I think the article is complete and well written. ChaTo 12:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Agreed, but since a request/complaint has been made for inline citation and it has cost this article an opposing vote, I think the best thing to do is follow up on the request/complaint made. Street walker 12:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As many reliable and professional books there are that cover Michael Jackson, citing a book would indeed add much. --FuriousFreddy 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Conditionally support as more bibliography could be in the list (as further reading). May be some part of the physical appearance could be embodied in the article. Brandmeister 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per ChaTo. -- Siva1979Talk to me 17:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, again. This article does not deserve featured status as it currently stands. Writing is not of featured article quality. Exceedingly excessive in-line citations (in general, things like when people were born and when albums were released don't need inline citations unless they are particularly disputed), which lead to dubious sources. In-line citations are not linked to references in a "Footnotes" or "Notes" section. The header is too large, and does not properly summarize the article it is supposed to introduce. There is a significant number of Michael Jackson biographies (including an autobiography), magazine articles, televsion interviews, and other materials that can be used as professional references to create a professional article on the entertainer. This article is not even decent on the basic levels being clearly formatted and clearly covering Jackson's life in a clear, professional tone. This is at least the third time this article has been nominated here in the last two months. Before it is relisted for a fourth, or fifth, or wherever we're at, the person who keeps nominating it neeeds to stop. We have an entire Manual of Style, pages explainging how to write and reference articles, and several templates to assist in that process. Just take a look at Phil Collins; while I'm not particularly fond of the writing and formatting, it is at least properly referenced. And reliable, properly formatted references are a basic requirment of a featured article. --FuriousFreddy 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose: I just went through one section and found a handful of internal links that needed to be improved, either to avoid redirects or to lead to the most relevant article. I made the fixes in that section, but the rest of the article should be checked over. Other than that, this seems like a solid article. On another note, in regard to Brandmeister's suggestion, I think the information on his physical appearance is sufficient in this article, considering that there is a separate article entirely dedicated to that topic. I'll be happy to vote my support when the internal links are all fine-tuned. Kafziel 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I just went back in after a week, and the very first link I clicked on (a piped link under "controversial behaviour in Berlin") was a redirect. Changing my comment to oppose until all of the internal links are fixed. Kafziel 15:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until those citations are fixed, the printable version will look disastrous. Obli (Talk) 22:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment some of the prose is choppy. Example: "jackson caused a stir when he walked into a women's toilet" near the end. It has no place in the paragraph as written. I, too, find the incessant citations to be a hindrance to reading. Needs some work, although seems to be pretty well on the way to FA status. aa v ^ 00:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per FuriousFreddy; those external link refs need to be formatted properly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has now been properly referenced, see Michael Jackson#References. Flcelloguy, Obli, and Fritz Saalfeld feel free to retract your opposing votes at anytime. I hope the article now lives up to your standards. Street walker 08:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The article still isn't properly referenced; the first reference links to the article's talk page (!), and none of the references are properly cited (see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations; the footnotes should contain information on the authors, publishers, etc.) There are still a number of highly unneccesary citations for things like the birthdates of Jackson's children, and the release dates of his albums (a general reference will suffice to cover all of that, which is why it is better to seperate "footnotes" from "references." Direct citation should only be used for things such as direct quotes, exact figures, disputed facts, etc.) The article's lead is excessively long; nearly a third of the legnth of the article. Changing opposition to Strong Oppose until nominator and persons working on article stop constantly pushing the article for FA status in a half-done state, and, if they desire the article make it through, take the time out to properly revise, format, and balance the article so that it is FA worthy. I still feel that this revision from back in October, while still requiring referencing and summarization in places, is far superior prose-wise to the current revision (I didn't write that version, but I did do cleanup/formatting for it). Until the current version of the article meets or exceeds that version as far as the quality of the writing and the information covered (Jackson's music career and personal life should be covered seperately, but in the same article, for the sake of page flow), this article should not be featured. --FuriousFreddy 01:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Article ticks all the right boxes for an FA. Rdysn5 10:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditionally Oppose Article still lacks that certain sheen it will need. Sourcing isn't excessive, but sourcing still isn't quite the ticket. Too many links to fan sites. Sourcing using fan sites isn't reliable for some things. Don't get me wrong, the article is almost unrecognisable from the last peer review, but it's not quite right.
  • I also have concerns regarding the removal of information which is unfavorable to Jackson. I don't see that "Jackson walks into a woman's toilet" anymore (which probably belonged there in a more edited fashion), and I just replaced an entire section on his custody case which was removed, along with Messereau no longer representing him - a seeming whitewash (paragraph beginning "An appeals court ruled..." [13]).
  • also, where is information about Jackson's constant fatigiung? Jackson is almost anorexic according to his BMI based on his weight on his arrest photo, why isn't this mentioned? Why are his constantly 'odd' patterns of behaviour whitewashed over? It needs fixing--Manboobies 20:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Object The article is woefully unbalanced, therefore not comprehensive, favoring an account of his commercial releases and his private life based on media sources, while almost completely failing to cover his basic artistic skills and talents as, primarily, a singer and dancer, and also actor, and his involvement in music production and choreography. On this basis, the article needs considerable amount of additional material, sections such "Training, Style, Influences", comparisons or other measure of his abilities with professional peers, and so forth. This imbalance also creates a bias towards MJ's (sensationalized) media image rather than a rounded treatment of all the relevant aspects, and so is not neutral. In addition, specific problem areas include:

  • The lead is not neutral and not particularly readable The lead gives equal emphasis to MJ's entertainment career and his controversial personal life. While this is perhaps warranted in the lead, freely mixing career and "media findings" without distinction is not IMO encylopedic. "King of Pop" and "Wakco Jacko" are not equivalent terms. His marriages and children are included up front presumably only because of his notorious association with "children". And so forth. Also, there are too many citations, which is entirely distracting: ideally, the lead should be citation free, summarizing material developed (and cited if necessary) in the main text.
  • Business career is not covered A brief mention and a link to a three-paragraph article, Michael Jackson finances, do not adequately cover his business dealings. The Beatles catalog, his lavish spending, his sponsorship deals, are all of an MJ proportion equivalent to his "kiddy" stuff, yet they are given little mention.
  • Periods of success, particularly Thriller area, not accurately presented This is a writing issue. I don't find the different stages of his career are well-explained. The stats are there, but there is no summary of the incredible wave of popularity around Thriller, the impact of the moonwalk, the cross-demographic appeal. The article skims over these areas, and relatively lavishes attention on his trials and publicized personal life.
  • MJ as dancer not covered His abilities as a dancer, which have been widely noted in many media, are not explained.
  • MJ behavioral theories are not mentioned There has been much published speculation about MJ's "behaviors". Considering the amount of coverage given his personal trials and tribulations, a summary of the analyses and speculation about his behavior deserves some mention.
MJ is probably one of the most covered entertainers ever. There is endless source material. The general and specific points mentioned here can certainly be found, they are simply not here. MJ is one of those "baseline" articles for determining overall article quality, it is a big topic that requires a lot of work, and unfortunately I don't find that yet reflected here. I don't get a sense of MJ professionally or personally, only a lot of stats, and media bits assembled on a timeline... --Tsavage 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Does anybody want to give this sucker more publicity than he already has? 00:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Badly formatted citations, and some of the sources are questionable. That every single source is online bothers me too. Suggests (rightly or wrongly) a Google copy and paste job. What about books, journals and (pre web) press coverage? --kingboyk 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Xenomorph (Alien)[edit]

Support: An interesting and stable article on the creatures from the Alien universe. It is well referenced coming from well over 18 different websites (including references), all four of the movies, and a comic strip. For the movies I have supplied the time for when the event happens. It was previously tagged as Original Research under the #Queen section. Of course, I have removed this and found suitable sources for which. Thanks, KILO-LIMA 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Present tense should be used when referring to fictional events. I pointed this out in the peer review; it should have been addressed before taking the article to FAC (I've fixed the intro myself but that's just part of the article). Also, Everything2 and Geocities are not good references. I think only canonical references should be used; anything else should be explicitly marked as fan speculation in the text (or removed, for being fan speculation). Fredrik Johansson 19:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I know you mentioned this in the peer review and changed it accordingly; however, it was changed back for it "being [alive]". I have also changed the source that you requested and removed the two bad references. I have also added in the Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual, HarperCollins 1996, reference instead of the two deleted ones. See the talk page as well under #References. KILO-LIMA 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Some more questionable sources. What makes [14] a reliable source? It looks like a fan-site to me. The sideshowtoy reference seems to, itself, reference a bit of fan research (I'm not familiar with the name Mike Lynch, so it might be official, but the article implies it is not), which I'm not sure we can hold as reliable. Couldn't this information be found from more official sources? [15] also appears to be a fan site with potentially inaccurate or simply made-up information. Anything hosted by fortunecity would be a fan site as well. Fieari 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I took Brian Oshaughnessy's website as a reference becuase it states the facts required [16]. I hope by saying Sideshowtoy you really mean Anchor Point Essay (as Mike Lynch doesn't make them). Fortunecity is not a reference, but it was linked becuase it was the site that stated that the fin stayed on throught the spin-offs. It was not fan specualtion; it was, in my case, fact. It's not saying anything that could be damaging to the article, it's just saying the fin remained. KILO-LIMA 16:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It may be correct information, but it's still not from a primary source. Where did the people who made the pages you linked to get the information? Why can't you use the source they used instead? Fieari 17:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
How is it now? I have removed the links from them, the inline citations removed and the references removed. KILO-LIMA 00:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. As soon as the references are cleared up, I will support. RyanGerbil10 22:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Full Support. I feel my objections have been addressed. RyanGerbil10 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, per RyanGerbil10.--Fallout boy 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I already mentioned on the article's talk page, Image:Queenybaby.JPG is unsourced. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I have removed it from the article. KILO-LIMA 20:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article treats its subject not as what it is, namely, a fictional species. Examples from the introduction: "(or scientifically called Internecivus raptus[1])" - there is no scientific terminology for such a "species", because scientific taxonomy is not concerned with fictional beings; "of unknown origin" - does not make clear that it is fictionally unknown in the context of the fictional setting; "Gorman's line in Aliens is the only time that the word Xenomorph is used canonically" - does not make clear what canonically means in the fictional context. An encyclopedia is a place where people expect to read about things that exist. If you write about things that do not, you must adapt your writing style acordingly. Kosebamse 13:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed the points you have made; however, it clearly states in the first sentence of entire article that the species is entirely fictional. KILO-LIMA 20:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Considering that it's not actually a real thing, there's a pretty good amount of information here. It's in need of some minor fixes as noted by others above (the scientific name part is still lame... is the "source" really the background of a dvd menu screen? I don't know if I'd call that canon; those screens are made by the dvd distribution company, not the studio.) I'm not wild about the "debate" section; just seeing one of those in an article raises warning flags. It's not a debate if the information presented doesn't address both viewpoints, which this (like most) does not. The other viewpoint, i.e. that the DNA sampling thing is a bunch of crap, is nowhere to be seen. (I personally feel that it is a bunch of crap, since the aliens in the 1st and 2nd movies, and the old comics, do not look like people, they look the same as they do on their homeworld, as shown in "Hive". It was a cheap stunt to sell bad sequels and it caught on. Where's that angle?) But even though I think that section needs improvement, it's a fictional character and the debate is, essentially, pointless. So I won't withold my support just because of that. Assuming the article gets the work it needs, my support should hold up. Kafziel 17:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Short article, but then there's no point adding crap to fill it out! Worthy of FA, the image texts need clarification tho, I'll have a bash --PopUpPirate 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think the references have been cleared up now. Hillhead15 13:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I'm familiar enough with the Alien series. The article has a lot of interesting information, but there is a problem with the presentation, which begins with establishing the name of the creature (generally along the lines the Kosebamse objection). I guess this would be categorized as a verifiability and writing quality issue. The explanation of both how the article itself arrives at "Xenomorph", and how X is used in the series, are both vague, so from the lead on, I'm not really confident that what I'm reading about is what the article calls it... The intro of Facehugger doesn't help. Neither do sentences like, "No one quite knows how a Queen comes to be. When there is no queen present or eggs, many different things could happen." Overall, separation between the properties of the fictional universe, and the actual fan/scholarly analysis is not clearly established, and I had the general impression of reading a fan discussion rather than an authoritative article. And, I've thought of the thing as the "Alien" and this article doesn't convince me otherwise. With some editing and rewriting in the right direction, it'd be a cool article, and all the info is...great! Hope that's of some assistance... --Tsavage 03:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder[edit]

Somewhat a self-nomination. I have made two minor edits to include citations. ThisA article is compelling written and highly informative. This is difficult given the nature of BPD and the diverse opinions on the subject in the psychiatric field. The NPOV is excellent given the fact that people suffering from BPD (Like me) are likely to contribute. From what I have seen in the history there has never been an edit war. All in all I think this is a perfect article to feature on Wikipedia. I will be more than happy to address anyone's objections and make corrections as needed. Billyjoekoepsel 20:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Lack of inline citations mainly. Plus, theres only one reference. The lead is slightly too long- see WP:LEAD. Future Progress and Effects on family members, significant others, and friends seem rather weak (especially without inline citations). AndyZ 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have addressed some of the problems you have with the page. Part of the lead has been made its own category and more reference material the article is created from has been added. I am looking into the inline citations. Thank you for the help. Billyjoekoepsel 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I just added footnotes to citations. I don't know if this style is Wiki Standard. Billyjoekoepsel 00:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I found to proper method for Wikipedia footnotes. I hope this has addressed most of your objections. If not that's cool. I think the article is greatly improved and that is what counts.Billyjoekoepsel 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead is now too short (sorry!) and fails to summarize the article. Also, many unreferenced claims; "...characterised by extreme "black and white" thinking" is either confusing or wrong, for instance. Lists should be changed to prose. "External links" is suspiciously long -- how many of these contain unique encyclopedic content? Jkelly 05:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • After how i have had it explained to me(by professional trained people), it fits very good to this description of "black and white thinking". And this is how it is to a certain extent. And BPD is a very controversial disease, and have been under serious discussion by professionals. It's almost never diagnosed to people under 18, since it's hard to distinguish from the regular teen hormones and other diseases, such as regular depression or other personaility disorders. Therefor alot of input and external links is required in my opinion. Mriswith 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "all or nothing" thinking is more accurate than "black or white". Example: a suggestion given to a BPD might be heard as "nothing about me is right" or "she totally rejects me", etc. It is an inability to see/hear gradations; an inability to separate the negative behavior under discussion from their total self-concept.

  • I disagree. People with BPD are often described as thinking in either "black or white" about a particular situation. They also idolize and later devalue people. Point being that they don't see a gray area, something or someone is either all good or all bad in any given instance (and it often switches back and forth.)
  • Object. References and an unexplained Bibliography in separate sections, obvious self-promotion (hint: if a book identifies the writer's degree, it's usually self-promotion)... That whole area needs work. --zenohockey 01:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Photosynthetic reaction centre[edit]

Self-nomination. I started this article 23 days ago with the hope of making a high quality, thorough and scientifically accurate article about photosynthetic reaction centres from plants and bacteria. I have put a lot of effort into creating the article and I have had it peer reviewed; I believe it qualifies as a featured article candidate. The article is very scientific and I was nervous at first that it might be ‘too scientific’ for a featured article, but Ive been assured that scientific articles are welcome on the front page. Miller 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Signature george.PNG

  • SupportOppose; I would love to see this featured (it sounds like it could be interesting), but using sentences such as "The peak molar absorption coefficient of chlorophyll is 105 M-1 cm-1, among the highest observed amongst organic compounds." without any explanation of or links to molar absorption, and a use of JPEGs rather than <math> statements for equations make the article too difficult at below university level (it makes little sense to an A-level biology & chemistry student like me). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the formulae up. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to support, now that this article really looks good! Much improved on when I first saw it... smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • conditional support and commentI think that's a point that need to be raised. Personally I have no problem reading this because of my background, but I think even if appropriate links are provided to explain this concepts, people are still not going to understand it because wikipedia is relatively poor in molecular biology topics (zoology is fine on wikipedia in my opinion), and there is just NO WAY to explain these concepts just through encyclopedia readings; you'll need years of training in sciences to understand most math, engineering, mol bio articles. Granted most people can't tell difference between DNA and protein. That being said, however, I don't think that should prevent it from being featured as FA. Here's some suggestions:
1. Most people don't know about rxn centers, but most of them have heard about photosynthesis. So maybe a couple paragraphs about photosynthesis (in layman's terms) to show where photosynthesis occurs, and what's the ultimae goal of photosynthesis.
2. A paragraph about what a photon is, and how it carries energy. Also, how a molecule can absorb or release energy when hit by photons. And how is it relevant to photosynthesis.
3. People are not going to understand what electron donors or acceptors are, so maybe need to give them first an idea: why and how when an electron falls down a gradient potential can energy be amassed and used? What's the point of falling down a gradient?
4. Before going into details about plant and bacteria, talk about evolutionary relationships between them. Also say where in cells are these systems found.
comments: most of information you can probably find in textbooks, so paraphrasing and then cite at end should be fine. One thing to make this more complete is maybe link to people who've done research on this. I know it maybe hard, pubmed rarely gives pdfs for research done in 50s or 60s. But I'd like to see some primary research at reference section.
finally, science topics are almost always harder to understand than humanities, but I don't think it should be the reason to keep it away from gaining FA status. I'll give more comments if needed. Temporary account 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak ObjectSupport- not ready yet, needs more work. There is a lack low amount of inline citations, critera 2(c). Though I don't mind the level of "scientificness" (even if it is mostly too difficult for me also), I think it would be better if it would be toned down a bit in terms of that. References need to be cited correctly (I'll work on that). I would also prefer a more hierarchal structure to the TOC (3b). Though people familiar with the topic can immediately realize that the two photosystems are in the chloroplasts of green plants, what about other less familiar people? They would be unable to discern that the photosystems didn't exist in the bacteria. Instead, it should be of similar format, with the paragraph under "Bacteria and plants" moved up to the lead, and three separate sections be created: Bacteria, Algae, and Plants. (Both photosystems would fall under plants). AndyZ 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was afraid that certain terms might make the article hard, if not impossible to understand. If you can pick out examples of this, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll add an explanation or change the wording to make it more understandable.Miller 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Signature george.PNG
    • While I was suggesting that it should be simpler- I didn't mean that much simpler- just meant like explaining stuff with more detail, not with sentences like "Imagine balls sitting on top of different steps on a flight of stairs". thanks, AndyZ 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Let me begin by saying that I applaud your swift accomplishment. Few articles look this good after a year of work. I second the request for inline citations and agree with the suggestion to add more basic background. While it's impossible to gain a working understanding of advanced scientific concepts without years of university study, a good writer can convey basic principles and general concepts to any educated reader. Isaac Asimov made a career of that and I recommend Miller review some of Asimov's essays as models for how to introduce complex topics to a broad audience. Wikipedia's space limits provide plenty of room for this article to expand. You've demonstrated your ability to write fine prose swiftly so I think you can address these concerns within the nomination period. Add a background section to bring a nontechnical reader up to speed, then offer a high level analysis of significant concepts with their function and and significance. Ideally this would prepare some readers to at least skim the graduate level technical discussion that concludes of the article. Best wishes, Durova 23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • comment I have to disagree on this one. Science fiction is different from real working of science. There are scientific subjects which really require solid background in sciences to understand. And this is through my own experience. Imagining explaining transcriptional regulation of hormone receptors and reporter assays to university seniors of humanities majors. That was a gigantic pain in the ass, and I know this from first hand experience. If you want to explain this article so everyone understands, either these explanations will be longer than the article, or that you will leave out lots of points. However, I do want to point out for articles like this, we need non-laymen to do a thorough review. Temporary account 00:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually Asimov wrote much more than just science fiction. He was the most prolific writer of all time. He even provided one of my first introductions to astronomy in a nonfiction children's book I read when I was ten years old. Since he can explain light years and quasars to elementary school children, I'm pretty confident there are techniques you could adopt from his style. Durova 00:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • We'll all help to make the articles as approachable as possible. But I have a feeling that this particular article is really hard. Photosynthesis is easy (H20+CO2+light->sugar!), but rxn centers are hard. Same thing, easy to understand Newtonian physics (a ball thrown upward will come down the same speed you throw it up), but quantum mechanics are hard. Astronomy is easy, fusion reaction within stars is difficult....etc. Something just require some background to understand, and not everything can be explained without solid prior knowledge. Temporary account 00:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I’ve prepared a new section laying out the principles behind photosynthesis, but it’s very erratic and poorly written. If anyone can clean up the section and integrate it into the article in an appropriate fashion I would be greatly appreciative.

==The process of photosynthesis==

The various concepts and the structure and functioning of all the different proteins and other molecules that are involved in carrying out photosynthesis are diverse and very complicated. A simple definition of the process of photosynthesis might be ‘the capture of light energy and conversion into chemical energy’. The chemical energy in question is food, in the form of sugar, for the organism in which is carrying out photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis provides food directly for green plants and many bacteria and algae and provides food indirectly for every other form of life on Earth. It is clear that photosynthesis originates from simple bacteria in the very early stages of evolution. Green plants have chloroplasts inside them which, as well as containing the photosynthetic apparatus, also contain their own DNA and the necessary machinery to synthesize proteins. It is though that a photosynthetic bacterium was ‘swallowed’ by another cell and remained alive in the host cell.

This ‘original’ photosynthetic bacterium is believed to be an ancestor of a cyanobacterium. Evidence suggests that chloroplasts from higher plants and green algae are derived from the same event, whereas those in red and brown algae arose from at least one more additional event.

In the course of evolution many of the genes from the original bacterium’s genome where transferred to the plant’s nucleus, the storage site for the plants genetic material (DNA). Miller 01:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Signature george.PNG

  • Weak support. The readability of the article is a bit daunting at times, but I was able to grind my way through most of it. I don't think the level of 'scientificness' will be an issue, because this topic is quite obscure. Anyone who comes to this article looking for information probably already knows what they are looking for specifically and already possesses some background knowledge of the topic. Inline citations need to be added, but I trust that this can be done in a timely manner. RyanGerbil10 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. First off, it needs a copy edit, so that all the sentences end with the proper punctuation and so forth. For this sort of topic, I don't think we need to be fanatical about inline citations, but the reader should be able to track specific numbers and figures to a verifiable source. Anville 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I added a couple of inline citations, and plan on doing more later. AndyZ 22:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I went through and copyediting the spelling mistakes- don't know about punctuation though. AndyZ 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It doesn't seem that any of the sentences end with improper punctuation- they all end with periods. AndyZ 02:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It lacks inline references, which is now one of the "hard criteria" for an FA. - Samsara contrib talk 11:30, 2 March 2006(UTC)
    • I added a couple of inline citations, and plan on doing more later. AndyZ 22:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for reacting to my concern. I think it would be good to have a few more peer-reviewed references (i.e. from peer-reviewed journals) or at least printed ones, e.g. textbooks. You should reference them fully, title and ISBN is not enough. I don't particularly like this reference game, because people often look at the number of references rather than whether the controversial or novel-sounding points are supported by references, but everybody's being treated by the same rules (i.e. we're all just imitating each other), for instance see my peer review of tuatara. Thanks. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I added as much information as I could find to the citations/references, and there is one textbook, except it is online. I will add my own biology textbook as a reference though if needed to verify anything. AndyZ 23:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

One suggestion is to write this article like scientific review article in peer-reviewed journals. Usually in these reviews, when a claim is made, right after the sentence will have (authors, year) and in the citation section they will have full article name, journal name, authors, year...etc. One thing that concerns me is whether citing textbooks as in-line citation is a good idea. In writing scientific articles (such as in Cell or Science), rarely is a textbook ever used as a source. Usually only primary research or other review articles are cited. I guess that will require lots and lots of pubmed search. Temporary account 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm on it. Give me a few hours and I'll get the sources I need.--Miller 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Signature george.PNG
It's closer. I really recommend you browse some good science populariations: Lewis Thomas, Stephen Jay Gould, etc. You lose the nontechnical reader in the first paragraph. That would be fine for a science encyclopedia, but not here. Durova 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you believe is still needed?

  • More inline citations (which sections?)
  • On complex scientific principles :

Remove certain parts
Provide appropriate references
Explain them in more detail
Rewrite these sections

  • Grammar, syntax, layout etc

--Miller 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Signature george.PNG

  • Comment Generally speaking, I've noticed that the best science popularizers put a human face on their subject—not just literally, as in Gonick and Wheelis's Cartoon Guide to Genetics, but in a metaphorical way. Reading some good Asimov gives one a sense of human drama: at first we are ignorant, then somebody gets an idea, by a long shot it works out and we illuminate one more tiny, fascinating piece of the natural world. Many textbooks appear to be shallow on this "historical" treatment, partly because knowing the history of science doesn't help the student solve exam problems. This blindness is detrimental to all concerned: for those students who actually go on to become scientists, learning how a scientific model gets invented and tested is invaluable. Moreover, the many students who don't go on to be professional, workaday physicists or biologists—the ones who take classes because they're course requirements—miss receiving the sort of knowledge which could actually make science meaningful for them: the perception of science as a human endeavour.
So, how to save the world with a Wikipedia article? A good first step would be to give a good coverage of the way photosynthetic reaction centres were discovered and explored. In a really solid article, one which truly deserves the Featured star, I'd expect to see sentences like "The reaction centres in R. pinkfloydi bacteria were a mystery, until a team of researchers led by Fred Foobar managed to work out their molecular structure. Foobar and his colleagues used X-ray diffraction to understand the shape of the reaction centre molecules..." I'm making up the details, of course, but does the general idea make sense?
This is the sort of knowledge that I believe a good article should supply. There are plenty of copy editors, footnote adjustors and prose brilliantifiers running around the Wikipedia, so if the article has the necessary knowledge it it, the rest will follow naturally.
Anville 09:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point. A comprehensive science article should include history of science. Durova 19:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree also, and some history has already been added to the article. Thissite also has many links to sites that discuss the actual history of photosynthesis, which might be helpful in this task. AndyZ 13:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to image licensing problems. --Gmaxwell 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Finding appropriate images with or without big brother (AKA Rhobite) watching over you is hard. Can somebody who is good at finding usable images help me out here?--Miller 00:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Signature george.PNG
    • Look, you're the one who came to me for help. I ignored your snarky comments ("You seem to enjoy deleting images") and patiently explained to you why Wikipedia doesn't allow you to use images with restrictive licenses. But in the above comment, you appear to be admitting that you would ignore Wikipedia's copyright policy if you thought you could get away with it. I am trying to protect Wikipedia's legal status and promote the cause of free content. I don't appreciate being called names by someone who doesn't respect the intellectual property of others. Rhobite 01:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • How did you pick that up within 16 minutes of it being written?!!! Scary. Sorry about that, I wasn't calling you names, just having a laugh - somebody who didn't like what I put on the Jeremy Glick page accused me of being a pedophile! The comment is still on the discussion page if you don't believe me. The point I was trying to make is that I'm not very good at finding apropriate images and I'm looking for help.--Miller 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you might want to consider Fair use images, as long as you can provide the fair use rationale. AndyZ 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but the new image with the chloroplast lacks a fair use rationale, and therefore doesn't fit in with the copyright policy either. That rationale needs to be added. AndyZ 02:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I think I'll just give it up as a bad job! I guess you cannot but try.--Miller 02:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
              • I added a fair use rationale which I believe works (again, can somebody please double-check). For the other image that has no copyright tag, I have temporarily removed it from the article using HTML comment tags until if a suitable copyright tag can be found. AndyZ 02:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually there may be a clean and easy (if somewhat slow) solution. How about e-mailing a couple of researchers in the field and asking them to grant Wikipedia permission to use their image? A typical scientist would be pleased and flattered by the request, I think. Durova 03:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm going to second that suggestion. I see that the situation has been improved some since my initial objection, but it's not enough the lead image is still a 'fair use' image. I'm going to take a hard line on this one: I will object to the featuring of this article until it is free of unlicensed copyrighted material. Fair use is acceptable when we're talking about a copyrighted work, but there is no copyrighted work under discussion here, there is no reason why this article can't be 100% free content. I can't argue that this is the best we have to offer when it makes unnecessary use of 'fair use'. Also, the 2D diagrams in the article should be SVG's the jpeg artifacts make them look terrible. As a gesture of good will (after all, I'm opposing right now) I've replaced one of the two with a SVG, and will get the other one later. --Gmaxwell 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose i have been editing this article recently. i just discovered it is an FA candidate. I think this is a little premature.
  1. There is a lot of redundancy in the article. i have tried to prune that down a bit.
  2. The cartoons could do a much better job. For example, where are the H, L and M subunits in the bacterial reaction center cartoon? Where is the periplasmic space vs the cytoplasm.
  3. The history section does a poor job of relating Priestly's work to the topic of reaction centres. i tried to fix this but it needs more work.
  4. There was a lot of information in the article that was peripheral to the topic of the article. i have tried to delete some of it.
  5. Problems with nomenclature. For example, "special pair" was over used especially since it was defined as P960 in the bacterial section.
  6. I still feel there is a lot of work to make this article have the context required for a FA article. For example, several of the wiki links were not that informative (cyclical and soluble) and others that could have pointed to great wiki articles were missed ( cytochrome b6f complex)
I have tried to address some of the issues above but the article still needs a lot of work. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • About the image, it was taken from the Protein Data Bank, and to show the structure of the perisplasmic space vs. cytoplasm would be difficult to do. As for the history section, agree that everything is not very well related with reaction centre. Priestly's work deals with the discovery of oxygen, not the reaction centre, so they draw very weak relationships- that definitely needs to be cleaned up. I think "special pair" refers generally to the pair of chlorophyll molecules that exist in the photosystems. AndyZ 21:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I just updated the diagram to try and give a more general picture of what is going in with regard to the bacterial photsynthetic reaction centre. See the talk page for the article. I understand what the special pair refers to but why can't we call them the P960 (or P680/P700)? Just to clarify there are chorophylls in these photosystems that are not anything to do with the reaction center "special pair". David D. (Talk) 03:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mount Osmond, South Australia[edit]

The third suburb article to be worked to such a standard. Earlier suburb FA's are Waterfall Gully and Yarralumla. Earlier peer review is here. Photos are either taken by myself (and licensed under the GFDL) or are public domain due to expired copyright. Please feel free to be critical, issues that can be addressed will be addressed promptly. Thankyou! michael talk 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: is a cite.php convertion reasonable? It'davoid themessing up between the notes' and the links' (in the footnotes) numbering systems. Circeus 01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't quite get what you are referring to (probably because I don't know what a cite.php covertion is), could you possibly elaborate? michael talk 02:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe he's talking about converting the article the new mediawiki citation format m:Cite/Cite.php, which automatically creates the references section at the bottom. The Catfish 03:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I avoid that type of citation format, I just find it more annoying and intrusive. Shouldn't make too much difference though? michael talk 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It happens to cause your notes' external link numberings to start as "17", as if there'd been 16 links in the articles... If it wasn't for that I would not necessarily complain. Circeus 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Unless there are other Mount Osmonds of equal significance, the article should be at Mount Osmond. It is not necessary to add country names or other geographical entities into article titles, and even when it is necessary for disambiguation, it should be Place (Country), not Place, Country, as the latter is the common form to denote place names in the U.S., but, as far as I know, not elsewhere. Kosebamse 08:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Thats standard practice for all South Australian (a state) suburbs to be labelled as suburb, state, as outlined in Wikiproject Adelaide guidelines. ...maelgwntalk 11:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    The format looks slightly irritating, as one usually sees it only for U.S places, and when articles like Venice, Italy come up (which is why I erroneously wrote "Country" instead of "State") one is inclined to move them, but if it's the standard usage,that's fine with me. Kosebamse 15:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree, the name of the state is unimportant and should be removed from the title. Criterion 2a is not yet satisfied; the whole text needs a thorough run-through to weed out awkward and unexplained statements.

Here are some examples.

"Mining operations in the 19th century gave the area notoriety, but it has since developed slowly into a small, quiet residential suburb." This is left unexplained, at the end of the lead. "Gave notoriety" is unidiomatic. The contrast between notoriety (which needs to be fleshed out) and small, quiet residential suburb (what suburb isn't residential?) is awkward as currently worded. Remove and explore somewhere in the body of the article.
"Mount Osmond did not enjoy any early prospective buyers"
"the lots that composed Mount Osmond"
"His family readily developed the suburb"

And there's much more. Tony 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Please fix the spelling of 'kilometer' (Australian please). Tony

Thankyou - I have made changes to those specific problems - and would like to reiterate the standard naming system for Australian suburbs: [suburb name], [state/territory]. This format is used in both of the suburb featured articles so far, and in all Australian suburbs so far - details can be found here. michael talk 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the WikiProject Adelaide suburbs sub-page is just re-iterating policy. The naming convention for Australian towns, suburbs and cities dictates that they must have the state or territory suffix, except for the capital cities (although Perth and Darwin are necessarily disambiguated).--cj | talk 08:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael, can you find someone who is relatively distant from the text to run through it carefully? That is what is required to satisfy 2a; it's about two hours' work. I suppose I find the guidelines for Australian suburbs regrettable in that respect; they are only guidelines, I assume. But the title's no big deal; the body of the text is. Tony 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Can an non-Australian editor please review this article and give recommendations and/or a copyedit? It would be much appreciated. michael talk 02:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Not at all clear that the images taken from deviantART are free enough for our purposes. For example, what evidence do we have the redistribution and derrived works are permitted for the lead image? --Gmaxwell 23:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Images used are those that have been specifically requested for use (and are free). They are my friends' deviantart images, and are as free as any other image I have contributed (bar a request for attribution). michael talk 00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no information provided on this request. Has he agreed to release them under a free license? If not, why not? Does his grant include the things that a free license would include (unlimited commercial use, derivative works, unlimited redistribution, no extra restrictions outside of attribution and potentially share-alike (i.e. copyleft))? ... These rights are reserved to the copyright holder unless they are explicity released, and I can't tell from anything on Wikipedia if this is the case... When you ask a photographer "can we use this?" they don't usually think you mean the above terms.. we must be explicit. --Gmaxwell 05:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I followed the link to the Deviantart page, and found it was taken from waterfall gully, South Australia. Now, I know Mt Osmond and Waterfall Gully are right next door and all, but shouldn't we have a Mount Osmond Image up there? Mike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation[edit]

See also: December 2005 peer review

Self-nomination: After almost a year of working on it, as a big fan of the Care Bears franchise, I am heartfully proud--literally speaking--to submit one of my first-ever efforts in Wikipedia writing as a featured article candidate. As stated on its talk and peer review pages, this is no usual such candidate: It deals completely with an obscure children's movie that hasn't had a really good share of critical attention (outside the CB fandom), and whose article really deserves better than the movie itself.

Everything, as of the moment I am posting this, has been all set for this to become an FA, per Wikipedia's requirements.

Please let me know what you fellow Wikipedians think of it. --Slgrandson 17:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have a number of concerns. There are a lot of unfree images in the article. I am unsure that they are all absolutely necessary. The referencing seems to rely upon some things that may not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and statements like "...remains popular with Care Bear fans" still remain to be referenced. "Continuity problems" looks like it might be in original research territory. The prose is sometimes confusing: "Critics and viewers alike have looked down upon the rehashed influence of J. M. Barrie's famous children's play, Peter Pan, throughout the film. The Great Wishing Star's involvement in the film's plot, also with the "Forever Young" sequence, and a scene in which the Bears and Dark Heart bringing Christy back to life, give proof of this." is hard for me to parse. The article is over-wikilinked; Canada is linked to twice in the first two paragraphs, and that article does not provide helpful background information for this one (we can trust our readers to know what a Canadian is without linking). In terms of organization, I am put off by the "Voice Cast" table immediately following the WP:LEAD -- what is the associated WikiProject layout? The "See also" section seems especially tangential. For example, if no one has compared The Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation to Dumb & Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd before, we shouldn't be doing it. Good luck. Jkelly 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Also, the WP:LEAD is slightly long; according to WP:LEAD the lead should be at most 3 paragraphs, so consider condensing the lead. I agree also about the layout of the article needs to be worked on. The TOC - table of contents - is huge! The "H" in Dark Heart needs to be decapatilized per WP:MoS, as well as several other headings. The prose also contains many short, 1-sentence paragraphs that would be best either merged or expanded. As for length, I would suggest breaking up the Plot section and creating a subpage called Plot of Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation, where that subpage could contain the bulk of the information while on this page only the most important stuff is kept. This is also heavily list-weighty. I don't really think it is necessary to include the 2 taglines. Take a look also at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body, which is a guideline for films like these. AndyZ 22:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Dark Heart is the character's name; you want the section title to be "Dark heart"? That's not what the MoS means. That would be ridiculous. Proper nouns are exempt. Everyking 10:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you're right about that. I take back that part-accidentally misread it. AndyZ 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm very impressed by this. A couple things caught my eye: in the intro it basically says the movie got trashed, and later on it explains this in more detail, but also in the intro it says the film has gained popularity in Care Bear fandom—shouldn't it say why? It may have at some point, and I just missed it. Also: the movie poster doesn't include "the" in the title, but our article title does. Later I saw where it says some critic complained that they forget about the "the". Do we know that the real title does include "the", and this was just a mistake, or could it be intentional? It looks like they also left off "the" on the 2003 release, which seems to have a different cover design, and that suggests to me that it was intentional. Everyking 10:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • One more thing: I don't know in what sense you can consider those other 1986 movies "competitors" with the Care Bears movie. I mean, does being in theaters at the same time automatically make movies competitors? None of the other movies were geared towards young children, so I don't see how they could have really competed with the Care Bears in terms of ticket sales. Everyking 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Many of the references do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources (and by extension, WP:NOR), message board postings are clearly precluded from being good sources, and many of the other references are just raw lists without any commentary. Then there's the problem that a lot of pseudo-POV claims aren't even cited in the first place. --W.marsh 15:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Response from nominator: I've begun to address the problems of this article by cleaning it up per your comments, adding a few more sources to it where needed. Now, how does it look? I hope it's good enough (at least after the plot moves into its sub-page), so please look at this version and tell me what you think. --Slgrandson 21:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: As the article improves, will it be acceptable to add new sections about the video/DVD releases, as well as translations of the title in other languages? I've seen examples of this on pages about Disney movies. --Slgrandson 09:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Things I noticed at a glance that need to be cleaned up: Images need fair use rationale. Inline external links should be convert to references if used as such. The number of sections is excessive, many have one (or zero!) paragraphs. References belong after punctuation. Section headers should not be linked according to the MOS. Pagrashtak 23:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: Those pictures have suitable tags on their description pages, but how come you're complaining about fair use lacking? I'll have to see about that. --Slgrandson 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Now I get it. Looking at the descriptions for images in Sunset Boulevard and November (two featured articles about films), I'll look forward to putting the rationales on every one. --Slgrandson 01:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: The whole tone of this article is wrong – the spirit seems to be trying to convey that this is an interesting and underrated subject that readers should want to know more about, but the facts presented don’t bear that out (no pun intended). Nothing but dismal profits, scathing reviews, poor video treatment, and plot holes. If the article focused more on how this movie was so bad it was actually the beginning of the end for the Care Bears franchise, at least that would be something. Compare the hopeful tone of this article to the ironic tone of articles like Manos: The Hands of Fate, one of the worst films ever made (a list on which Care Bears II would certainly be included if there was an animated films category). “Manos” is a terrible, terrible movie, but it is still a good article because the back story on the production and the reasons for why and how the mistakes were made are interesting and funny. This Care Bears article is basically saying, "This movie has no redeeming qualities, even for Care Bears fans. I like it for no reason at all." Something’s just not right there.
A few other minor problems:
  • "Oddly enough" - unencyclopedic
  • "has even worsened such a fate" - grammar (and, again, tone; implies it doesn't deserve the fate it got, which it did)
  • "As well, a few have also objected" - grammar
  • "It has now peaked to 4.7" – present-tense, news-style reports of imdb standings are too unstable to include; they’re irrelevant if out of date (even if the date is cited) and nobody is going to check and update it every day, or even every week. Kafziel 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I like care bears too but I think the article needs some more info on development and production. BlueShirts 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I would much rather see Care Bears be the featured article. I see this article as a symptom of it. Why not make the Care Bears article more related to the cultural phenomenon, culture associated with (including the various people collecting and trading, furries, cosplay, etc) it? It makes a lot more sense this way. The article you've presented has a lot of information, but how much of it is (I'm sorry to say it) actually interesting and encyclopedic? The Care Bears article is much more appropriate. That having been said, I've been watching your contributions since you started, and while I don't think CBM is the best place for you to be directing your efforts, I am very impressed with what you've done. Keep up the good work ... aa:talk 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought that was strange, too. Out of all the Care Bears stuff, this is the one to be put up for featured status? I think your efforts would be well-spent improving the main Care Bears article, Slgrandson. Kafziel 13:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Our comments should stay on the FAC page a little longer...if only I can do something fast about it. --Slgrandson 03:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Response from nominator: With your comments in mind, exactly when will this become an FAC again (possibly along with #1)? Now I'm really starting to go back and improve the main article. --Slgrandson 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yikes, now this article looks really short and I regret supporting it. I liked it before because it seemed so rich in detail. Obviously a subarticle for the plot was created, which is good, but creating a subarticle doesn't mean the main article should be reduced so much. Anyway, I think you should keep working on this one and nominate it again pretty soon. See what you can do in the remainder of March and then nominate again in April, maybe. Everyking 03:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort[edit]

I nominated this article particularly because i have seen a few other featured articles, and they seem similar, if not lesser than this one. It's looking good now, and with the surge of Harry Potter in the "mainstream", seems pretty poignant :-) James 10:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Comprehensive and well-researched article. Perhaps inline citations would be useful as well. Brisvegas 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose.
    • The reference to the 7th book seems redundant (you don't use any material from the 7th book for the research, do you?)
    • The text should make better distinction between the fictional and the real world. E.g.: Most people refer to him as "You-Know-Who" or "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" rather than say his name out loud. Also, the use of the present tense in this way throughout the text is unencyclopaedic to my taste.
    • You seem to assume that your average reader has read most of the books in question. More references to the material, if possible, more specific than just book numbers (i.e., at least to the chapter granularity) would be welcome, especially for the lead.
    • A lot of very short paragraphs (sometimes a single sentence).
    • I see you are using various categories to place L.V. into various groups along with other (non-HP as well) fictional characters. This is pretty neat, but it also calls (IMHO) for at least one section talking about L.V. in the context of other arch-villains (or other mages... or other fictional immortality seekers...) in other fictional works. This is a slippery topic as it would be very easy to descend into original research here. This is the place where the references are of utmost importance.
    • (comment only) The fair use template on the images you are using asks to please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use. While it is pretty obvious case of fair use for me in this case, maybe you should go ahead and add the rationale anyway.
    • (comment again) Do a thorough copyedit wrt the prose brilliance once you're done with the above.
--BACbKA 15:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I agree with most of these points, except for the bit about present tense. When describing events which happen within stories, one traditionally uses the "fictional present tense". Anville 09:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article reads more like an entry would read for Voldemort in the fictional world's wikipedia, rather than an entry in our own. Needs less description of the plot of the Harry Potter books, and more discussion on how the character is notable in our world. As above, "at least one section talking about L.V. in the context of other arch-villains (or other mages... or other fictional immortality seekers...) in other fictional works" would be nice. You might want to compare this article to other fictional characters that have achived F.A. status, such as Felix the Cat, Batman, and Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Each of these articles have a substantial portion dedicated to cultural depictions, themes, and other details of the character as a fictional character, not just as a character. Fieari 16:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A comprehensive article -- if the reader has read all the books, that is! A non-fan would have no idea what this is talking about! It needs to contain information that a casual person would understand. Dee man45 15:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mainly based on references:
    1. "He is widely considered one of the most forceful, powerful, and evil villain figures in modern children's literature." - needs a refernce.
    2. Again, the Book 7 reference is unnecessary.
    3. Voldemort must have been mentioned in the news, find some citations and reference them - currently, it doesn't establish it's notability outside of the Harry Potter universe. --Celestianpower háblame 20:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Articles about fictional characters in my opinion shouldn't become featured articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newwiki (talkcontribs)
This isn't an actionable objection. Any Wikipedia article may become a featured article if it fulfills the requirements for comprehensiveness, proper references, appropriate length and use of images, etc. NatusRoma 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. Neutral - the article is comprehensive and a good read - but a none-Harry Potter reader wouldn't understand it very well. Computerjoe 09:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I second NatusRoma's comment above. This would be a perfectly valid FA if it established You-Know-Who's notoriety outside the Harry Potter universe, and if steps were taken to keep it comprehensible to the non-compulsive-fans of the world. (Like me: I saw the newest movie and am waiting until I have the free time to read the first book in Latin before starting on the novels.) Surely, someone must have called a politician "the Voldemort of Washington," or something like that. The article could also be shortened by removing redundant information: the name anagram is explained three times when one would do. Anville 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Waterloo (English version)[edit]

I think "Waterloo" is a good candidate for a featured article. It was ABBA's biggest pre-1976 hit, and was voted the best Eurovision song of all time. Plus, it's their longest article pertaining to a single release. -- Supertrouperdc 04:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Please see Wikipedia:What is a Featured Article and browse the music section at Wikipedia:Featured articles. If you are interested in working on articles about singles, there is a WikiProject at WP:SONG. Thanks and good luck. Jkelly 05:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object No references, image needs fair use rationale. Pagrashtak 05:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not terribly relevant comment but I thought I'd share it just the same: When I saw the title of this article, I thought "English version? But they won!" Daniel Case 06:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    grins Also note that this has been moved to Waterloo (ABBA song) as a result of a WP:RM. —Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object- not quite ready yet, consider Peer Review first. See Jkelly's comment. Also, the article is lacking references and inline citations. The lead is a bit weak. As per WP:MoS the sections shouldn't have capitalized letters except the first letter of a section heading or a proper noun. AndyZ 00:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Waterloo is one of the Best. Songs. Ever. But this article is woefully inadequate: too short (read: not comprehensive and, frankly, incomplete), no references, ugly prose, and, distressingly, no audio sample. Skip peer review and start over. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain[edit]

  • The article is very well done it has a lot interesting facts about Brokeback Mountain and I really like it.--Jack Cox 01:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I'm a regular contributor to this article and I think it has a long way to go before it can be considered featured. While the info regarding critical and financial reception is accurate and well informed, the controvesy section is just ridiculously long and fragmented. Also, the article requires in-line citations. CHANLORD [T]/[C] 01:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I'm also a regular contributor and think this should wait until the film has been out in video for a while, and this is no longer a current movie and still making news. There also should be more discussion about the themes of the movie, including different interpretations about the ending. This has been breifly discussed on the talk page, but not yet in the article. -- Samuel Wantman 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: inline links need to be converted to proper footnotes. Second, I'd suggest getting rid of the trivia section and integrating useful information into the body article.--Fallout boy 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is still a current event and will not be stable for some time. Captain Jackson 07:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still not stable. With regard to the trivia section. Some info is unencyclopedic. Some should be in the body of the article (like how others where considered as director and how other actors felt the roles too controversial to accept). - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Most of the article deals with the controversy surrounding it. I think more could be said as a part of the story of the making of the movie about the casting decisions, the stars that turned down the roles (who they were if possible). Much of the trivia section simply needs to be in the article itself and I don't personally like sections devoted to trivia in a FA. I would work on also discussing other things of possible interest like...why the state of Wyoming...was there political motivation for this due to the fact that Wyoming is a very conservative state? Was there a big decision as to what level of itimacy would be portrayed in the theatrical relaesed version. Lastly, the mixture of footnote cites and external links citation in article text needs to be all converted to {{ref|note}} style or similar for uniformity.--MONGO 12:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, events may change due to the film being nominated for the Oscars. Do try again next time. --Terence Ong 05:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Poorly-written, few references, and not enough in-depth about the film's development and its history. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Poorly-written, current even, bad flow, bad formatting, bad everything. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 15:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Now that the Oscars are over (it won 3), this vote shold be retaken. The article is well-sourced, informative, and has a lot of interwiki links. Gilliamjf 13:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object It still has fragmented, short bits of prose with few sources. And next to no images for something as visual as a movie, just to boot. Staxringold 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose unfortunately. I love BBM, but this article changes so much in but days. A lot of things are fragmented, things getting added, then deleted, re-written, reverted, reinstated, etc. The article needs to be stable first before we can consider if it is good enough for featured status. And because a lot of people edits it, it will take sometime for it to be establish. Best to sew the cloth together before putting it on. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Plus, where is there any much information of Annie Proulx-sensei in this article? Surely she deserves at least a section, discussing why she wrote it, what she felt about the film, etc. The book needs to be covered in detail, just as much as the film. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 19:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

College football[edit]

  • Comment - I am completing the nomination for an anonymous user who did not complete the process for nomination. Johntex\talk 00:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this is a very informative article. One thing I would like to see before FAC is a discussion of plays and strategies used in the game. Johntex\talk 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object- Lack of references and inline citations, criteria 2(c). Could the lead be expanded- per WP:LEAD? AndyZ 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I wrote a good portion of this article, and I don't think it's feature quality. It needs inline citations, a more complete history section, and more reliable print references. There used to be more lists on the page, but I still think they're unseemly. --djrobgordon 03:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object- Lack of references, but, also, not nearly enough to encompass all of college football. PDXblazers 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above comments. Lacks enough content, dosen't have a prominent lead and lacks references. AreJay 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Absolutely no referene section, and huge amounts of listed items. Staxringold 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Blue screen of death[edit]

This is a good and instructive article about a common mysterious computer phenomenon. The is furthermore long and contains some references and sources, so this should be one of the greatest software articles on Wikipedia. --Off! 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. Rob 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object should have gone to peer review, only one reference, no inline citation, and no fair use rationale to start, and the article is rather confusing to some readers --Jaranda wat's sup 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Needs references and the BIG blue images should all be the same size. Suggest Peer Review.

--PopUpPirate 00:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object
    • Needs references.
    • Images needs fair use rationale where appropriate.
    • BSoD appears far too often.
    • Way too much of the article is composed of pictures or representations of the blue screen.
    • There are two Windows error screens that are both referred to as the blue screen of death, with one being significantly more serious than the other. - This is a little silly.
    • a blue screen of death occurs when the kernel, or a driver running in kernel mode, encounters an error from which it cannot recover. This is usually caused by a driver that throws an unhandled exception or performs an illegal operation. - This is meaningless to a reader who does not know much about computers. In fact, most of this article is not accessible to non-technical users.
Pagrashtak 16:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Are we OK with full-resolution screenshots of copyrighted software being used? Which of the Wikipedia fair use catagories would these fall under? Our Templat:Windows-software-screenshot would seem to apply - but it does not permit full resolution images. Scaling them down makes them unreadable. Tricky. SteveBaker 02:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Language needs a lot of debugging. Examples:
    • a blue screen of death occurs when the kernel, or a driver running in kernel mode, encounters an error from which it cannot recover. This is usually caused by a driver that throws an unhandled exception or performs an illegal operation - totally incomprehensible techspeak
    • They are referred to as "bug checks" in the Windows SDK, DDK, and WDK documentation - what's a SDK? what's a DDK? what's a WDK?
    • The "Stop" message contains the error code and its symbolic name (e.g. 0x0000001E, KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED) along with four error-dependent values in parentheses - more incomprehensible techspeak
    • A debugger is necessary to obtain a stack trace - what's a stack trace?
    • Windows XP also allows for local kernel debugging - what is local kernel debugging?
    • The underlying problem seems to be that the authors of the article assume a level of technical understanding that most readers simply don't have. An article should be written for readers of average intelligence and no expert knowledge. Kosebamse 18:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Fixed the aboveFreedom to share 20:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Technical articles shouldn't use technical language? Evil saltine 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
        • You need to use langage that someone who is likely to need to read the article will understand. Someone with enough technical understanding to grok this article will already be all too familiar with the BSOD. However, someone who just heard someone use the term and is curious as to what it means is perhaps unlikely to understand this article. SteveBaker 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Currently object
    • One of the categories for featured article is that it is currently stable. We need to wait until Vista is released so we can judge the RSoD better.
    • The language needs rewriting, by an English language expert.
    • We need to add at least one written "Further reference" material like a book.
    • Images have to be cited and bigger.

Freedom to share 09:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Spira (Final Fantasy X)[edit]

Nominate and support I found this article to be amaizing and of apropiate extension for the topic at hand.Nnfolz 20:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

*Comment.Can you please clarify which article you are nominating? The link above points to a disambiguation page. Thanks. LordViD 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind that, I've fixed the link to point to Spira (Final Fantasy X). LordViD 20:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article does not have inline references, uses a large number of fair use images for decorative rather than explanatory purposes, and doesn't explain anything to the general reader about why the subject is interesting or noteworthy.--Bcrowell 21:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object per Bcrowell. It's a GA, but it still needs some work to become a FA. Deckiller 21:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, this article wasn't peer reviewed first (or at least I dont' see the archived PR on the talkpage). Deckiller 21:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Update: I decided to add a little something to try and help the significance out, but I'm basically dead right now and it's a poor attempt. Hopefully, it will serve as a base to build around. Deckiller 21:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This is my special article and I wrote most of it, and even I don't think it is anywhere near ready. I do disagree about the images, however. How are we supposed to know what these places look like without images? All of the other Final Fantasy Locations articles are the same in that respect. Somehow, I believe this kind of article is the kind of article that really can't become featured, no matter how good it gets. It shouldn't have been nominated, IMO. Mythology of Final Fantasy X would have been a better choice. Tell me, is it possible to de-nominate an article?PiccoloNamek 21:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per everybody else above- primarily for lack of inline citations. References should also be properly cited according to WP:CITE. AndyZ 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article's pretty good, but, like PiccoloNamek says, it's not quite ready. However, my main objection is that the article treats Spira as a real place rather than a fictional place in the real world. Where's the discussion about the artists who drew it? About how the game designers decided where to put what? About any innovations made in the programming to make the world look different form previous FF games? — BrianSmithson 15:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I'll stick my neck out, I think it's great, the images are generally fair use, but that's totally unavoidable in this case, seeing as they're all screenshots. --PopUpPirate 00:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, but... The images are necessary in this article. Many imagined places are very difficult to describe, especially in video games because of the very nature of these places- video games are purposefully very fanciful, and contain locations which are often radically different than any which occur in the real world. Having looked at the pictures, I feel it would both be extremely difficult and detract from the quality and readability of the article if the images were removed and replaced with written descriptions. That being said, this article is currently not ready to be feratured. The tone of the article is not exactly encyclopedic. It's difficult to nail down the tone, but it reads too much like a travel guide for me. The article also assumes that the reader already knows a lot about the game. Ideally, any person, familiar with the game or not, should be able to pick up this article and understand almost everything it says. That is currently not the case. The article is very good, it contains a lot of information, but that information has to be stated in a different way. I think a Peer Review and a thorough copyedit by someone familiar with the game would both do this article a lot of good. RyanGerbil10 04:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was written with that tone on purpose, and personally, I think it makes it more interesting to read. If I had a choice between a boring Wikipedia-style article that was featured, and an article that was fun and interesting to read but non-featured, I'd pick the latter. Also, it should be mentioned that the article is a companion with Mythology of Final Fantasy X, which explains, very in-depth, many of the things that Spira doesn't. It really isn't fesible to put all of that information in a single article. Something else that should be mentioned is that, aside from the short explanation of the game's backstory, it really isn't very different from any other Final Fantasy Locations article. There's no place there for explanations of things like the game's artists, designers, or programming. That would be better suited for Final Fantasy X.PiccoloNamek 05:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Caveat: I've never played FFX. But I'm not sure why treating the world of FFX as if it's real in a Wikipedia article is somehow a good thing. Why wouldn't I, as a non-FFX player, want to hear that So-and-so, world designer, decided to place Continent X on the map because he wanted players to have a place to search for the Great Sword of X? Or that as a matter of game balance, the world is laid out so that the Mountains of X prevent the players from passing until they get the airship? Some of this does belong in the FFX article, to be sure, but it's very important to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a fanpage. There's a difference, and articles like Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Spoo keep this in mind (both are featured, unlike any FF location article). In short, treat Spira as a cultural artifact in our own world and you have the right idea. — BrianSmithson 12:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it is impossible to know 99% of that information without interviewing the designers. As far as I now, they have not been interviewed about that. I can ask Ryu Kaze if any such information appears in the Ultimania guide, though. Also, I am of the opinion that certain articles can actually benefit from a somewhat non-encyclopedic tone, as long as the information is factually correct and the point of view is neutral. An article doesn't sound need to sound like it was written by an android to be encyclopeidc.
    Regardless, I still don't think it should have been nominated. Ever. PiccoloNamek 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I have the book The Art of Final Fantasy X with interviews with all those guys (as you can see in the early history of the now defunct page). Problem is that I don't read japanese. Ryu Kaze does so he could translate it. Let me know which interviews you are interested and I will scan it and upload it for Ryu to read Renmiri 03:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Object - Forgot to say I agree with Picollo, it is nowhere near ready Renmiri 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • To be fair, I don't think Mr. Smithson was suggesting that the article be made "boring." But I agree, in the large part, with many of his concerns: the article does presume too much foreknowledge of the game itself, and tends to deemphasize the fictional nature of its subject matter. This isn't a matter of whether or not the article is "interesting," but whether or not its particularly informative. To be featured, it should be both. – Seancdaug 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per others voting object. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Completely unsourced, and the location summaries read like strategy guide entries, very non-encyclopedic. Staxringold 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Early life of Hugo Chávez[edit]

Withdrawn FAC (two months ago — late November). Peer review 1 (no comments). I've worked through and copyedited this article, which I wrote up late last year. I also overhauled the weird Harvard referencing, converting it to use the new m:Cite/Cite.php mediawiki citation style. Saravask 10:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Well written. well referenced, comprehensive. --Oldak Quill 20:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Not enough info on this guy yet? Eh, just because I think his politics are awful doesn't mean the masses shouldn't be able to read about him. Nice article, seems to flow nicely. I'd suggest adding some of the best external links from the main Chavez article to this one, just to round it out nicely. Also, why not use the same lead box as is used in Military career of Hugo Chávez? These aren't a big deal; just some suggestions on how to improve this further. I don't see any major problems. --Spangineer (háblame) 06:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, as long as a paragraph or two summary is inserted under "Childhood". It looks to be a very complete and pretty well-written article. Tuf-Kat 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I think adding anything directly under the superheading "Childhood" would detract from the flow of the article. Andrew Levine 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I support adding general info under "Childhood" (eg. physical description of him as a baby or child) or removing the two sub-headings ("Early childhood with parents" and "Later childhood"). Also, when was he married? and when did he meet Herma Marksman? Perhaps you could clarify his dealings with Marksman and his wife. I couldn't figure it out with the (Guillermoprieto 2005) reference. And are there a lot of rotting donkey heads on the streets of Venezuela? That was pretty weird. --maclean25 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the critique, copyedits, and fact-checking. I made some changes in response ([17]). As for the asinine heads ... wouldn't know too much about that ... Saravask 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I have some fundamental problems with this article. It seems to exist not because Hugo Chavez's early life is inherently notable but because the author wants to write far more about Chavez than can possibly fit in one article. The opening sentence sets the scene - 'The early life of Hugo Chávez spans the first twenty-one years...' shows clearly that the article is not about the early life itself as a notable subject but is just a subsection of a now very lengthy set of articles, describing an arbitrarily chosen number of years of Chavez's life.
    Hugo Chavez is notable and deserves a thorough article, but I do not see the point in creating so many articles which do not stand alone but simply mean that in addition to his (far too large anyway) 100kb main article he has another 90kb article spread over several pages. I don't see why his early life is notable in and of itself, and the article doesn't make a case for why his early life deserves such highlighting rather than being described in his article, where it has context and is much more useful to the reader. Worldtraveller 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. You should renew your object vote here, since you already know my opinions regarding these concerns. This time, the FAC director can weigh the arguments' validities and sort it all out. But I do have questions: what is the difference between this article and History of saffron or Trade and usage of saffron? Do you consider the question of notability to be unique to this one article? Saravask 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I haven't properly read those articles, but they do seem to have considerable overlap, even using exactly the same sentence in the opening paragraph. I could believe that the history of saffron may be worth writing about separately from the seasoning itself but I am not entirely convinced. I definitely do not believe that the early life of anyone is worth writing about separately from the rest of their life - that just doesn't make sense to me. All our articles should stand alone and be able to be read in isolation, and as an encyclopaedia is supposed to summarise and synthesise, many detailed articles on narrow aspects of a single topic begin to defeat our purpose. In my own field of professional expertise, I would have no trouble writing lengthy articles about many aspects of NGC 6543 - I could do Temperature of NGC 6543, Chemical abundances in NGC 6543, Kinematics of NGC 6543, History of NGC 6543 observations, and perhaps more. I am sure I could make them all quite readable and could certainly make them comply with all the FA criteria. But, I won't because I think the paragraph or two given to each in NGC 6543, which is a featured article, is more than sufficient for even the biggest encyclopaedia in history. If I had the time and the energy to write so much about NGC 6543 and other planetary nebulae, maybe I'd consider wikibooks as an outlet, but here I think an encyclopaedia, even one with theoretically virtually unlimited space, needs to retain sight of what it is and what its readership is interested in.
That's my view, anyway, and I'd be interested to hear what you and others think. Worldtraveller 23:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Good Lord, please, please get to work on those proposed articles. It is painful to think that all that potential is being wasted because of a misguided philosophy. Everyking 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great well done article. You would be hard pressed to find a better (free!) biography of his young life. Focus is all too often on politics and sensationalism later on. A great fresh look at the man so many admire. This should be recognised--NDPleaf.gifColle 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunate oppose. Unfortunate, as in the nuts-and-bolts sense there is absolutely nothing wrong with this article and obviously a lot of work has gone into it. But I think I largely agree with Worldtraveller. This reads to me like the first few pages of a bio, not as an encyclopedia entry. For instance:
    • Chávez's mother wanted him to become a Catholic priest, and so he was made to serve as an altar boy for one year. One of his duties was to clean and polish figurines depicting the saints and Jesus; Chávez developed a dislike of Jesus' depiction as a simple figurine. Specifically, Chávez was offended by what he saw as his church's portrayal of Jesus as "an idiot" and not, as Chávez considered Jesus to be, "a rebel". These experiences resulted in Chávez's lifelong distrust of religious hierarchies. This should be a quarter the length at best and the bit about the figurines doesn't belong IMO.
    • One of his childhood dreams was to become a pitcher for the San Francisco Giants, following in the footsteps of his childhood hero, Venezuelan pitcher Isaías "Látigo" Chávez (no relation). When Látigo died at age 23 on March 16, 1969 in Zulia in the second worst airplane crash in Venezuela's history, Chávez was saddened to the extent that he refused to go to school for two days. I don't think any of this is relevant.
  • These and other parts of the article are not summary style. Now, if you pruned or compressed stuff of this nature I wonder if you'd be left with an article weighty enough for FA so it is a bit of bind. Marskell 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It is my opinion that those sections are interesting and valuable, and are important in understanding the true character of young Hugo Chávez. Futhermore, I do not see anything wrong for an encyclopedia article to be on the early portion of such a major figures life.--NDPleaf.gifColle 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with User:Marskell. Sijo Ripa 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. Gflores Talk 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A good article. --Siva1979Talk to me10:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object on the basis of 1. It should exemplify our very best work. and 5. It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles. In short, I absolutely agree with Worldtraveller's well-stated, well-illustrated, actionable argument. This is an important issue in FAC, and IMO fully within the wording and spirit of the FAC criteria as an objection. (I would have made a similar objection to the Saffron sub-articles as well, but I've found there is a kind of practical bias in FAC that makes certain types of objections, if made alone against several supports, kind of a waste of time.)
Another way of putting this argument, as I see it, and as reflected in 5., is that a fundamental characteristic of an encyclopedia article is that it be brief, self-contained, readable, and not aspiring to be a condensed book. If the basic characteristics of an FA don't include the basic qualities of a good encyclopedia article, what's the point? Simply because the format, the writing, and the references are in place--because it LOOKS like an encyclopedia article--doesn't make it so. Taking a mountain of material and a solid contextual understanding of the subject, and distilling it into a short summary is exceedingly difficult for many topics (and always to some degree arguable in its choices) but that is the point, for better or for worse, of an encylopedia and of what FA seems intended to celebrate, or at least, highlight. Breaking up articles OFTEN unnecessarily defeats this purpose, by reducing accessibility to the topic.
More insidious, there is a criticism of general encyclopedias (one that I personally grew up with) as a lazy approach to learning, like reading the Cliff's Notes instead of the book, and unnecessary subarticling only increases the chances that the reader winds up with superficial and quite possibly over-simplified information, by creating a false sense of "in-depth" understanding (having navigated one or more subarticles and spent maybe an hour or more reading and cross-comparing what was originally one encyclopedia look-up). And that is only if the reader makes it through the various articles in the first place, rather than leaving with a feeling of, "OK, but what did I miss by not pursuing the rest...?"
Finally, with biographical sub-articles like this one, the content requirements, the need for NPOV, are much higher than for the "main" article. By focussing on one artibitrary and independently "non-notable" period of Chavez' (or any notable figure's) life, particular care must be taken with accuracy and balance. A critical (historiographical...) analysis of the sources should be included. For example, can we really "know" a person's early life from a handful of newspaper sources and interview excerpts? As a section in a main article, a series of common facts and well-referenced conclusions may be assembled for, say, an "early life" section; by isolating that "early life" as a separate topic/article, its statements are given new, independent weight that have to be judged much more stringently, especially as the "verifiable sources" have likely not spoken in particular detail with such a precise focus. Again, in this case, I didn't particularly see why "Early life and military career..." was necessary for Chavez, but, OK, I didn't object to that FAC review (on that basis), then. I certainly don't see why that has been further subdivided into two articles. It makes it more convenient for FAC reviewing, perhaps, but not for the "poor reader" faced with half a dozen articles about the same person. This is still an encyclopedia first, no? --Tsavage 16:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - relatively short, reads like story rather than encyclopedic entry. Also, what defines "early life" as 21 years? No cites provided for any of the what seems to be arbitrary dates. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. referencing not tight enough...the whole idea of a subarticle on a person whose 15 minutes of fame are just at halftime is absurd...agree with tsavage remarks that are quite on targetAnlace 00:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree that this article can't be featured on the main page since few people will be interested in Hugo Chavez's early life but given that this daughter article exists, IMO it has all that is needed for an FA. Only solution to Tsavage's concern is deleting the article itself.--Raghu 12:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've heard this somewhat puzzling argument here before: "If it's good enough to exist as a WP article, it can become an FA. Period." I understand (and agree with) it all, EXCEPT for the full stop. Many, many articles (thousands?, tens of thousands?, hundreds of thousands?) could be tagged and quite reasonably argued, if not for deletion, then certainly for merge/redirect. But of course, they're not. And that's good. Articles develop, raison d'etres sometimes appear. But in the specific area of FA, where the #1 criterion is "It should exemplify our very best work" seems both explicitly and implicitly to demand the highest standard. And that must include the topic being accepted as distinct and of standalone merit (else, it is not serving the interests of an encyclopedia: to summarize by neutrally synthesizing vast quantities of information into succinct articles). What if I slapped a merge tag on "Early life...", with, say, my objections as above in the discussion page? I certainly could do that in good conscience, without any consideration whatsoever of its FA candidacy. Could we promote an FA that is a well-argued Merge candidate? Personally, I wouldn't do that, because it's quite outside the scope of FAC, and I'm not particularly more opposed to that article EXISTING (someone else may be, then, they can push for merging...that's how IMO WP works: you pick your interests, and there are enough of "us" to hopefully eventually even it all out...). The point is, FAs should simply meet the highest encyclopedic standard, OUR VERY BEST WORK. IMHO... --Tsavage 20:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Is it really appropriate to write a paragraph attacking someones process of thought? I find that quite rude, this should really be about the article at hand, not the individuals supporting it.--Colle|Locatecolle.png|Talk-- 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Colle: If you're referring to my comment, it wasn't about a person's thought process, and it's certainly not an attack, or even directed particularly at that persion, it's about "Only solution ... is deleting the article itself." I believe the general interpretation of FA criteria is that, "if it's an article, it can be a featured article", and my last comment refers to my (and others, in this case) argument that if an article isn't "standalone" (notable on its own, or however you want to put it), then that's "actionable" as an objection. Since this view, from what I've seen, is not exactly the status quo here (as in, someone saying, "this or that is not a valid--actionable--objection"), I was following up my own objection, which was specifically addressed in this Support comment. (BTW, I find it rude to put "warnings", in the form of condescending advice or otherwise, on my user page...) --Tsavage 22:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
            • That wasn't a warning. Condescending advice, maybe.. It just looked to me, that you were responding to someones one sentance comment with a paragraph long rebuttal. Nonetheless, lets keep this relavent to the article at hand! --Colle|Locatecolle.png|Talk-- 23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Tsavage I am indeed of the opinion that if it's an article, it can be a featured article. You are entitled to have your own opinion regarding that. Featured article's are defined as follows at Wikipedia:Featured articles The Featured Articles are what we believe to be the best articles in Wikipedia. Prior to being listed here, articles are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for style, prose, completeness, accuracy and neutrality according to our featured article criteria. My support is based on this definition of an FA. IMO it also satisfies all the criterions listed Wikipedia:What is a featured article (can you say which it does not). What you are proposing is that we have another criterion of being standalone-enough and notable-enough.--Raghu 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
(I hope and trust you didn't take my reply to your comment/vote as a personal attack, as suggested by Colle. This is a discussion process, I believe, to achieve consensus. In any case...) No, I'm not suggesting a "new criterion, only that we discuss things in a case like this on a higher level, for brevity. But fine... If an article is really an "unnecessary" subarticle -- a topic that is best covered in the main article -- then it will likely break other FA criteria, and WP policies. In this instance, I think that is the case. I mentioned guideline 5, It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles. This can first be applied to to Hugo Chavez. Is "early life" insufficiently covered there? #5 doesn't say "start daughter articles...willy-nilly, to take up info that was excised from a main article" (although that unfortunate interpretation is open), I believe the intent is that any daughter article then falls under the WP guidelines on its own. So, should "Early life..." be merged (essentially, "deleted"), or does it stand up on its own? Notability guidelines WP:N suggests pros and cons in extra articles. One is "category clutter": Do we need half a dozen different biographical articles on HC? Notability tests like the Google test give only three results, all WP, for key phrase "Early life of Hugo Chavez"[18] -- my suggestion here is that the "notable topic" is "Hugo Chavez" and as a topic title, "Early life...", while clear in meaning, represents "nothing more" than the main article, further expanded somewhere else. There seems to be no specific guidance for bio subarticles in WP:BIO and WP:NOT, though "not an indiscriminate collection of items of information" IMO in some measure applies here. Moving to the article and FA criteria specifically:
  • 2b "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety - Well, if "early life" is a distinct TOPIC, then I'd expect better sources than what is almost completely an impressive collection of newspaper items. Has anyone explored and analyzed HC's "early life", or is this only a collection of bits and pieces that refere to the "first 21 years".
  • 2d "neutral" Based on the sources, can this be a "neutral" view of HC's early life? Source-wise, it seems more like chronologically assembled trivia than synthesis of analysis. We discover that he "saw as his church's portrayal of Jesus as 'an idiot'", that he was an altar boy, and that his mother wanted him to become a Catholic priest. So, what of his personal religious development: did he continue to attend Church, what was his young view of Catholicism, and so forth? We learn that he had "unusually large feet" and was nicknamed "Goofy"; how did that affect him, was he regularly pummeled by local bullies and develop some sort of persecution complex that fuelled his rebel tendencies? Did he beat up or others who called him Goofy behind his back? What relevance at all does "big feet" have to HC's future accomplishments...? This pattern of facts without context characterizes the entire article. Summary and synthesis is encyclopedic, not collections of info... And, by being apparently arbitrary, it creates a certain impression that is...POV.
  • 3a a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic The lead states its topic as the "first twenty-one years (1954–1975) of the current President of Venezuela's life" which begs the question, what about the rest of HC's life? Apart from notability issues, the subject as stated is entirely overlapped by the main article. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages suggests as a reason for merge: "two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. ... there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe." What is important about HC's life here, that isn't important enough for the main article? Does what is here exclusively have independent merit in covering HC? The lead doesn't state what particular extra relevance the "21 years" has on HC. Is the concept of "Early life" so distinct form "Hugo's life"?
  • "Early life... hasn't existed long enough to see whether it is considered 'valid' This article was only created in the last month or so. At any time, someone with interest in improving quality by merging may decide to take up the HC cause. Letting artcles "self-vet" at WP is I think a good FA principle...
Bottom line, I think when interpreting FA rule #1 "It should exemplify our very best work" we must see "best work" in the context of WP, not treat articles as isolated chunks of text. (I'm aware of the possibly fine line between discussion with reference to "rules", and some mutant form of wikilawyering, which is so NOT the intent.) Hope it's helpful. --Tsavage 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No I took your comments in the right spirit. Well now you have given four specific object points. I will leave those points to be discussed and addressed by more experienced user's. No more comments from me regards --Raghu 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as I think it looks quite good and have no problem with the idea of an article on this topic. Tuf-Kat 18:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some fun facts — Saravask 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think putting FAC comments in elaborately formatted, tri-tone tables is unhelpful because it makes it difficult for people to reply. --Tsavage 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • To save time, I ripped this table's code directly from Saffron. Saravask 12:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Fun Facts
Fact I Fact II Replies
User:Tsavage: "This article was only created in the last month or so." Article was created on 18 October 2005 I stand corrected, maybe. I can't quite follow the Chavez article proliferation trail, but what's this History comment: 15:31, 25 January 2006 Saravask m (moved Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez to Early life of Hugo Chávez)[19]? And what was "Early life of..." while "Early life and military career of..." was a FAC last December? --Tsavage 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Tsavage: "almost completely an impressive collection of newspaper items" 11 of 27 footnotes point to books (print sources). By my count, 16 out of the 18 reference sources are news articles, speechs, web articles, a book review, and similar, two are books... 11 of 27 footnotes point to the two books... --Tsavage 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Marskell: "not summary style" article is 22 kilobytes long; Wikipedia:Summary style does not discuss anything related to "reads ... like ... a bio, not as an encyclopedia entry"
User:Anlace: "referencing not tight enough" Article has 38 inline citations (more than two per paragraph) pointing to 27 footnotes and 18 reference sources, both print and online.
Source: Common sense

FYI, attacking people isn't the way to get the article featured. We're here to promote the best articles on wikipedia, and if some people don't think that this is one of them, they're entitled to their opinion. I know it's annoying to not have your FAC fly through with a dozen supports and no objections, but it doesn't happen very often. Ask them to clarify their concerns and then address them, but don't insult them by claiming they don't have common sense. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
How do the words "Source: Common sense" (as in "the source for the table's info was my own common sense") violate WP:ATTACK? Furthermore, who gave you the right to direct slanderous suppositions against others, all while not providing not one jot of evidence? I did not state that "the objectors have no common sense". I did not state anything remotely resembling the allegation that I've "insult[ed] them by claiming they don't have common sense". This is precisely why I no longer post point-by-point responses to objections: to deny people the ability to latch onto my words, pervert their meaning and twist them out of context, then fling about specious accusations. At least for FAC nominators, silence is golden. Saravask 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Your first response matched the tone I had in mind when I wrote the above. I did not refer to WP:ATTACK; I meant "attack" in the sense of being confrontational. Simply using "common sense" to say people are wrong in this way unfairly characterizes their arguments and is not conducive to discussion. Honestly, it reminds me of how politicians make their points—"my opponent is dumb because he says insert stupid statement here when it's obvious that insert fact here is true". False dichotomy, taking things out of context, etc. Sorry for not assuming good faith (I see now what you were trying to accomplish), but I still think that normal discussion is a better option for working through this. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, please do not put words into my mouth by claiming the following:
  • "Fun Facts™" = "confrontational" tone
  • "Source: Common sense" = "insult[ing] them [objectors] by claiming they don't have common sense"
  • "Source: Common sense" = "attacking people"
... or any transversion thereof. I've already struck out the five words and hope objectors do not take offense or read too deeply into them. Given the charged atmosphere here (just look at the above exchanges/accusations traded between User:Colle, User:Tsavage, and User:Raghu.kuttan), such facetious/jocose wording (I was in a good mood when I posted the table) may certainly have been extremely ill-advised. But IMHO claiming that they are "confrontational" or constitute "attacking people" is ... wrong. I have many positive experiences dealing politely with FAC objections this year (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). As for discussion, note that most of the objectors don't think that biographical subarticles should be featured ... full stop. Other than my proposing to delete the article or withdrawing the FAC, there are really no actions to take, concessions to make, or discussion to be had. It's been tried in the past, and I'll leave it at that. Saravask 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of my comments was to give friendly advice, not to accuse. But forget I said anything, I'm sorry a million times, we're beating a dead horse, let's move on. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem — advice noted. Saravask 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Object I just skimmed thru the article, which seems to be a bit short for a featured article. Also, why not combine this article to Hugo Chavez article instead? I don't see the necessity of separating two parts of his life to two separate articles, it seems extraneous and unwarranted. 01:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC) This user's first edit. Saravask 08:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral—I am strongly in favor of having this as an article topic, and it is a good article, but I feel it is a little too short to be an FA. If it was a few paragraphs longer, I think I'd be comfortable supporting. Everyking 07:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • With all respect, as User:Ambi noted here and here at the Cynna Neele FAC in response to objections (eerily reminiscent of the ones here) posted by User:Zippedmartin, User:AndyZ, User:Wackymacs, and User:Giano, just about every encyclopedic fact that could be added already has been added. Nearly every relevant tidbit from two full Chavez biographies and more than a dozen other sources has been extracted, rephrased, and added to the article. I've read just about everything regarding his life reported by authoritative sources that has been published online (and in case you doubt this, just take a look at Hugo_Chavez#References). AFAIK, there's absolutely nothing else to add that wouldn't violate WP:NOR. Saravask 03:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not sure what "a few paragraphs longer" means, but otherwise, I too am in favor of this as featured article topic if it provides a well-written summary of research and analysis SPECIFICALLY to do with Chavez' early years. Yes, this is an interesting enough description of one period of Chavez life, but go back and consider it in context of the main article, Hugo Chavez: Do you not find that key pieces of information found in "Early life..." should also be placed there, in more summary form? This is a revolutionary political figure, his early life is of particular interest, the social forces that shaped him and all. Shouldn't his problems with how the Church displayed Jesus, leading to his "distrust of religious hierarchies", his fondness for American baseball at odds with his dislike of US foreign policy and cultural influence, his interest in Simon Bolivar from his earliest years, his high school-long friendship with sons of imprisoned political prisoner (?) Jose Ruiz, his personal meeting with Juan Velasco Alvarado, be in the main article. How much space would it take to summarize all that (I did it in one long sentence, imagine what could be done in a paragraph or two)? Doesn't that seem like important information for the MAIN ARTICLE. I get the impression of Hugo Chavez as a stripped down part of something bigger, which will eventually become an annotated ToC for all of the daughter articles. IMO, that's not "encyclopedic", it's plain annoying. Who wants to read a summary of a topic that interrupts them every three paragraphs to point out that, hey, if you want the "real" encyclopedia story, read this subarticle, and this one, and this one...?!!! And to this FAC review: if the info above is briefly presented in the main article, the "expansion" in "Early life..." (e.g. OK, so he didn't go to school when his favorite pticher died: we already know he had a "lifelong passion for baseball"...; OK, Alvarado gave him a book, we know of his meeting...; etc) doesn't really add much to the basic info we already know. As it is now, this article may be a good start (and I'm sure enough scholars will eventually analyze the hell out of Chavez early years and come up with all sorts of fascinating bits) but it can hardly be called comprehensive if it doesn't substantially add to what is already summarized elsewhere...? --Tsavage 19:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, my vision of the future of Wikipedia involves subarticles, branching off to subarticles, branching off to subarticles, and so on endlessly until the subject is covered in its entirety. Everyking 05:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I thought that was called the World Wide Web? And then, there's Hugo Chavez... --Tsavage 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
          • The WWW ain't comprehensive, ain't organized, ain't NPOV, ain't free, and ain't collectively governed. But WP is. I get nervous when people say: well, you can just go to the library, or order a book, or Google it...they are ignoring the above ain'ts. Everyking 08:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
            • In all seriousness, yes, I agree in principle, and I suppose that's in the end the practical premise of WP. My general objection, at the risk of...over-summarizing, is that each article should still be self-contained. Here, and I don't seem to be entirely alone in the criticism, the core info mainly belongs first in the main article (where much of it is not), and what's here is not sufficient FOR FA, in terms of comprehensiveness. A finer FAC point than some, but IMO a clear one. "This is FAC, not AfD/merge" (my unfortunate mantra of the moment). --Tsavage 18:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: When I reviewed this article, the first time when it was part of Hugo Chavez and the second time when I voted in early February, I verified that all the online sources were used correctly and did a fact-check with those online sources with as much as I could (but some stuff was just in the books). --maclean25 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Somehow this exercise seems "deja vu." The no-matter-what effort at getting it as FA continues. Instead of writing a good article and then considering nominating it, in this case the thinking process has been the reverse: how do we get another article about Chavez as FA? Lets write one. The article now has started to get 'worse' than it was months ago in the sense that some of the romanticising of aspects about Chavez that are starting to become part of the "legend of Chavez," are being added back again. Sadly with so many supporters and so many detractors it is easy to find any quote one may want depending on one's own views; one example: saying Chavez family was poor is misleading. It may have been poor when compared to first word standards, but in Venezuela at the time, a family like Chavez was not considered "poor" -this I have said before and on thisan agreement was reached long ago - but now things are going back into the terrain of having a very subtle positive POV through the article. Somehow I have little hope on the majority here agreeing on the article -as we did months ago when working on the main article about Chavez. Egos and bias are getting in the way of a good balanced article. Anyway .... Anagnorisis 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore[edit]

Since this article went the FA nomination process the first time, all the objections have been addressed (see objections here). Also since that time it has been the subject of the 'comics collaboration of the month'.

I have been a minor contributor to this article. ike9898 15:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Object Images need fair use rationale, lead image needs better licensing tag, insufficient inline citations. Pagrashtak 15:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Other than the lead image, it seems that the book cover images are clear cut cases of fair use, and tagged as such. Is more detailed rationale really needed? ike9898 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the licensing tag is not enough. Take a look at the first comic book image. The licensing tag says at the bottom: To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use.... There's no such thing as a "fair use image"; fair use can only be claimed on an article-by-article basis. Because of this, image pages claiming fair use must contain rationale explaining why the image is believed to be covered by fair use in each specific article. Take a look at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for more information. Pagrashtak 22:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am currently attempting to confirm that the lead image is a true publicity photo, which would allow the use of a better image tag. ike9898 17:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm a comics fan, but not a fan of Moore's work. The lead did a good job of explaining to me why I should be interested in Moore and his work. However, the way the lead captured my interest was by saying, without a source, that he's "renowned for bringing more mature, literary sensibilities to a medium often dismissed as juvenile and trivial." The article only has four footnotes, and none of them seem to be about critical reaction to the comics --- they all seem to be about relatively straightforward factual points. There are an awful lot of statements, like "He felt that his influence on comics had in many ways been detrimental," that don't have any verifiable source.--Bcrowell 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. Over dependent on fair use images, and lead image has lacking copyright information. --Gmaxwell 23:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like a fine article.--KrossTalk 06:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for a number of reasons
  1. Too many fair use covers serving as decoration, making an article look nice in not a FUC. Any cover in this article needs a fair use rationale stating why it is fair use in the article.
  2. There are quote and references to opinions that really should have a source cited inline, an example "Both Mark Waid and Alex Ross, the creators of Kingdom Come, have admitted that they had read the Twilight proposal before starting work on their series, but claim that any similarities are both minor and unintended."
  3. The prose section is too short to really be viable, can it be merged somewhere, I'd suggest merging prose, film and music and performance art into a single section called Other media or something similar.
  4. Awards and recognition seems oddly placed, should probably be a level 2 heading later in the article.
  5. In the major works section, Swamp Thing and From Hell are disproportionately long. The section on Watchmen (arguably his most famous work) is poorly written and underdeveloped. Promethea could also be added to this section, as -interestingly- it is a comic about the authors mystical ideas, and one of the few comics with an interesting female protagonist.
  6. The biography aspect of the article is almost non existent, it tells me a little about before he was a comic book artist and then nothing. Where has he lived, is he married etc. One gets the impression that all he does is write comics, the same is true of his religious beliefs which get a brief mention in the lead and nothing more.
  7. Terra Obsucra should be in the list of Americans Best Comics releases
  8. Current work is underdeveloped and Albion is out, what is he currently working on? Does he appear at cons?
  9. The list of works might be more informative in chronological order
  10. The lead does not summarise the article, there is a long spiel about his influences (who says these are his influences - another things that needs a source) which would be better in the introduction of the major works section of the article. See WP:LEAD.

--nixie 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, needs far more citations. Moore is such a colorful character that a lot of the lines, i.e. "Moore is a practising magician, and claims to worship a Roman snake-deity named Glykon." look bizarre without some kind of explanation or a verifiable citation. --DDG 17:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not many sources and tons of fair use images that don't perform needed functions (we don't need that many examples of his work if they aren't truly notable in some way). Also, the V for Vendetta cover is used twice. Staxringold 01:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

History of the Pakistan Army[edit]

I wrote this article from scratch. I think its pretty good and very encompassing of the subject matter. -- Mercenary2k | Talk 4:43 AM, March 4, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

  • comment fair use rationale needs to be applied to image of nuclear test (To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information). Great article definately worthy of FAC status once image copyright resolved Gnangarra 11:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose suggest using peer review for the article I found some grammatical errors in the section about peace keeping like Pakistan send military advisors to help... should be sent Gnangarra 15:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I got that image of that nuclear test from the Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction page. I overlooked the fact that this image didn't have the proper credentials. I have decided to remove that image.

-- Mercenary2k | Talk 8:06 AM, March 4, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

  • Oppose The lead paragraph is far too short, and the history section needs to be turned into paragraphs. Thesre are FAR too many sub sections with just one or two sentences underneath. Those must be either expanded or condensed. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 15:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Objection 2c. It looks well written and comprehensive in good Wikipedia format. The editors should be proud of the work so far. However, it's impossible to support this nomination with only two external links, no bibliography, and no line citations at all. Take a few months, track down the sources, and renominate. I wish you well. Regards, Durova 22:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI spend around 2 weeks writing this article. It appears that my claim that this article was ready to become a Featured Article was premature. Please, keep telling me what is wrong with this article. I will work to improve this article and then re-admit this article to be considered as a Featured Article.

-- Mercenary2k | Talk 2:14 AM, March 5, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

  • Comment- for such a large article, the lead should be expanded to a maximum of 3 paragraphs to cover a brief overview of the subject. AndyZ 14:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - too much POV. Rama's Arrow 02:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Lot of holes including lack of references for some contentious statements. e.g. Casualty figures for the Kargil War section hardly mentions the sources for Pakistani estimates and misquotes saying "India claims that Pakistani backed forces lost around 4,000 men" when that figure was mentioned by a ex-PM of Pakistan. This sections is also too long given that the main article discusses exhaustively on the subject. Also traces of POV visible. Idleguy 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, with all due regards to the editors involved in the creation of the page, I request that the page is still not mature and comprehensive in its treatment and coverage of the topic to become a featured article. All sections require further fine tuning, including its role in extinguishing and killing the democratic aspirations of the people of Pakistan, and usurping the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan in its control; and its role in damaging the peace and prosperity of the Indian subcontinent, human right violations and war crimes during the freedom struggle of Bangladesh. The promotional tone at the beginning of the article should be replaced by a more encyclopedia tone. --Bhadani 14:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since that figure came from a deposed Prime Minister, I don't beleive it. The only reason you (Idleguy) are accepting is as fact because it shows a very high casualty figure on the Pakistan side. If Sharif said 400 instead of 4000, then lets see if you would have defended this statement as vehemently as you would have otherwise. And to Rama's Arrow, care to elaborate on where there is too much POV, give me some glaring examples. By the way, funny isn't it that most of the non-indian posters have made comments about the strucutre, grammer, references, etc, to improve the page, where as the indians have basically railed against this page's nomination on the simple pretences that it is a pakistani article. Sad. Mercenary2k 9:38 AM March 6, 2006
What about PPP sources and other non-Indian sources that reiterate the same figure? It's not your belief in Sharif/Bhutto that matters but objective reporting of facts. Non Indian/Pakistani posters might not have the same knowledge about the subcontinent's geopolitical facts as someone from the region so it is expected that they might restrict their critic to the fringe aspects. You should expect some criticism on this subject matter if you desire improvement. I made comments that Pakistan article should become FA soon on the lines of other South Asian nation articles and it is slowly going in that direction. What do we have against improvement of any article, be it Pakistani, Indian or otherwise? Please take criticism constructively. Thanx. Idleguy 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hi M2K - You are wronging Idleguy - he is talking references while you insist on focusing on prejudice. As to the article, my case for too-much POV arises from the simple fact that there are no in-line citations when you make the assertions that India's weakness was proven true, that Pakistan's case fell on deaf ears in the U.S., etc. All assertions like this need to be cited. When you don't, what is preventing me or anyone else in thinking this article as loaded with POV? You should Move to Peer Review. It is your own mistake to hastily push your work into FAc.

I'm sorry but your attitude will not help you anywhere. Know this, that when you do the right thing here - add info according to Wikipedia guidelines/policies and with direct references, no one will thwart your work. Please learn to accept criticism - 99% of times it is not directed at you or your country. Rama's Arrow 15:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Ok I admit. I rushed this article to be considered a featured article. I should have put this article through a peer review to shake out the flaws. But why don't you guys help with this article. If you think it needs improvement, then make some changes to it. Mercenary2k March 6, 2006, 10:32 AM
  • Comment I think you jumped a little to quickly on the personal defensive, we only want to help. I can see some small grammatical changes, minor format changes, and POV neutralising. It's just that my knowldege of the subject is restricted basically to what you have put in the article. To dive in and be bold on an article that will achieve FAC could actually set the process backwards by creating inaccuracies. I have left a couple of suggestions on your talk page Gnangarra 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am gonna get the proper references. All of the info which I typed here came from me. I didn't use a book or anything since I have a good knowledge on this subject matter. But to back up all the info and neutralize the argument of POV, I will get the proper references, citiations, notes, etc from proper and neutral sources. It will probably be a week or 2 before I have gotten all the info from neutral sources. Mercenary2k March 6, 2006, 10:53 AM
  • Comment - my advice to you is to start Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the Pakistan Army. Advertise this PR across Wikipedia, so that other editors with sources can help and give their opinion. The PR will be a 2-3 week process. Also, cross-check frequently with Wikipedia:What is a featured article? Be positive about your task - its no joke to write an FA on military conflicts, politics etc. They are naturally contentious and need assiduous work. If you come across sensitive comments or objections, please be patient, open-minded and positive. Rama's Arrow 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Peer Review per above. This is a contentious article and without appropriate in-line citations there will be a lot of POV-based objections. Even after we tie up the lose ends during PR, I think realistically, you're looking at quite a battle during FAC. AreJay 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest peer review. Way to much POV (on a quick lookover, "After the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan switched sides and became involved in helping the United States military in tracking and eliminating militants associated with Al Qaeda in neighbouring Afghanistan." outright says they were aiding terrorists beforehand), and you have two history sections that are to "Present". Staxringold 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article lacks references and there is a lot of POV. Despite sterling performance from the Pakistan Air Force who outperformed their Indian counterparts: is there any credible evidence of this? Even though IAF lost more aircraft than PAF during the war, that doesn't mean the latter outperformed the former. IAF had carried out assault missions against well-defenced military bases deep inside Pak territory while PAF was involved only in air support operations. --Spartian 15:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon I of France[edit]

This article is a former featured article candidate. You can view its previous nomination here

This was a failed FAC from several months ago, but it has had around 700 edits since then, and I think it deserves another shot at featured status. --ausa کui × 05:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Object 1) those headings make the ToC ugly. 2) Some sections are too short. 3) Overall page size 50kb! The article should be written in summary style. 3) Phrases such as It appeared the Napoleon of old was back.... This is not written in encyclopedic style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I took that out to avoid your objection, but I guess some friendly fellow decided to put it back in. Oh well --ausa کui × 09:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Article should be written in summary style, sections which have more information than necessary should split off into their own article. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree about the summary style. This article is too long, and some of the information is redundant with related articles like Napoleonic Wars. Phils 10:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, and think it should go back to Peer review. "In May, 2005 a team of Swiss physicians claimed… A team of physicians from the University of Monterspertoli led by Professor Biondi recently [when?] confirmed this." No citations for any of this, and pretty obviously the sort of thing that needs a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I am a Napolean expert and this article is pretty good in summarizing him. This article failed previously to mentioned in Featured Article, but after more than 1000 edits. I think it deserves another chance.

-- Mercenary2k | Talk 12:18 AM, March 4, 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

  • Object. I don't think that the article is too long, but I am dissapointed that there are so few inline citations. Out of 5 notes, nr 1 and 2 seem to be broken (not linked in main body). As for comprehensivness, I realize the article is already long (but there are FAs close to twice his lenght), and I'd like to see Polish Legions in Italy linked somewhere in the article. Finally, there seem to be a copyvio problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Oppose. No response to any objections, no improvement to the article. See comments below. The article has a serious shortage of line citations and violates WP:NPOV. For example, the introduction praises the Napoleonic Code and describes Napoleon as a benevolent despot. Nowhere in this article do I see that he also reimposed slavery on the French Caribbean (the revolution had ended it) or that the Napoleonic Code not only erased all the revolution's advances in women's rights, but imposed new inequalities that had not been a part of the Ancien Régime. Married women in France had enjoyed property rights until Napoleon's era. Moreover, his continuous wars decimated the adult male population so badly that after he escaped from Elba he could scarcely raise an army. A pro-France and pro-Napoleon POV seeps into other issues, such as the unqualified assertion of the rather controversial view that the Russians deliberately burned Moscow in 1812. Durova 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, strangely, this nomination includes a reposting of several unanswered objections from six months ago. I've tried to solicit attention at the Napoleonic Era group of the military history project. If no one is interested in attending this nomination and bringing the article up to FA quality I'll convert my objection to an opposing vote (quite sadly, since Wikipedia clearly needs a feature quality biography of this man). Durova 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Support, I don't see how the following can be interrpreted as Pro-Bonaparte/Pro-french POV:

After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost. And it was all such a great waste, for when the self-proclaimed tête d'armée was done, France's "losses were permanent" and she "began to slip from her position as the leading power in Europe to second-class status—that was Bonaparte's true legacy."[20]

This is a balanced, comprehensive and well-written if not consistantly brillant article. It passes my review. Especially since I still feel somewhat "dirty" about giving a passing grade to World War II, which is not IMO, as good as this one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. It's just too long, there isn't much else wrong. I would also note that 5 references for 53kb of text, especially when each is only cited once, is a little bit on the short side. I'd add refs and shorten the text. Staxringold 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar[edit]

Fantastic article with many sources, which is a topic that many people would enjoy.--Fresh 19:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support. (Fresh 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Object. No inline references yet (and is there a peer review we can look at?). Daniel Case 20:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Further observations: The "Note" in the intro is the perfect example of something that should go in a footnote section, when one is added. And even with it, the intro is too short. Daniel Case 20:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Very interesting article, but no inline references, as per Daniel Case. In addition, there are a lot of loose sentences, especially towards the end of the article, in the "Numerical facts", which should be replaced by paragraphs. Schutz 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Good solid article. Very factual. Impressive work. But only one reference? Heck, I've read at least fifty books on the calendar. Would gladly support with better sourcing of material. PedanticallySpeaking 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This truely is an interactive article, with plenty of information about the passage of time and, on a different scale, culture ! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Popescui (talk • contribs) .
    • Note that this argument in support of the article is the first and only contribution from this user. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Not only is it well written, it's got the best timelines I've ever seen on WP. Congratulations on a fantastic article. --PopUpPirate 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A fantastic article. --Siva1979Talk to me10:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - needs a lot more refs, several sections, such the days of the week and numerical facts, need cleaning up, and poor prose - for example, from the lead: The Gregorian Calendar was devised because the mean year in the Julian Calendar was slightly too long. What is "slightly too long"? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Insufficient referencing, insufficient lead, insufficient prose. Fieari 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Difficult to read, and inadequately referenced. The lead, specifically, is not clear and summary, managing to confuse, while not nearly addressing the scope of the main content. The text, while not exactly "technical", is written in a somewhat convoluted, calendar-centric style that generally winds up sounding like a lot of jargon. Example, by the third sentence of the LEAD, an extended parenthetical note: "(Note: The papal bull Inter gravissimas was signed in the year 1581 for unknown reasons, but printed on 1 March 1582. Although the use of the date 1581 is often attributed to the supposed adoption by the papacy of a reckoning by which the year began on 25 March, other contemporaneous papal bulls have years that do not agree with March years, let alone years since a pope was named or other types of years.) Or, the second paragraph of the body: "Worse, the reckoned Moon that was used to compute Easter was fixed to the Julian year by a 19 year cycle. However, that is an approximation that built up an error of 1 day every 310 years. So by the 16th century the lunar calendar was out of phase with the real Moon by four days." And so on. There is lots of interesting information, but it needs better organization and editing...some compelling writing. Plus at least one or two general references. --Tsavage 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead is inadequate, no inlince citations, too few references (1!), can use more pictures.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Laura Schlessinger[edit]

This is a controversial subject that has been a great example of how Wikipedians can work together and compromise despite strong differences of opinion. A great deal of time has passed since anty real issues, which says that it is the product of good discussion and consensus. It is well sourced, NPOV, well written, not too lengthy but is very informative. I'm proud of the work that everyone has put into this and I think it should be held up as a featured article.Gator (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator.Gator (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poorly written, many holes in her early-life biography. Personal history section is completely unsourced. There is no significant content in this article. Although the moral opinions section and criticisms is nice. There are articles on Wikipdia more worthy of Featured article status--Muchosucko 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Referencing! Every bullet item in that "Moral opinions" section needs a reference. Wouldn't call it "poorly written", however. Unsure about "comprehensiveness". Jkelly 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - please fix the references. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. I've fixed the formatting of all those external links in the article, but it still needs improvement, especially with some of the quotes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Subject. Much is said, much more could be said, little needs to be said. Listen to her radio show for three days, know all there is know or will be to know. She lays it on the line and the 'pedia lines lay it lower than you might not know. Look deep into the article's history and see what you do not know now; look into what has survived the many edit-downs and see only what those in the know want you to know. 04:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Are you like an oracle or something? If so, what stocks should I buy? Andrew Levine 14:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Delphi. A yes and know answer is not what you want, but may be what you need. 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice job. KI 18:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Gator. -- Siva1979Talk to me 14:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the vote count as unneccessary. FAC is based on consensus, not voting. The Catfish 21:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. As one of the contributors to this article, I have mixed feelings about it. A lot of material that used to be in it, got chopped out on the grounds that even though well-researched, it contributed to an overall negative impression of the subject. While this may have been fair, I think it resulted in the article losing the "feel" of what LS is all about. Perhaps some more images or some sound clips could make up for that. Wasted Time R 02:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object per others. Bonus comment: Someone as unpatrotic and unAmerican as Ms. Slesigner's ilk should be lined up and shot in the back of the head on pay-per-view television. Cjmarsicano 18:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    We DO NOT advocate violence or suggest violence against anyone here and that is why I struck out your comment.--MONGO 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I like how striking that out did absolutely nothing at all. --Muchosucko 03:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment after reading through the article several times, I see that it may need a few more citations linked in, especially in the beginning. A little more on her personal life, an elboration of her estrangment from some family if possible, her marriage etc. I congratulate those that otherwise presnt a neutral article that would potentially be one that could be divisive. Maybe toss the article through Peer Review if this should not be promoted, work on a few of the missing pieces and renominate later.--MONGO 03:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This in no way meets the oft-overlooked FAC requirement of stability. It's too controversial and it's evident that edit wars will continue even after it's featured. If a few months could pass without any major arguments, I would support. Kafziel 18:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - full of NPOV terms and expressions. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 08:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Black[edit]

Self-nomination. It's a little long, but I think that this level of detail is necessary. - Emsworth 16:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Regretfully object. While this is an otherwise excellent article, the use of inline citations has been de rigueur for FA candidates for some time now; I don't believe it would be appropriate to promote any new ones that lack them. —Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, I wasn't aware. I've just added the references. -- Emsworth
      • Very good. Full support from me, as that was my only concern. —Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Well up to Emsworth's usual high standard. The subject is comprehensive and the article well written, and meets as far as I am aware all defined criteria. Giano | talk 18:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Still support but prefer the lead portrait you had a couple of hours ago! Giano | talk 21:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks good to me. Well written, well laid out, references... all in order. Fieari 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Very good detail, left out nothing important. I suppose a couple more pictures might make it more attractive, but they're not essential and the article is it stands is complete and well-written. All our articles on Supreme Court Justices should be this complete. Andrew Levine 20:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Detailed and informative Nickhk
  • Conditional support. I went through and did a lot of prose polishing, but it still needs a little work. Too many sentences still begin with something like "For example ...," "Moreover ...," "Also ..." or something like "Justice Black ..." or "Hugo Black ...". It gets a little monotonous and an article about a judge cannot afford to be monotonous. The sentences need to flow from each other better still.
And I also think something could be done about the frequent "See ..." references. One, "(For more details about the trial, see the article on James Coyle)" is particularly egregious. We usually don't do things that way, and here you have a link to the Coyle article a few sentences above. It's completely unnecessary.
I put in a lot more links ... there were a great deal more the article could take advantage of which it didn't. Still, more of those redlinked SCOTUS decisions (particularly Torcaso, which I can't believe we don't have) should be turned blue. And especially Winship if it's that important to understanding the incorporation theory.
Lastly, I know finding pictures for a bio like this is difficult, but wouldn't it be better to illustrate his Senate career with a picture of Black as a senator, speaking or campaigning or something like that? As it is, FDR is only tangentially related and I get the feeling it was included mainly because someone wanted to put a picture there.
But get this fixed and we have a very valuable article about an important 20th century American. Daniel Case 05:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, did this go to peer review? Daniel Case 05:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. I've done what I could to polish the article's prose; if any more is necessary, please say so. Moreover, I've removed most of the "See ..." references, replacing them with links; however, I thought that a few had to be retained. I'll see what I can do about the red links. There is a new picture in the "Senate career" section; although it does not show him actually speaking or campaigning, it does reflect his age at the time. And lastly, no, this article did not go to peer review. -- Emsworth
Looking better. It's too late for PR now but, for future reference, this would have helped work the kinks of the article before the FA nomination. Daniel Case 19:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A good article - Siva1979Talk to me 14:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent example of biography, NPOV and judge-appraisal. The jurisprudence section, particularly considering Black's somewhat eclectic and idiosyncratic views, is outstanding. Batmanand | Talk 15:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - looks good, but a few points: first, in the lead, several items are in quotes. ("literal", "incorporated", "conservative", "right to privacy") Why? In addition, I still see some repetitive prose; for example, in the "KKK Controversy" section each of the three paragraphs begins with a date, and in the following section each of the lead paragraphs also begins with "Senator Black..." It's not that big of a deal, but I'd prefer more sentence variations. Finally, I still don't like the remaining "see... [link to another section]" links. It's bad form to have self-references in the article; if something needs to be pointed to another section, it's a sign that the section is incomplete or the article doesn't flow well, or that the self-refs are simply extraneous. Could this be fixed? Otherwise, it's a great article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've tried to address these concerns. -- Emsworth
  • Comment Please consider switching to the meta:Cite.php format for existing footnotes, as it is far more transparent and managable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Gabbe 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Saucy support! This is an excellent article! —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Simply excellent. RyanGerbil10 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well researched and comprehensive. Enjoying to read and appealing layout. Corrections made so far have addressed most of my concerns. pschemp | talk 03:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, Emsworth has too many FAs already, and I want a chance to catch up with him. Actually, support, great work—you never cease to amaze me. Glad you're back; I hope the break was refreshing. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. The allegation (which seems likely to be true given the context) that Black asked witnesses if they were Catholic to discredit them in front of a jury and judge who were members of the Klan, needs a citation. Kaisershatner 16:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly object. This is not a good article. For example
  • Any article about Hugo Black which does not mention Gideon v. Wainwright is only pretending to be his biography, he carried the day on no more important case on SCOTUS.
  • The discussion of federalism is incoherent because no one involved in writing the article understood the distinction between cases involving the reach of federal power, as in the Commerce Clause cases like Wickard, and cases involving federalism, the balance between federal and state power.
  • The commentary on incorporation is often incorrect, since the Sixth Amendment has not been incorporated unless cases like Apodaca v. Oregon which differentiate constitutional limits on state and federal criminal procedure were reversed without being noticed by the legal community.
  • The discussion of substantive due process is utterly inept and unsurprisingly cites no sources beyond quoting Black opinions on points they hardly support
  • Most of the discussion of Black's jurisprudence is forbidden original research, no legal commentaries are cited and the references are almost all general biographies, not technical works, instead the authors give their own interpretations of Court decisions and Justices' opinions
  • If "most members" of the Court rejected Black's view that defamation laws were unconstitutional for abridging "freedom of speech," how do the authors explain NY Times v Sullivan, where the Court gutted defamation laws as abridging freedoms of speech/press, Black's view generally shared, though most others not so absolutist as he was -- as in related areas.
  • The idea that Black and Harlan were ideological opponents is ungodly silly, they had philosophical differences but shared core values
  • Black's contributions are discussed only to constitutional law, but he was influential in other important areas like antitrust law, which are ignored. Judge Magney
Hmm. I had some reservations about the jurisprudence section when I looked it over and copyedited it. I wondered about the absence of some of those cases myself. I wanted to ask the editors if they'd had someone with a legal background look this over; it seemed to draw entirely from the court cases he wrote opinions in. But since I was looking it over from a biographical perspective, I didn't think too closely (having written one legal article myself (Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.), I'm all too aware of the pitfalls).
I totally concur with Judge Magney's implication that the interpretations of Black's jurisprudence ought to be dependent on reliable legal sources like law review articles and books by law professors. Given the length of time he was on the court there ought to be tons. Certainly you can find someone who says what you want to say and put it on them. Or you might find something else to add to the article.
He's also right when he points out that, like every other Supreme Court Justice, Black's interpretations were hardly limited to constitutional law, and this is utterly ignored.
I will go further than my learned colleague the Judge and suggest, given these issues with this section, that a daughter article, something like Jurisprudence of Hugo Black, be spun off. If you adequately address the subject given these new concerns, the jurisprudence section will swallow the rest of the article. And if you compress that section to a summary in the current article with a "See ..." to the daughter article, you'll not only shorten up an article that still tells me it's too long when I open up the edit window, you can defer most of the issues Judge Magney raises to the daughter article and have a stronger FA candidate here.
Again, this is the sort of thing that could and should be taken care of at the peer-review level.
In light of these new issues I must join the Judge and change my vote to object for now. Daniel Case 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
In response to some of the above objections:
There is no real distinction between the scope of federal power, and the balance between federal and state power. The two are, in essence, one and the same. Both boil down to one and the same issue: how much power does the federal government have? To suggest that the two need to be divided into separate sections strikes me as pedantic.
As to incorporation, the Sixth Amendment has at least been partly incorporated. That is to say, all of the underlying principles of that amendment (right to trial by an impartial jury, right to compulsory process, and so forth) have all become applicable to the states. Only a few specific limitations (that are mentioned nowhere in the amendment itself) are unincorporated, but I see nothing in the article which contradicts this view.
Obviously, the due process section only cites Black's own words. I would have imagined that his own words best explain his own positions.
The sentences are, "He rejected the idea that the government was entitled to punish "obscene" speech. Likewise, he argued that defamation laws abridged the freedom of speech and were therefore unconstitutional. Most members of the Supreme Court rejected both of these views." It is clear that most members of the Supreme Court rejected the view that "defamation laws ... were ... unconstitutional." NY Times v. Sullivan, as everyone knows, was decided on the principle that an actual malice standard was necessary, not on the principle that all libel laws were unconstitutional.
Do you suggest "philosophical opponents"?
I would oppose the idea that this article should be divided into two articles, one on biography and another on jurisprudence. If there are problems with the section, then they should be addressed here, not covered up by being sent off to another article. -- Emsworth
Comment. The editor who objected above that Black and Harlan were not ideological opponents is, very strictly speaking, correct. They were, however, jurisprudential or philosophical opponents. Their methods of interpreting the Constitution could not have been less alike. Black was an extreme textualist, and Harlan used a much less text-bound method of interpretation that relied on, for example, a "flexible" notion of due process. Hydriotaphia 15:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In any event, as I agree that this article concentrates solely on constitutional law, and not on statutory law, I withdraw the nomination. -- Emsworth

Ronald Reagan[edit]

I have nominated this article as I feel it meets the required criteria for FAC. Highly concise and comprehensive depiction of his life. Not a 'self-nom'. Rdysn5 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose:
    • "Is noted for a 25% cut in the income tax..." The U.S. has a progressive income tax structure, not a flat tax, so what does the 25% figure refer to?
    • "and, in 1976, said "fascism was really the basis of the New Deal." Citation?
    • "Reagan remembered that his father had refused to take him to the movie "Birth of a Nation", because of its racist stereotypes. When Ronald was young, his father did not want to stay in a certain hotel because they did not accept Jews; his only alternative was to sleep in his car." Citations?
    • "due to the party's hard-line stance against communism." Citation? (For this being the reason he changed his party, that is. Obviously the anti-Communist stance of the GOP does not to be cited.)
    • "Reagan made it clear that the policies of his administration would not be influenced by student preferences, saying "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with, no more appeasement." Citation?
    • "Reagan suggested that it would be a good time for an outbreak of botulism." Citation?
    • External links need to be converted to inline citations.
    • " eliciting protests from Democrats." Which ones?
    • "The House of Representatives, with a Democratic majority, opposed slowing the growth of social welfare spending" Spending on which programs, specifically?
    • I pretty much stopped reading there. This article isn't really that far from featured status, but it needs someone, or preferably a few people, to improve the prose and to crack the listed sources so the quotes, etc., can be cited. Andrew Levine 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object- no inline citations. The lead should be condensed into three paragraphs at most, according to WP:LEAD. In addition, at 80kb, I wouldn't call this article "highly concise", and I think the length of the article should be cut down a little and moved into subpages. AndyZ 23:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Very bad example of Summary style when the section that is supposed to be a 'summary' of a daughter article is longer than the daughter article. Off load much of the detail to the daughter article and leave a real summary here. A great many inline cites are needed as well. --mav 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Object for the same reasons, a re-shuffle should be easy, the prose is great --PopUpPirate 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support very NPOV for such a controversial figure. Well done. God example of what we can do here.Gator (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object – I think this is a good, generally well written and NPOV article with the makings of a featured article, but I found the organization to be completely haphazard. The sections like "appointments", "honors", "coinage", "Regan documentries", "Nicknames" and other chaff should be offloaded into other articles, the Presidency section needs a leader, religious beliefs perhaps shouldn't be its own short section but should be merged into the rest of the article... That, and someone needs to have a go at referencing. –Joke 17:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Two editors (including me) have noted on the talk page that the information about the Bitburg cemetery visit seems to be incorrect. No one has addressed this concern, nor cited support for Wikipedia's version of the story. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 17:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object. Cjmarsicano 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you please include a rationale for your objection? AndyZ 00:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This might give tyou some insight into his rationale. [21].Gator (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess that's a null vote, then --PopUpPirate 01:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for your comments. I suppose a peer review for the article would help immensely. Rdysn5 06:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I see nothing wrong with either the length of the intro, or the article itself. In fact, the intro is roughly the same length as the Bill Clinton article, and shorter than the Jimmy Carter article. Rmt2m 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object. This article has major, major POV issues. Either include criticism of Reagan's policies, or stick to the facts, but don't include the arguments of supporters and then ignore critics. Most egregious is the ra-ra tone of the discussion of supply side economics (with only a couple phrases of criticism buried in a mountain of praise), as well as discussion in the intro of his role in the dissolution of the USSR (probably the two issues by which he defined his presidency). There are so many other examples of POV, though. How does an encyclopedia article not mention the very common charge that Reagan was suffering from the early effects of Alzheimers through most of his presidency, which had a big impact on how his administration was run? For someone this controversial, it would be best to more explicitly acknowledge the positions of critics and supporters. Very un-encyclopedic. Also, it's pretty badly written (so repetitive) and confusingly organized. Basically, it's a train wreck. Aroundthewayboy 19:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Howard Hughes[edit]

  • Support. Truly one of the better articles on Wikipedia... Well researched and highly annotated, I think it should be shared actively with the rest of the Wikipedia public... Check-Six 18:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Object: As noted by another editor at the tail end of the peer review, there are some pretty inane internal links in the "recluse" section (peas, nipples, barber, etc.) that should be removed. Kafziel 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No inline references or footnotes. Every FA has them. Daniel Case 19:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No references, no footnotes, lead too short, birth too short, education too short and RKO too short. KILO-LIMA 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the issue regarding his birthdate needs to be resolved. If Dec. 24 was his "official" birthday but not his real birthday, don't use it.--Fallout boy 20:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Daniel Case. References and footnotes are integral to any FA (as noted in WP:WIAFA). bcasterlinetalk 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above- no inline citations. Several sections (including the lead) are too short, and need expansion. AndyZ 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per User:AndyZ. --Off! 06:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Daniel Case. It should really be emphasized that a minimum of 3 references and inline citations are required for an article to be a featured article. Far too many articles are nominated without them, and they often play a decisive role in nominations being shot down. Captain Jackson 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, good info, but references, internal links, and external link format is not up to par. Rlevse 11:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, good article. Gunslinger 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object per others -- article fails to reference or cite via inline the majority of the content. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 19:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Self nomination. --Charlemagne the Hammer 13:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Interesting topic, and some nice work, but the WP:LEAD is insufficient, and the tone of the intro is more suitable for someone with a legal background, not for a layperson. The bullet points within the subsections look strange to me as well. Has this had a peer review? Might save you some time...Kaisershatner 14:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

comment Can you please be more specific about the bullet points? I have submitted this for peer review and will do something about simplifying it --Charlemagne the Hammer 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Comments at Peer Review. Kaisershatner 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Kaisershatner. Nice article, though it should be broken down into much simpler terms so that the average reader (think 6th grade education) can fully understand it. Peer review should be able to help out with simplifying this article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

comment Submitted for peer review, will simplify --Charlemagne the Hammer 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object / refer to Peer review - no references (at least, not in a "References" section). The article should include references to relevant legal textbooks / practitioner texts / journal articles, in addition to the direct citations of relevant case law; and for the latter, links to full case reports in free online databases such as or would be helpful). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

comment There are 23 references, they're called footnotes. Legal referencing uses primary authorities to the exclusion of almost all else. Nevertheless, I will include some secondary authorities from scholarly texts --Charlemagne the Hammer 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. This is an encyclopedia article, so it may help to refer to authoritative secondary sources, rather than asking our reader to make the jump from our article to the cases themselves. The criteria (specifically criterion 2(c)) ask for references in a section entitled "References". See also Wikipedia:Citing sources. The Peer review will help immensely, I am sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

2005 Kashmir earthquake[edit]

This Article is wonderfully cited, with lots of references, citations from various different sources to give a very comprehensive understanding of the earthquake. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercenary2k (talk • contribs) .

  • Object - The article looks pretty good, it just needs a little be of formatting to comply with FA standards. References should be put into a "References" section, and linked to with inline citations, instead of just linking directly to the source in the middle of the article. There is also an excessive plethora of "external links", so many that I wonder if all of them are really useful to the article. If they were used as references, they should be noted as references (and cited). Clean this up, and I think we have a featured article. Fieari 17:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, agree with Fieari. The level of content in this article is of featured quality, the only thing that really needs to be done is to reformat the article to bring it into line with current FA standards. Other than that, it is a very good article. RyanGerbil10 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've converted the external links to m:Cite/Cite.php and have started doing the full citations (per WP:CITE) with the lead. I'll try to do more later. The Catfish 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Fieari. In addition, the article seems heavily list-weighty. Some of those lists should be converted to prose. AndyZ 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In addition to using m:Cite/Cite.php, please indicate your references with some more clarity. References in the article are currently in the form of a list of 40 external links without appropriate text. You may want to explore the following formats for referencing your material: MLA style manual, APA style, The Chicago Manual of Style or Harvard referencing. AreJay 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm currently working on this. Incidently, they aren't 'my' references, I just started working on this since it's come to FAC. The Catfish 21:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I just finished doing full cites for all of the references that still exist. However, many (around 15) have disappeared into cyberspace since they were originally added. The Catfish 03:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Apart from those points mentioned above, several images don't have any licensing tags or sources. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Too much of a list, plus the references need text to support them, rather than just numbers. --PopUpPirate 01:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would also say that the Casualties and Damage sections need to be in prose form. AreJay 03:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

K. R. Narayanan[edit]

This wiki article is one of the most well researched and exhaustive reference on the subject. When KRN died a few months back,this article received a lot of limelight. Many of the obits in the media resembled the article almost word by word. (For eg, See The Rediff Obit). This article has got a press reference too (See [22]).I believe this article demands a featured article status. I've done a few minor edits to the article,so this may be considered as a self-nom.--Sahodaran 04:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. No footnotes. Plenty of references but we need to know exactly what the source for everything is. Daniel Case 04:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Seeking clarification: did you mean to ask that the embedded links be reformatted as footnotes? Italo 02:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be a start, yes. Daniel Case 02:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Done Italo 03:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Footnotes, as above, and the lead section should be three paragraphs, as per WP:LEAD. Fieari 04:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
An additional lead paragraph has beed added. The footnote problem is addressed in the response to the preceding objection. Italo 02:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Consider using m:Cite/Cite.php for your footnotes and references instead of inserting raw URLs. It's easier to manage and automatically numbers your references. AreJay 03:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Used it. Italo 03:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to peer review. The article should be improved on several counts taking advice from people there. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you please be a bit more specific on the areas in the article that needs to be improved?Thanks--Sahodaran 04:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support tbh I think it's great --PopUpPirate 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Peer review: A review is essential - otherwise its a good article, given the extensive documentation of references. Note two problems - (1) Lead - not good intro, no quote (seemingly glorifies) and (2) 60kb is too large. Needs to be below 50. Rama's Arrow 14:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Peer review: A very well-written article, but just think: would people be interested in reading it? With all due respect to this great president of India, most of the other featured article from/on India had some inherent interesting theme.Narayanan's activities were remarkable for certain unprecedented actions like casting vote.I do not think the second biographic FA from India (the first one being, of course, Mahatma Gandhi) should be of him, despite the article being a greatly stuffed one. More historically/ politically important person's biography should be nominated and worked upon for improvement.--Dwaipayanc 15:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights[edit]

  • Support: This is an article. For the japanese, some publicity of this article would educate them of thier own rights. For

== Headline text ==Bold text Americans, this article would show them basics of the judicial system, and overall American government. It fits all criteria for a featured article, and would be a good one. -zappa

  • Object This article is way too short for the subject, with a large part of it being quotes and the actual text of the amendments. No inline citations. There's only one reference, which is probably insufficient. Image:We The People.jpg needs a tag. Pagrashtak 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Definitely not comprehensive. Should have a brief discussion on more of the historical background of the time period. Nearly every American knows our history as far as independance and all that goes, but someone from, say, China might now. There are other facts that I don't myself know, but I'm sure someone could find out (and thus should definitely be in the article)... such as, why did only 10 amendments pass, and not the 11th or the 12th? Who were the people who originally objected to a bill of rights being included, why, and could you cite them? I had heard somewhere that there were specific states that were opposed to the bill at first and that's why they weren't just plain included in the original document, so that the constitution could be passed more quickly. I heard a rumor that the original rights might have banned slavery right in the first place? Is that true? The individual rights could also use more elaboration and discussion... other amendments get their own articles in and of themselves... why should the first ten be lumped together with barely a discussion as to content? I'm sure there's lots more to say. This is not a IMPORTANT part of American history, and an important part of modern politics and government as well! It deserves a lot more written about it than this! Fieari 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Incredibly small article with massive quotes and bad citation. Lists at the bottom rather than prose, and a few measly sources for such a humongous topic. Staxringold 11:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Needs a lot more information. For instance, Madison didn't just pull these rights out of thin air; the article should discuss their roots, such as the much earlier English Bill of Rights. Many freedoms that modern Americans assume are unique were already provided for there and elsewhere and were simply incorporated into our own Constitution. And how can an article on the bill of rights not spare a single sentence on discussing the various controversies over interpretation, i.e. the right to bear arms, free speech as it applies to flag burning, free press vs. sedition, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. There's an awful lot of information that should be here and, by adding what's missing, a better reference section will naturally be created. Kafziel 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Quite inadequate. The quotes are for the most part irrelevant. There is little discussing the history of its interpretation. Needs a lot more work. Hydriotaphia 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Too short. The structure is fine, needs big expansion tho. --PopUpPirate 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Too short, and shoudl include a comtemporary translation from NPOV of the Amendments. Also the Federalists did NOT support the Bill of Rights, that was the anti-federalists. American Patriot 1776 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as above. Computerjoe 09:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object the intro mentions neither the dates of writing, proposal, adoption, nor anything related to the subject. It also lacks a citation for the claim that they were proposed because many people thought the constitution was an aristocratic scheme to remove the rights of the general public. Kaisershatner 15:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Perfect Arcticle, very informative, and Follows Criteria. Would Be a good Canidate due to the topic. --Z.Spy 01:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Rush (Aly & AJ song)[edit]

I believe this article should be rewarded because it matches all of the criteria and is very informal. Tcatron565

  • Object That article should be marked as a stub! Clearly does not meet FA requirements. Pagrashtak 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to Peer Review. Far from comprehensive, little more than a stub. Plus there's one ultra-POV sentence, "Hopefully the success of the teenagers' songs will boost their popularity in their music career." I ask the nominator to please put the article on Peer Review instead to get suggestions for how to make it fuller. It's not right for FAC yet. Bishonen | ノート 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Object. No references, neither well-written nor comprehensive (it's barely past stub size), needs to be brought into line with Wikipedia's manual of style (as well as WP:MUSIC and WP:SONG guidelines), lead section is too short, description page for Image:Wikimage 1.jpg contains vague copyright information. Read some of Wikipedia's featured articles in the category of "Music", and refer to peer review. Extraordinary Machine 18:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object: Very short lead, no references, no inline citations, no evidence of being well-written or comprehensive, not of adequate length, poor organization and layout (External links always goes towards the end). There are a couple of grammatical errors. It is also marked as "current", which could indicate instability. Please put it into Peer Review first before coming here. AndyZ 19:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong object incorporating every criticism above. After deleting a long rant about people who bring forth FA nominations without seeming to have any idea what an FA entails in the name of civility, I will instead direct the nominator to "Cool" as an example to follow for how to make a featured article on a contemporary hit song. I would also strongly recommend the nominator withdraw the nomination ASAP (as happened recently with Big Sur, which was much further along but needed work as its nominator soon realized) and get to work on the article. Daniel Case 23:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object. Heh... this article is so weak, even the link in this nomination goes through a redirect before hitting the right page. Kafziel 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, Tcatron565. Sorry, but featured articles have to be about long, boring grown-up topics. Keep trying though. You may eventually get one promoted. I see from your talk page you were put on the principle's honor list. Congratulations! --Jayzel 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Jayzel, don't bite the newcomers. Featured articles don't have to be about "long, boring grown-up topics", whatever that means; any article can become featured if written properly. I suggest you read Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Pagrashtak 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What a horrible, horrible attitude. This article certainly can be featured if it's given some more work. The article quality at present is weak, but that's no reason to criticize the article topic, which is perfectly good. Everyking 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you guys took that the wrong way. Seems to me he was criticizing the FAC process and voters' tendency to favor boring topics, not this article's subject matter. Seemed like a cynical but perfectly friendly response to me. He didn't even register an "oppose" vote. Kafziel 12:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I cleaned up some spelling and grammar for you guys but as per reasons above, I object. SandBoxer 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No they don't, Jayzel, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is one and it is cool to read. It's not boring or grown-up-ish. Tcatron565
You're right, Tcatron. That is a pretty cool page. I stand corrected. Regards, --Jayzel 01:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
And Donkey Kong is a featured article candidate right now. Not the most grown up subject. :) Kafziel 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup[edit]

(partial self-nom) A comprehensive article on important subject. Worked on by football improvement drive, also has been on peer review. Conscious 20:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Article has been moved fairly recently (Football World Cup→FIFA World Cup). Articles have been spun off this article to reduce length (beginning about December 20). Had 17 votes in favor of having the article as the Football Article Improvement Drive. When a member of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team came around to ask for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, FIFA World Cup was mentioned. FIFA World Cup "look[ed] A-Class to" Walkerma (as shown here). This article has been under work for about two months (since December 24 2005) in an effort to make this a featured article (or "as good as the one on Olympic Games eventually," as Chanheigeorge said). — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Comment Can we have an image of the WC at the top of the article? --PopUpPirate 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to have one. I have attempted to find one on Wikipedia to no avail. I'd upload one, but I'm not too good with images, in general.

The preceding unsigned comment was added by IanManka (talk • contribs) .

Further comment. I assume you mean a picture of the real Cup, not the copy given to Germany shown in the linked article on the trophy (not that that's such a great image itself).

And speaking of images, I imagine that in an article about the greatest trophy in international soccer I would expect to see an image of someone playing, or just finished playing, soccer. Is there something somewhere we can use showing a team, still in uniform, celebrating with the trophy on the field? I know there's a picture of Diego Maradona holding it aloft with a huge smile on his face. We need some visual connection with the sport.

Will say more as I get a chance to look the article over. Since this is going to not only be timely (Main Page on the opening day?) but about the world's biggest sporting event, we have to make it good. Daniel Case 04:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion at the talk page of using images from the 1978 World Cup, I believe. I still think we need a picture of the trophy of the "real Cup" as you call it -- and you're right, the image isn't too good in the linked article. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Here's what I have:

  • "West Auckland won the tournament and returned to Italy in 1911 to defend their title. In this second competition, West Auckland beat Juventus 6-1 in the final, and were awarded the trophy outright." This last word suggests that they shared the trophy at the first competition. Is there something missing here?
  • "For example, the winner of the Oceanian zone and the fifth-placed team from the South American zone entered a play-off to decide which team would qualify for the 2006 World Cup." Hasn't this always been the case due to the relative strength of Australia compared to most of the other sides in that zone? There's some controversy about this, IIRC ... has it been suggested that the Oceania zone be redrawn to be more competitive and the playoff eliminated. This can probably best be dealt with in the daughter article (currently it's not mentioned there at all), but a mention here might be nice.
  • "In the knockout stage, teams play each other in one-off matches, with extra time and penalty shootouts used to decide the winner, if nessessary." Didn't they also once use a coin flip (except for the final itself)? The article should mention that if it's so (as well as allude to all the other tiebreaking controversies over the years).
  • Mascots: Might also spice up the article to include a picture of one from the daughter article ... Willie is the best choice for historical and encyclopedic value, but those Tip and Tap figurines are just so cute.
  • "In all, 207 teams have competed to qualify to the World Cup ..." Does that mean in the actual tournament itself? Or all the qualifying rounds? Some clarification is needed here.
  • Maybe you could also throw in how many nations have actually sent teams to the qualifying rounds. Is every nation in the world represented in that group? If one isn't, why?
    • I think this is fixed, but I am not entirely sure. The 207 teams number refers to the total amount of teams who have attempted to qualify. Take a look (here) and see what you think. Was this what you were looking for? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, it might be nice to have a section on cultural aspects of the World Cup, from the team songs (especially in Britain) to the Three Tenors.

OK, beyond that, the major issue is some clunky and sloppy English (as noted in peer review), which I'll take care of in a copyediting sweep later. Daniel Case 03:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just did the copyediting sweep. Trimmed down a lot of run-on sentences and unnecessary verbiage. But issues remain.
    • Intro still needs work, as noted below. I think I can completely redo it but it will take some time.
    • What about "Mundial" as a term for the tournament? I don't hear it as much as I used to but it's still around as a term for the tournament in Spanish-speaking countries. Should that be in the intro?
      • AFAIK "Mundial" is just a Spanish word for the adjective "World". Conscious 12:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's just me, perhaps, but I think it looks terrible when section heds are followed immediately by subsection heds. Perhaps there could be some sort of intro for these?
    • "However, American interest in soccer was declining as American football became more popular, making it unlikely tickets to events would sell well. FIFA and the IOC also disagreed over the status of amateur players, and so football was dropped from the Games." This is as I reworded it, but it needs a source.
      • Sourced, and BBC's information was quite the opposite of the article's. Conscious 12:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "The British home nations, where football was first played, entered the World Cup for the first time in 1950, after reaching an agreement with FIFA about their status." What exactly was the disagreement? I'm guessing that FIFA wanted a single UK team? Can we make this clearer?
      • Rewritten. It turns out they just didn't want to play. Conscious 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "I'm wondering if, at some point in time, a daughter history article might not be such a bad idea. This treatment is pretty good but given that practically every other section has a daughter article link, the absence is glaring. Certainly the history of the World Cup has to consist of more than this (Don't consider this fatal to your nomination, though).
      • Well, it can be done even now. It only takes writing a summary of the history, I'll try to do it. Conscious 12:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "The basic constraint is that no group contains more than two European teams or more than one team from any other confederation." This isn't clear. Is this what is meant to happen or what actually does happen? If the latter, I remember the 1990 World Cup when the group of death (and that should be in there too, as well as in the daughter article) featured England, Ireland, the Netherlands and Egypt ... three European teams, which doesn't fit the picture. Is the geographic distribution something new? If so, that needs to be in the article.
      • Since 1998, added. Conscious 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • We need to do something about the Willie image, since it's going into the table below. Daniel Case 05:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Tried to shrink, does it look better now? Conscious 12:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I want to see this featured, but I'm finding some troubling errors in the prose, such as stilted wording. I tried rewording the lead, but I find the second paragraph does not flow well, jumping from one topic to another. Sentences like "In the Olympic games of 1924 and 1928, Uruguay won the football gold medal, in the first intercontinental football competitions", "The Women's World Cup is, obiviously, a women's sport, and is one of the largest differences between the two" ("largest difference"?), "In the World Cup competitions from 1930 to 1970, the Jules Rimet Trophy (originally simply known as the World Cup or Coupe du Monde but renamed in 1946 after the president of FIFA who organized the first tournament in 1930) was awarded to the winner" (way too long and digresses in the middle),"Africa was the continent chosen, and South Africa won the vote over four other African nations", and so on. This article needs to be looked over from top to bottom. I also think m:Cite should be used for footnotes (which, by the way, there are not enough of; nothing is cited, for example, to corroborate the section on the trophy). See WP:FN for further details on how to convert from {{ref}} to m:Cite. The "Best performances by continental zones" subsection reads very badly, because it's mainly disparate information thrown together without any thought for the flow of reading. It should be rewritten or converted into a list. The image of Brazil with the trophy needs a fair use rationale (see WP:FU). I think that's enough for now, so I'll stop. Johnleemk | Talk 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've reworded the three sentences you cited and converted "best performances" section to a table. After reading WP:FU more carefully I realized that this image cannot be fair use, and replaced it with another. Conscious 19:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Reworded the fourth and converted references (while adding a couple). The m:cite system is WAY better, thanks for pointing to it! Conscious 21:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the rewrite, but as PR and Daniel Case pointed out, it's not just those sentences -- the whole article tends to have sloppy writing. I've gone through the lead and first two subsections, but I don't have the time right now to finish up the rest. Hopefully Daniel can do the rest. Until then, I will have to regretfully oppose -- this is not brilliant prose by any means. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Don Knotts[edit]

The article looks like a good piece that has been updated very quickly and provides as good, if not better, information than most of the obits out there. PhatJew 23:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Object- no inline citations primarily. In addition, the lead is rather short and skimpy. Early life is weak. As per WP:MoS, His Death should be Death. This is also heavily filled with lists. AndyZ 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object No references, images needs fair use rationale, the lead image has no licensing information. Pagrashtak 05:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Per above. While we all love Don Knotts, his article needs cleaned-up before being on the front page. It's also annoying when an article's only references are recent AP news articles. Captain Jackson 19:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, for the follwing reasons: (1) Images need to be properly sourced and have a fair use rationale, Image:Donknottschickenlittle.JPG is marked as public domain yet there is no source. (2) This article is still relatively short, most of the sections could be extended. (3) The info needs sourcing (4) I'd suggest getting rid of the trivia section. I've never found trivia sections to be very encyclopedic, and I'd suggest integrating it into the other sections of the article.--Fallout boy 20:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


I think this is good candidate for a featured article. Its length is more than enough, it meets most of the criteria, and I think if it's named as a Featured Article people might realize there were other supergroups out there besides the Beatles. -- Supertrouperdc 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, no references. Length alone does not a featured article make. Fieari 04:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Per Fieari. Also, trivia sections (or in this case, lists) should be turned into prose if they contain pertinent information. RyanGerbil10 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refer to WP:PR - sorry, but meeting "most" of the criteria is not enough: it needs to meet all of them, and references are a fundamental criterion (see WP:WIAFA). This is going the right way, but not quite there yet: (i) the sectioning is a bit odd - why is "Before ABBA" in "History, but "After ABBA" is not? (ii) There is very little on the distinctive musical style of ABBA, rather than the bare facts of which singles where released when, and what chart positions they reached. (iii) Videos could do with their own section, I think, and the non-music impact (currently only fashion) could do with extending to the wider cultural impact - has ABBA been an influence on later music? Who? How? When? Why? (iv) Trivia is a bit overwhelming, and most of the items should be incorporated into other sections. Good luck. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Fieari. -AKMask 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, for lack of inline citations and references, and per ALoan. The list would be best off in prose. AndyZ 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Just like the last featured article candidate you brought up, "Waterloo," it's a nice read but it isn't Wikipedia's 150% BEST work. Mike H. That's hot 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, no ciatation of sources and references at all. No peer review has been done and needs more content. --Terence Ong 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This thing really needs some refs. Staxringold 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The article lack sourcse as said by many above. Weatherman90 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This was referred to peer review from FAC, because it clearly has a snowball's chance of being promoted. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This article was returned to FAC because peer review is not a dumping ground for failing FACs. If the submitter wants a peer review he can request one himself without the cluttered text from a past FAC review (that said linking to the past FAC nomination is fine). Cedars 08:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not very helpful when this nomination doesn't have a prayer of succeeding. You're just wasting people's time on FAC. Please remove the noms you added back. - Taxman Talk 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have de-listed this nomination from WP:FAC, noting that it doesn't have any chance of succeeding, and also that the nominator seems to have nominated and then abandoned it. Please compare the page instructions: "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." The nominator is kindly advised to take it to Peer review provided s/he is motivated to work on the article to improve it. Bishonen | ノート 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

Laurence Olivier[edit]

A well written, and comprehensive article, with a complete filmography, suitable formatting, the works.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefourdotelipsis (talkcontribs)

  • Object. No references or footnotes, for one thing. Also, it's rather thin — one graf on his early life? and not much more on the rest. It's a good starting point for what could become an FA but it is nowhere near ready for prime time. Daniel Case 04:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Per Daniel Case. RyanGerbil10 04:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not comphrehensive. Being a popular actor, I'd expect this article to be A LOT longer to meet featured status. There is very little information about his career, with the bulk of it being about his marriage and romances. I also noticed that the opening paragraph says he is "regarded by many critics as the greatest actor of the 20th century." There should be some citations from well known critics to verify this.--Fallout boy 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Most of it is a list of credits (loads of which are red links), and it needs expanding and proper referencing. —Whouk (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Queen (band)[edit]

  • Lengthy article that, following a massive cleanup, is now very concise and has much improved writing. Very comprehensive and well cited.TheImpossibleMan 13:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Still has issues.The first few sentences of the lead are quite POV, and the tone of the article is at many times unencyclopedic and chatty in nature. Seems to have good content, however, it is close but needs a careful comb-over to remove POVa nd install a more formal tone. RyanGerbil10 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No references whatsoever, so it fails the basic requirements for FAC. Also agree with Ryan about the overall tone. I would suggest a rewrite and full references, and then a trip to Peer Review. Kafziel 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The lead itself is witness to several Weasel word phrases such as "they have generally become recognized" and "considered by many to be the first true music video". The member section is only a bullet list telling songs they wrote. There are many opinions in the article, such as "In hindsight, it's considered to be a strong first album." The fan fiction bit about "Journey of the Dead" should be deleted. As you admit on the Queen talk page [23], the page still needs a clean-up. I would suggest that instead of continuing through FAC, which is designed for articles which are already clean and referenced, that you refer to both Peer review and, specifically, to add the suggestions of the Featured Music Project.--Ataricodfish 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is over-sectioned to death. All the year-by-year subheaders need to be consolidated such that the TOC is not bloated beyond usability. Try to name to sections such that the the reader can scan the TOC to pick out a distinct era, rather than relying on the reader to know the exact year of the Queen history they're searching for.—thames 16:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Peer Review. Please move this article to WP:PR so that suggestions and recommendations made during that process can be incorporated into the article. AreJay 19:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per reasons above; see my comments on peer review. AndyZ 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The nominator has opened a peer review for this article. As such, I believe that the FAC nomination can be closed.--Ataricodfish 21:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

South India[edit]

The article meets with the wikipedia standards, I believe. It is well written and presented very elegantly. The pictures are also well placed. It was featured as a "selected article" on the India portal too. thunderboltz 06:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Support - I second this opinion. Although I'm no authority, I think it meets points 2, 3 ,4 & 5. The 'powers that be' need to decide if it meets point 1. --hydkat 07:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object --
  1. The names of the states should not be bolded in the lead
  2. How is Goa linguistically a part of SI? Please support it with inline references.
  3. Article needs a copyedit.
  4. The word 'Carnatic' does not relate anyway to the Region Karnataka -- trivia info, please remove
  5. The south Indian people have a world view which is organic and celebrates the generative ethos of the natural world. -- generalised statement, POV. This is not a tourist brochure.
  6. Images with dubious copyright sources present. Please remove
  7. Please do not use image galleries. Use only relavent images.
  8. =Economy= should be written as a whole, not broken into the economy of the states.
  9. Please refer to Featured article Malwa to structure the article properly.
  10. No proper history

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object As someone that has worked on this article in the past, I feel this article falls short of FA status on many counts. The lead is not comprehensive enough and needs to be structured per WP:LEAD. Undue weightage has been given to the Economy section, with unnecessary use of the <gallery> tag in that section and all over the article. But for a couple of sentences, there is no information about the History of the region. An appropriate referencing tag such as {{ref}} or <ref> needs to be used to cite sources. There is no information on the demographical makeup of the region. I motion to move this article back for a second peer review where all concerns need to be addressed before a promotion to FAC. AreJay 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Nichalp and AreJay. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bali Nine[edit]

This article was recently listed for Peer Review however I've decided to withdraw the review and list here at FAC. All points raised during the peer review were attended to, improving the article references mostly. The article content is up to date with information on all parties concerned and covers the subject in it's entirety. A puzzling crime, with a puzzling story of who's who behind it, I feel this article conveys the message well and is of a standard to be considered for Featured status. (Self-nom) -- Longhair 06:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose You havent complied with the fair use conditions (To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.) on the images from the Television stations, A good article otherwise. Gnangarra 06:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've gone and edited the image descriptions to include my rationale for fair use. -- Longhair 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; I still dodn't think you have addressed fair use properly, full explaination on your talk page. I will support when addressed Gnangarra 10:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne[edit]

Thank you everyone for your useful tips for improving my page. I have moved the old feature article candidate debate to the archives because this is a new submission, which relates to my improved article. I would like it if you can see whether or not it is worth feature article status, and if not provide reasons why. thank you once again. --Paaerduag 10:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

comment - images need to comply with fair use conditions currently there this isnt the case <!-- FAIR USE of IMAGENAME.jpg: see image description page at for rationale --> needs to be add to the article for each image then the rationale for use needs to add to the image discription pageGnangarra 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object primarily for the lack of references and inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs). The first sentence of the first section is already weak - "During the course of Voyage, the main character Michel Ardan must piece together a mystery which transpired before he regained consciousness." - which transpired before he regained consciousness? There is no mention beforehands about him becoming unconscious. Thanks, AndyZ t 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, mainly due to lack of references, which I see were a common complaint at the last FAC but have not been addressed. Images need fair use rationale, and there is too much emphasis on the plot and in-game concepts. It looks like the article needs more wikilinks, and some existing links are to redirects or dab pages. Pagrashtak 06:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note from author, you obviously feel very strongly about my article being not up to scratch. thanks for your tips, but it is all a bit overwhelming. please don't hold it against me personally, but i thought i had done the best i could. obviously for you people, it just ain't good enough. --Paaerduag 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Paaerduag, I'm sorry you're disappointed. Please do take a look at Peer review and consider listing your page there first, for more readers' comments. I think/I hope you'd find it useful. It's easier to improve a page with input from others than on your own, as we all tend to look on our own work with the eyes of love and pride. Good luck! Bishonen | talk 08:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne[edit]

Hi everyone. I belive, that after more than a year of documenting this particular product, that this article is of the utmost standard. I believe that it is worthy of feature article status. The text is concise and factually accurate. The presentation is clean, but not overly cluttered. And I hope that you also view this article in the same way. However, if you have a problem with the article, you can always list it here so that i can strive to make it even more perfect in the coming weeks. --Paaerduag 12:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object: first of all, no references are given. In addition, the article does not seem to tell us much about what kind of game it; it starts with "is a PC game that uses the increasingly popular node based point and click system etc", but node points to a disambiguation page. The content of the Overview section should not be in a section, but form the basis for a Lead section. Schutz 14:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No references, reads too much like a fan, nothing about history of development, history of release, sales figures, why it is notable within the gaming community, large blocks of not terribly brilliant prose, lead unclear. Batmanand | Talk 15:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose No references, sounds like a commercial pitch in places, hardly anything on the background of the product, nothing on why it is significant, poor formatting of writing. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Bwithh 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a bad article, but the The Investigation section needs to be split up into a couple of paragraphs...its too long.Osbus 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In addition to the points already outlined above, we need to remember to keep our articles comprehensive. While this article certainly does cover the storyline and characters well, it doesn't have any information about the game itself. How well has it sold?, where has it been sold?, how was it developed?, etc. In addition, some of your words are a bit vague; "increasingly popular" and "It should appeal" seem like they could use some research for solid facts to back up and make more relevant these generalizations. Best of luck! — Rebelguys2 talk 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other[edit]

This article is informative and that information is cited, where appropriate. I even learned how to use footnote templates so as to make the citations less ugly. The article contains correct information that is often mistaken such as the writer and who has recorded the song. It also places the song in context. Hyacinth 12:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)