Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2004

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

This is an archive of discussions about articles that were promoted to featured status. This archive covers articles discussed in August 2004. The discussions are organized in chronological order. Newer discussions go to the bottom of the page.

August 2004[edit]


Although I couldn't possibly keep pace with the prodigious quality and quantity of Emsworths output, I figured it was about time I put another cetacean through the gauntlet. Hopefully I have covered ideas that arose last time before the event. Self nom. Pcb21| Pete 08:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • (not a vote) I'll vote after reading the whole article, but I have a question: why is the name Orca capitalised throughout the article, and why are there two plural forms used (both Orcas and Orca)? Jeronimo 09:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • How embarassing - the last edit I made before nominating was to change all "Orcas" to "Orca" - I wrote the article uncertain to which plural was actually correct (both are used!) and used them both. Then I tidied up and nominated. Unfortunately the edit didn't take for whatever reason. I've just made the edit again. As for the first point, species names are capitalized in Wikipedia. Pcb21| Pete 09:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
From original nomination, article was promoted by Pcb21, 12:26, 3 August 2004

Rights and privileges of peers[edit]

  • Neutral. I like your articles on peers, they are all well written, but I feel it isn't a good idea to nominate every single articles on peers. Shouldn't the nomination be for Peerage? Revth 04:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not nominate? If they article is of Featured Article quality, what would be the downside? — Matt 05:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 05:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dan Gardner 20:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AC power plugs and sockets[edit]

(Note: This article was named Mains power plug at the time.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Self-nomination. I think this is a good example of an international article. I've put a lot of research into it, obtained permission for images and text from various websites, taken photos myself, and crafted the prose. You can't get all this info together anywhere else. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Try wikipedia:Peer review first. TOC is overwhelming and there is no lead section. Basic requirements for FA. --mav 17:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Click on "hide"! I thought the lead section was best kept short. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 17:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I've always been a little concerned about "TOC is overwhelming" objections; the TOC is generated automatically from the article structure, and can be hidden if overwhelming (the "hide" link) or turned off entirely depending on user preference. If the structure of the article is poor, then that's fair enough, but if it's a good structure, we shouldn't have to refactor articles just to optimise the TOC feature. — Matt 04:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • NOTE TO WIKI DEVELOPERS. Can TOC depth be made a user preference? It seems objections are always generated whenever the number of levels is 3 or greater. A. Shetsen 20:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added a couple of extra lines and to the lead section, moved one of the photos up into it, and shortened some section headings in order to make the ToC box narrower. I can't do more than that without ruining the article. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 07:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I think I've fixed this problem. While it makes sense having a heading for each plug type category (A-M), the subheadings for each individual plug type were unnecessary subdivision. I've left the titles as bolded oneliners (linebreak before relevant following paras). TOC is necessary - but there is now a reduced usable one, at, I hope, no cost to the article's cohesiveness or wiki-technical correctness. IANAA, so I hope there's no policy problem with creating "un-headinged" titles. Zoney 00:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT. Neutral/weak objection. How about the plugs used for bigger appliances, such as electric stoves, washing machines, etc., that take up to 30 A current (I think...)? Not sure if they should be given a separate article or included in this one. I note your title is Mains power plug. Is that term specific to "ordinary" plugs, or does it also encompass the bigger ones? Article should give an answer one way or the other. Excellent content in other respects. A. Shetsen 03:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Mains refers to domestic power, and the first numbered section of my article has a short note saying the article will concentrate on normal domestic use. In most countries, even large domestic appliances use the plugs described. The article is already huge as it is; there's imply no space for industrial connectors, and I think people would be less interested in them anyway. I created the article in response to people on the Reference Desk who were asking about the British mains plug. I may write an article about industrial connectors one day, and link to it from this article, but it would take a lot of research. I think people mainly want to know how to deal with plugs and sockets they might encounter whilst travelling. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 07:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • OK. Will support fully if (a) you make that distinction clear in the header, and (b) When referring to the post-Soviet territory, don't use the word Soviet. That's all dead history now. A. Shetsen 19:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) NOTE: I've taken the liberty of replacing "mains electricity" with "mains (domestic) electricity" for the Americans, and "Soviet Republics" to "countries of the CIS" in the first reference under the appropriate plug type. "Soviet plug", etc., remains. With that, full support if partial self-nom. A. Shetsen 21:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT. Slight objection (I did enjoy skimming through the article). It's a LOT of information. Overload really. I'd like to see the maps near top of page, and perhaps each type of plug having a shorter description (more of a summary), linking to the article on that plug type for more info. Should the less used types like Italian, Israeli really have an image on the page detailing all plug types? Anyways. It is far too much to be hit with when you go onto the page, IMO. Zoney 11:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The sections seem clearer or in a better order now, plus removing table/extra content was good. The table of contents, if turned on is VERY nasty. A TOC with just the major headings would be nice! I do say, the article is nice too for its comprehensive nature, and international flavour. Zoney 00:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Not sure I like what you've done to it there, adding fake headings with bold text. I can't link to individual standards now. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 00:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Not a good way to link - what if someone makes even a minor edit to the standard name (yes, they may all seem correct now, but "what if" there's a change to be made). Zoney 00:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I, too, object, for the same reasons as Zoney. Support. I always wondered why there are so many kinds of plugs. Johnleemk | Talk 11:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • There is only a short paragraph on most of the types. If it were any shorter, it would start to be just a list. That would be fine for people wanting to find out about a single plug, but I like the way it's possible to browse through all of them and get an overview of what plugs exist. Someone wanting to identify an unknown plug or socket can also browse through the photos on one page. If it were broken down into individual articles, a lot of them would be stubby. I prefer to let the article not be featured rather than dismember it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree that every plug type needs to be in a separate article. Perhaps you could bring it all out into one sub article that is referenced in the article, but for that part I don't fell its critical. Many large topics in wikipedia are structured like that because there is a lot of information to cover. However, the list of "Plugs, voltages & frequency by location" absolutely needs to come out into a separate article. A list that long terribly detracts from the flow of the article and having it in a separate list in no means detracts from its usefulness. By the way, where in the world did you find that much information on power plugs?! - Taxman 19:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I have now moved that list to a separate article. I have removed spacing between sections to make it all tighter. I have removed the default boxes around those thumbnails that don't require a caption (to save space). I have removed one image each from the UK and Italian sections. I have trimmed unnecessary text. I've inserted __NOTOC__ to turn off the table of contents, so that you won't be overwhelmed (I intend to turn it back on though). I've moved the maps up to the top.
    • I got the information to write the article from various sources. I started by obtaining permission to use I then corrected and expanded it by cross checking with many other sources online. I used my personal experience as a traveller to add further information. I took photographs of plugs I own. I requested photos from a camera-wielding Wikipedian in the UK. I proofread and wikified it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 23:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I found it quite an interesting read (yep, I'm a geek) but I think the article needs to be expanded before it can be considered feature worthy. There's really only a small amount of information on each plug. --Zerbey 19:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded? They're saying it's too long. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Support. Nice work. With the current and frequency list moved out and the TOC condensed like it is, the article is much better. Zerbey, just how long do you want the article to be? It's not like we need 2 paragraphs on each plug type. Much more on each would make this article unwieldy. - Taxman 12:12, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, there's only so much to say about each plug.
      • So, then. It seems there are no more objections. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. With the list of voltage/AC frequencies moved out and the maps moved to the top, it is starting to look better balanced. Perhaps not the best prose, but great articles shouldn't stand on prose alone. This collection of diagrams and images is more informative and useful than many articles.
  • Still a slight reservation on the TOC, not because of length, but because the list of Type A,B,C isn't very informative. Would it be an idea to modify the headings to give a little more direction, eg. Type A - American, Type B - American grounded, Type C - Europlug etc. Although this still wouldn't help much if you were looking for the Chilean plug. -- Solipsist 14:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • That's one objection I'd have to the removal of the sub-sections — they are no longer visible in the ToC, leaving just the uninformative "types". — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I've improved the headings. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • That looks better. Is it too late to say I prefer 'pin' to 'prong', or is that as US/UK English language issue. -- Solipsist 19:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • "Pin" sounds great to me, and it's shorter. I'll change it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I still object. The lead section needs to be expanded and the TOC is still a bit too long. I really don't see a reason to have a TOC entry for each type. You could fill the whitespace left of the TOC with a table or an image or two. --mav 06:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, come on. There are headings for each type because that is the logical structure of the page content. The ToC is generated automatically. Already, subheadings have been hacked out purely to make the ToC less "overwhelming". To further butcher the page just the make the table prettier to certain people would be absurd. The length of it is now totally appropriate for an article of this length. The lead paragraph is perfectly long enough and says everything that needs to be said. The main content is where it should be: in the sections. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Here's a version with a table on the side: User:Chameleon/Sandpit2. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:03, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The table does help. If it is added to the article and the annoying "All images are thumbnails" message is taken out, then I'll withdraw my objection. But for the reasons I already noted, I will still not add my support. FYI use a semi-colon instead;
like this
    • --mav 08:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Table added. Semi-colons used for sub-sub-headings. Lead section modified. If you feel specific info is missing from the lead section, be bold and add it. There are no more objections. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:23, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Monopoly (game)[edit]

Quite a nice article with plenty of background detail. Possibly ending up a bit drawn out towards the end. But mostly I think it deserves feature status because Monopoly is a well known cultural icon. You don't tend to think of it as an encyclopedia article, but I suspect many people would be drawn to it if they saw it on the main page. -- Solipsist 11:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Not bad. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but the article would be better if we had a picture of an actual game in process (not to knock the diagrams, which are quite well done). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:26, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • Object: No lead section and table width is too wide, forcing horizontal scroll bars to appear at standard res. --mav 17:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well I've expanded the intro a little, but I agree it could use a little more. I'm not sure that there is a solution to the board diagram issue. We might be able to reduce the text size, or replace them with a scaled down image of the tables which link over to the original tables. On the other hand, I rather felt that the London board in particular is a good example of what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet since many of the squares link through to relevant articles. -- Solipsist 15:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Hey, that is pretty cool. I didn't realize it when I read the article. Exploding Boy 15:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, so with the support of Bryan, the original author of the tables, I've reduced the size of the boards without complicating them too much. They won't go much smaller, and I don't think we should try. Besides, I'm not sure what standard monitor size we are working to. As it was before the boards fitted fine on my 1024x768px laptop display and we have several other feature articles that exceed the width for 800x600px. (Although, surprisingly, periodic table which I expected to be overly wide, has a rather compact table) -- Solipsist 17:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if just for the most complicated wikimarkup tables i've ever seen. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:37, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent article! Support. But: The article notes that "Marvin Gardens" is a misspelling. I've heard that Short Line was, in real life, a bus company, but is represented as a rail line. Is this assertion true? If so, it could be included. -- Emsworth 23:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Aparently. An anonymous user has updated the article to that effect and it appears to be the concensus of trivia on the web. However there is one dissenting view from a local Atlantic City fan at the bottom of this page. Many of the supporting comments use the same wording, so it is possible they are all copied/derived from the one published article mentioned. To me the tram line argument sounds less plausible, so I would stick with the concensus. -- Solipsist 17:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent article all around, and I learned a great deal about this game that many playings never taught me (including some official rules of which I was unaware!) Denni 02:50, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. Nice table. And the strategy and tactics sections have certainly given me some ideas for the next time my friends get together for a game :) Satori 03:21, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm really amazed at how the board was drawn using tables. ☞spencer195 03:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've always loved this article. jengod 19:15, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Enigma machine[edit]

Excellent article. I learned a lot about the Enigma machines from it, and I was extremely surprised it hasn't achieved featured status yet. Detailed, but not so detailed that you're ultimately bored — and quite interesting too. Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. With qualms. This article is currently under review by several regular contributors to the crypto corner. jwr made an invited non-specialist review of it (see Talk) and his comments will be implemented, Real Soon Now. I agree that it is (almost) a feature quality article, and expect that it will be still more so quite shortly. Say in the next week or so. ww 14:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's a very good article, but I have a couple of very minor objections: 1, the writing style occasionally becomes a bit too chatty and informal in parts, and 2, there are an awful lot of brackets. I tend to use brackets a lot as well, but I found it rather distracting when reading this article. With those things cleaned up a little I'd support. Exploding Boy 16:16, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've tried my best to remove some brackets here and there. I'll see what I can do about the writing style tomorrow. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent, detailed article. - Taxman 16:59, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I've noticed some problems in clarity and coverage:
One thing that stuck out is the second paragraph in Breaking the Enigma. It notes "...decryption of their messages was impossible in practice..." and "[British]...and French cryptanalysts gave up...". Later information seems to say that that was temporary in some cases. That section could use some improvements for clarity and correctness.
Also, the section Breaking the Enigma after discussing the initial Polish efforts, focuses almost entirely on the British efforts. Is that the fact that the British were the most successful at breaking the Enigma? The French role is especially lacking, did they accomplish anything? The American role is mentioned in only a few sentances in that section. More could be covered on the Allied and US "industrialization" of the bombs. The intro paragraphs seem to say that the breaking of the Enigma was more balanced than the Breaking the Enigma section does. If that is not the case, either or both could be fixed. Thanks - Taxman 15:59, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
See the recent discussion at Talk for the French contribution. The article is about 39K at the moment and it's unclear how much more detail should be shoehorned in. The comments should answer your question in re the French. As for industrialitzation, there was a serious tug of war over who would have access (and the UK side probably saw control there as well) to Engima decrypt work, including bombe design/construction. USA and USN finally decided to have at some (advanced, high speed) bombe designs and that, according to some accounts, was the straw that broke the foot dragging back. Cooperation on bombe work and Engima decrypts was much less a bone of contention thereafter. Again, should this be in an already (too?) long article? ww 19:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I see that discussion. I'm not asking for more material, just more clarity on who contributed what when. The summary of events on the talk pages shows that it doesn't take much volume of material to be more clear than the article is now about the above points I outlined.
If you're more worried about length, then maybe the article should be separated into one on the machine itself (which the article title is anyway) and one on the process of breaking the cipher. You guys seem to have a lot more material to go in, so it would be a shame to not do that just because this article should really only be about the machine anyway. - Taxman 20:53, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps. There's a number of threads to the Enigma topic, and it is proving difficult to fit them all in: 1) A description of the workings and components of the machine; 2) A history of how the machine was developed and evolved, and who used it; 3) The techniques for codebreaking; 4) The history, people and results of the codebreaking (Ultra); 5) How the Enigma story was revealed 30 years (or more) later. As you suggest, perhaps we should stick primarily to 1) and 2) within Enigma machine, and evolve off the other parts into separate articles (I think User:ww also suggested splitting of the cryptanalysis details); of course, we should leave a paragraph or two for each of 3), 4) and 5) to summarise. Actually, maybe this comment should be on the Talk: page... — Matt 21:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well this will make it to the talk page anyway. I would have to agree this article should focus on 1) and 2) as you have noted, and the rest should be only summarized in this article. There's so much more material about the machine and examples of how it works, that seems more appropriate to go in than the other bits staying there in full detail. - Taxman 12:12, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weakly object for the moment. This is already a good article, but I have some relatively minor areas for improvement: (1) some of the sentences are missing segues showing how the thoughts connect (I'll try to do some copyediting in the coming days), (2) the organization of the article as a whole is adequate but sometimes unclear, and moreover technical cryptanalysis gets mixed in with military history (I think the main issue is to add a paragraph at the beginnings of sections saying what's in the section), (3) some terms and concepts aren't introduced for those who are unfamiliar, e.g. the German term for the Navy, (4) I got lost in the Operation section; since Enigma is inherently complicated, this is not a fatal flaw, but a diagram would be nice, and it would be nice to have some kind of simplified view that gives the basic idea for less mathematically inclined readers who are interested in the history and high level cryptography but not the details, (5) Most of the "Disclosure" section is somewhat POV, e.g. WRT the Luftwaffe bombing of Coventry, it says that Calvocoresssi is better than Winterbotham, but not why; needs more sources or evidence. The article is good, but ideally could be improved before being featured. Zashaw 03:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection. I should say I haven't read the technical sections that closely, so I'm not contradiction Exploding Boy's concerns below, but I think the article's in decent shape. Minorly, the Disclosure section still sounds somewhat POV; I'm not sure how controversial this is, though. Also, there's never any mention to figure #2, although it seems to relate to the text. Anyway, I'm happy with this article being featured. Zashaw 20:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've tried to copyedit the article as best as I can; now it's obvious #4 has a diagram; #5 has been fixed. The's debatable, but hopefully it meets your standards. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it's looking ok. There are still one or two things I'd like to change (some of the numbers still need to be written out rather than given as digits, for example). I'll give it a quick check in a little while. Otherwise, support. Exploding Boy 15:08, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, I have just spent I don't know how long trying to fix the writing in this article. I got about halfway through before getting sick of it. There are a lot of problems with style and clarity. I withdraw my support for now. Exploding Boy 16:35, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
        • Matt Crypto has made several edits since your edit — it seems clearer to me, now, though I'm not sure whether this is more due to your work or his. Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • No, I'm sorry. There are still problems with writing and even, in a few places, with grammar. The article is interesting, but in many places the writing really gets iffy, especially in places where there are technical descriptions. Exploding Boy 11:10, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is an OK article, but 1) Yes, the article is pretty unclear in the technical descriptions, and the Enigma isn't the easiest machine to grasp; I think much of the description needs some heavy reworking, and the liberal use of diagrams is traditional in expositions of the Enigma — we need more. (User:Wapcaplet has kindly agreed to make some 3D models of the rotors). 2) The article fails to even mention several important details, and sometimes glosses over points to the point of inaccuracy (e.g., "Procedures for communicating using Enigma" describes only one of several indicating procedures used for Enigma — for most of WWII, it was different); I've listed some stuff on the ToDo list at Talk:Enigma, and I plan to work on it tonight, but, in truth, I think it's unlikely this article can be fixed up to FA standard before it falls off the bottom of this page. — Matt 01:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it. I am sure it will make the front page soon, but it needs some editing work - for example, I think that Marian Rejewski should be mentioned earlier. Also, the reference to him in Breaking the Enigma chapter is unclear. All the information is there, and after it is slightly rewritten (see above entries), treat my vote as a support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Order of the Thistle[edit]

I understand that this is my second self-nomination at a time. The one-nomination limit, however, was never supported by a consensus; the objections thereto were not addressed. Therefore, I, begging the pardon of all who feel overwhelmed by the number of nominations, nominate the article despite the purportedly legitimate instruction. -- Emsworth 01:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

United States Constitution[edit]

I've done a little work on this, though most of the credit goes to others, so I guess I'll call it a self-nom. This is an excellent article that provides a fine overview of the document, its role, and its procedures. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:33, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

  • Object. The writing of this article is good, but I find the structure to be rather messy and confusing: 1) The history section is very brief, even though there is a lengthy article on its history. I would expect a bit more here than just this short and vague section. Can it at least be a bit more specific? 2) The list of signers could be move to a separate list article. The information is not vital to understanding what the US constitution is, and many articles on the signers themselves have listed signing the constitution as that person's most important feat. 3) The preamble -- just a single sentence -- is discussed at great length, while the articles and amendments are only listed here. This is inconsistent. 4) The "The principles of government" section doesn't seem at the right place between "preamble" and "articles". 5) Many of the articles and amendments of the constitution have long articles written about them, yet they are dealt with here with a single sentence or less. I would expect a longer treatment, especially since several failed amendments get more attention than the parts actually in the constitution! 6) The section on impeachment seems out of place here. Many other issues discussed in the constitution are not discussed in this article, so why is impeachment? If this part remains, it should at least provide some background on why it is in this article. Jeronimo 17:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've tried to address your objections: 1) Rewrote history with more detail. 2) Moved signers to list. 3) Shrunk preamble section, content of which was duplicated at another article. 4) Moved to a more appropriate place in the article. 5) Expanded sections for the articles. 6) Removed impeachment section. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:28, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
      • Support. My objections were addressed satisfactory. I have one minor point left: there are too much links to the original text. It is mentioned in the lead section, in the external links, in the Wikipedia articles on the articles/amendments, so it seems unnecessary to mention it again in the text of this article, especially since several links are dead. Jeronimo 10:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Dealt with links. Thanks for the help. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:25, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
  • There are several errors in the article. For example, the article also wrongly states, "Appointed officials serve at the pleasure of the person or authority who appointed them, and may be removed at any time. The exception to this practice is the lifetime appointment by the President of justices of the Supreme Court and other federal judges, so that they may be free of political obligations or influence." The Bill of Rights section also includes some mistakes. I would most respectfully recommend that this article be sent to peer review. -- Emsworth 21:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course. This is not my area of expertise; my help was mainly stylistic. I'll move this there now. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:00, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
    • I've gone over the Bill of Rights section myself, as has User:Ww, and neither of us could find any blatant errors. Could you elaborate as to what they are, and perchance, how to fix them? Thanks a lot, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:58, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I will go over the whole thing myself later. But some errors that I spotted while skimming through include: 1. The establishment clause, one of the most important clauses in the Constitution, is not even mentioned. 2. The Second Amendment does not guarantee the rights of "citizens." It protects "the people" (under some interpretations, the whole body of the people, not any particular person -- see the Second Amendment article). 3. The Fifth does not "prohibit repeated trials for the same offense"; it prohibits double jeopardy, that is to say, retrials following acquittals. 4. The Bill of Rights section does not make it clear that the first 10 amendments, by themselves, do not apply to the states. The doctrine of incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment needs to be explored. -- Emsworth 15:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks very much. I'll go over it and get back to you. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:03, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)
          • Objections withdrawn, for now. -- Emsworth 16:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Thank you very much for the help; it improved the article tremendously. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:25, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
  • Support. This is topic about which much could be said. This article doesn't even try to say most of that. WP hasn't (most likely) enough disk space. But it gives a reasonable, and well written, brief account which is worthy of featured status. Most everyone will have ideas about additional material that 'should be here' (I did), but there is little unanimity about what. There are sufficient links to keep anyone busy. A good job. ww 18:51, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens[edit]

Self nom. Some people mentioned that this article is also featurable when Mount St. Helens was going through the FAC process. So, is it there yet? What else needs to be done to make this one of Wikipedia's best articles? This article has already been on wikipedia:Peer review for a week with no response. --mav 21:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. My only objection would be that imperial units (feet, miles, yards, tons) are used, but as this is a) a US article, and b) all (or at least all I found) also have an SI equivalent in brackets after them (e.g. 185 miles (300 km)) this is not a valid one. Definitely feature-worthy! Anárion 07:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It would be better if the SI units came first, with the Imperial units in brackets, but yes, it's a US topic, so they can get away with it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 07:59, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. A few suggestions for improvement, though: 1) The lead starts with "is the most significant volcanic eruption to occur in the lower 48 U.S. states". So, what is the most significant eruption in the entire US? Probably a volcano eruption in Hawaii, but could it be mentioned explicitly somewhere? 2) It seems that some terms are wiki-linked several times, such as volcano (also linked from volcanic eruption) and earthquake, or phreatic eruption. This seems unnecessary. (I'll fix this myself if I have time later today) 3) A few terms that are not easily understood are linked to non-existing articles, such as phreatic eruption and cryptodome. Perhaps stubs could be made for these?
  • How about a nice picture of the eruption next to the intro? Everyking 16:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The only nice photo of the eruption itself I could find is already in ==North face slides away== (which ideally should have the set of photos showing the landslide in progress but those are not free photos). How about a before and after photo set instead? As for the duplicate links; those are intentional and should be limited to one link per section when and where it is appropriate (not everybody reads a whole article of this length from start to finish, so links need to be spread around a bit for them). The larger historic eruption was in Alaska but nobody died and little if any damage to property was done due to the volcano's remote location. I'll look up the specifics and add a sentence to the article. I'll also work on creating those stubs. --mav 18:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • OK - image moved up and Alaska eruption mentioned. --mav
    • Stubs, redirects created. --mav
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 11:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, another great article. - Taxman 00:15, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good coverage of the geology, well written. Worthy of featured status. A quibble, though. I was in California driving north toward Seattle on May 18 and stopped at Portland (where there was only a thin ash layer, mostly already gone, to check all the air filters on the engines and get some face masks -- there were only a few(!) left). On I-5 (about Chehalis or so), there was something like 4 or 5 inches (perhaps 10cm) of ash on everything, including gas pumps (petrol pumps for the Continental), several days after the event. The article implies it all went toward Yakima. Not so. And we worried about the disk drives getting eaten alive by invisible grit, too. Even in Seattle to the North. ww 19:04, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Order of the Bath[edit]

Self-nom. -- Emsworth 23:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - Another great article from his lordship. --mav 06:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Emsworth, soon you're going to run out of honours-related articles to get on FA :-) James F. (talk) 16:58, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I would like to see a list of current/past members, or more likely a link to such a list. Jeronimo 15:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • There are probably over 2000 current members of the Order. I doubt that we could have a list on the page, or even on another page. -- Emsworth 16:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't realise there were that many (even though these figures are mentioned in the article). Jeronimo 21:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit[edit]

Partial self-nomination: I've done a fair bit of work on this, although large chunks such as plot and parody were already in place. Angmering 22:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Possible expansions, although these perhaps belong to an article about the whole series: 1) a shot from the series, or from the actors. 2) influence of this series on future science-fiction productions. Jeronimo 06:41, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work.GeneralPatton 13:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Art competitions at the Olympic Games[edit]

Self-nomination. Jeronimo 14:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Object, only for lack of an image gallery. If this is because even fair use images are not possible, I withdraw my objection. Denni 02:30, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
    • What exactly do you want? The article has got several images already. Please be more specific. Jeronimo 07:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support.--Neutrality 03:06, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Concise and covers all the basics well - two things I like to see in articles. One suggestion: Get rid of the passive voice "it was decided." --mav 08:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Warofdreams 15:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, great article. - Taxman 23:33, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Chubtoad 09:12, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dmn 14:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Data Encryption Standard (DES)[edit]

Self nomination. I think this is a reasonably comprehensive article, and (hopefully) reasonably comprehensible; it's structured so that the more technical and mathematical aspects appear later in the article, so (fingers crossed) it's useful to both specialist and non-specialist. — Matt 05:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. A remarkably good article. Perhaps too technical for the main page, but that's not for this page to decide. As an article, I thought (having read it through once) it was very well structured, and not overwhelmingly technical. Our authors on codes and cryptanalysis have done a remarkable job here, and more of their work needs recognition. Jwrosenzweig 18:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A simply fantastic, detailed, well researched and cited article. The one question I had, was isn't triple-DES just as vulnerable to brute force attacks? I thought specialized hardware was able to break that within 24 hrs too. That would negate the "The algorithm is believed to be secure..." sentence. - Taxman 19:06, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments :) Regarding Triple DES, the scheme uses a key of 112 or 168 bits (depending on whether you use the 2 or 3 key version), and that takes it out of the reach of brute force attacks for a while (we can currently attack 64–72 bits, if is anything to go by). There are theoretical attacks on Triple DES that reduce the security to 108 bits (for the three key version), but the algorithm is safe enough in practice. I've tweaked the "secure" sentence to note this. (Triple DES needs fixing, as well). — Matt 12:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Matt's right on this. With an effectively longer key, Triple DES is much less vulnerable than plain DES -- certainly as to brute force attack anyway. But note that Triple DES is a particular use of DES thrice. Not just any such use is adequate. Some are trivially breakable. See the FIPS definition. ww 15:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, thought I'd added my support just above. Support. Very well done, enough non technical stuff for the non technical and the technical part is accurate for the technical. ww 16:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow - great article. --mav 04:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cute page, very complete. Love the diagrams. --John Moser 05:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 14:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An fine representative of what Wikipedia is at its best. prometheus1 08:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Uncontested, August 4 2004

Returning after WP:PR, greets to you all. Self-nomination. I've got pictures, structure, proper spelling, NPOV, and lots of contributed effort from other wikipedians; my thanks to you all. I believe this time, it's ready; but please, don't hold back :) --John Moser 03:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - It had issues before, but I think it's definitely up to FA quality now. →Raul654 04:03, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Protection against malware execution is an important, if obscure and technical, issue. This article discusses one way to address it and does so in an intelligible fashion. Not of general interest (except perhaps those, even the non technical, who have been victims of malware), but that shouldn't be a barrier to featured status. A good job overall. ww 18:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Holy Prepuce[edit]

This article shows in my opinion the best quality of wikipedia: her unusual articles. Its nicely written in a rather detached style. No, it does not have a picture, although i think importing the image of Jesus could be an idea. I think it would look wonderful in the front page. Muriel G 07:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article looks wonderful, thanks to all the ones who time and effort to polish it. I'm also glad to see so many people supporting my view of a wikipedia featured article. Now i shall translate it asap to Cheers, Muriel G 17:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice to see you still around, Muriel. :-) I do like this article -- I wonder, though, if it could be extended at all? Perhaps the addition of a section on, for example, theology (have authors rejected the thought that Jesus was circumcised? should it have gone to him when he resurrected? If not, would amputees lack their limbs at resurrection?)? Or more explanation of miracles associated with it? I know length is important to many people. Otherwise, though, the article is good -- needs sectioning and a little grammar check, I imagine, but once that's done I'd support. I'd prefer more length, though. Jwrosenzweig 18:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • In light of sectioning and Ihcoyc's excellent addition, support wholeheartedly. :-) And really, Smerdis.....Saturn? I didn't know what you meant till I re-read the article -- thanks for the good laugh. Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I nominated it months ago. (Why was it removed, I wonder?) -- Infrogmation 19:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like it to be longer, with sections. It reads like there's more to be said. That's a suggestion, not an objection. Support - David Gerard 19:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I have worked on this article myself, and recently added some thoughts and references as to whether Jesus got a fresh foreskin at the resurrection, so my vote for support would be something of a self-nomination. Perhaps a picture of the planet Saturn could be added also? I'd like to know how the rite of circumcision changed after Jesus' life; and whether it has ever been common for foreskins to be kept as keepsakes. That said, support. Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Just because--well, nevermind, I'll get in trouble. But, support. jengod 21:18, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, good article, although it could use a little more info and I question the usefulness of the "Cloning" section at the end. Everyking 21:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with everyking. Support, with the possible exception of the cloning bit, which seems a little too irreverent/speculative. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:54, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
  • Genius. Fully support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Fantastic. Support (love the picture of Saturn and accompanying caption). --ALargeElk | Talk 13:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but... I'm not sure the picture of Saturn helps. And for the lead picture, I would suggest using a picture of one of the abbeys claiming possession (if one can be found) or a general picture of a reliquary. The cloning section is clearly problematic. The point seems worth making, but currently isn't sufficient for a section of its own. I would suggest merging it with the Allegorical section and giving the combined section a better name. There is also the practical problem that, given the unkowns of immaculate conception, it is not clear that you would expect conventional DNA amenable to current cloning techniques. -- Solipsist 13:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, and btw Muriel a rather detached style. is a priceless description of both this article and subject. - DropDeadGorgias (talk)
  • Support. And the picture of Saturn should stay. The dry, encyclopedic humor is perfect for Wikipedia. --Shibboleth 22:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  •  ! A very readable article. Just in case, though, could there be some references / sources cited? Because it's only just this side of believability... I support if they're added. — Matt 00:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Now has some references. has a good article on this, but I haven't included it as it's quite similar to this article, so much so that I'm guessing one of them was largely based on the other. --ALargeElk | Talk 10:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. 11:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 01:20, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Read the article three times and still love it! -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Common scold[edit]

Self-nomination. We don't have very many law related articles featured. I think this one is intriguing, as complete as I know how to make it, and even contains a surely public domain picture. Smerdis of Tlön 22:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Would it be too much to ask to have an example of an actual conviction from earlier, though? Perhaps the last one to actually be dunked? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:28, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
    • I've added some data that I've found about earlier British prosecutions; but apparently the offence was prosecuted in lower courts and seldom came to the attention of courts that publish records, so that may be hard to figure. Smerdis of Tlön 02:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, quite well written for such an obscure topic. Sam [Spade] 04:20, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 04:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An amusing and interesting little article! Zoney 11:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History of Greenland[edit]

Self-nomination (though I've had some help), and my first at that. Now that I've added some pictures, I thought it might be worthy of nomination – if nothing else, to see what additions people think it needs. -- Jao 13:45, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Great job! Needs only a few things before it's featured-quality. 1) The air base, and a nuclear accident, are mentioned as causing friction between Greenland and Denmark. Why would the air base cause friction, and please mention more details on this nuclear thing. 2) Why was Greenland so dissatisfied with the European union? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:38, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your suggestions. I have tried to address these issues. -- Jao 06:27, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Support. A fine effort. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:19, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
  • Support. I would like to see some references to books (or other media) about the topic. This is especially necessary for the part where there is no consensus about what really happened (such as when the Vikings left, why, etc.). Jeronimo 21:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added another external link about that, so there are now three in total discussing the subject. Do you think this is sufficient, or do we need to attribute each theory to a certain source? (Unfortunately, my primary printed source is written in Swedish, so that's probably not very useful to mention.) -- Jao 06:27, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is necessary to attribute every theory, unless they are very famous or controversial. I think the Swedish book is useful to list, especially if there are no equivalent English works on the subject. Jeronimo 06:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I should note that I wrote a lot of the Viking and Inuit material. I would like to see more added on the details of home rule powers - have they expanded over time? Also I know there is a controversy over pollution at U.S. radar bases in Northern Canada, is it also an issue at Thule? Rmhermen 16:26, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have now added a paragraph about international relations after 1985. I will try to find more information, as I share your interest. The commission report I linked to might be useful, I'll look deeper into it. -- Jao 05:51, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Barack Obama[edit]

I think this article illustrates one of the best points of Wikipedia. There's no way Brittanica, or even probably Encarta, would have an article on Obama at this point in time. It's pretty well developed and been through peer-review. Self-nom. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:10, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

  • Neutral at this time. I think the main reason people outside of Illinois know of him is because of his speech at the Democrats' convention; but the article doesn't have much information on what he said or why his speech was so well received. (I didn't watch it myself, and was wondering.) Smerdis of Tlön 19:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've split off the address into its own subheading and expanded it, along with including a quote and a link to the transcript. Better? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:54, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
      • Much. (I suppose it's too much to ask of a political speech that it be about anything in particular.) Support. Smerdis of Tlön 13:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Part of this problem is that I'm worried about being too POV in the section. Really, the best thing is to read/listen to the speech. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:30, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
  • I don't think his marriage and children are lead section material. The sentence should be integrated into the relevant time period of his life. --Jiang 01:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Merged. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:11, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
  • I'll support once Jiang's objections are fixed. Johnleemk | Talk 05:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. I'd like to know *when* they got married, though, but that's not a major problem. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 01:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's fabulous that Wikipedia can be as thorough and as unbiased talking about current events as it is talking about ancient civilizations or subatomic particles. Fishal 04:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A good example of current events and Wiki being a leg up on dead tree encyclopedias. Andre 06:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Edited to include my signature, with apologies. Khanartist 23:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Alsocal 05:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not an objection, but the article could perhaps mention something about Mr Keyes coming from Maryland to run in Illinois. I hear that the move caused some controversy, considering that he denounced some other candidate (I think Mrs Clinton) for doing the same. -- Emsworth 18:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:59, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Governor-General of India[edit]

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 13:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. James F. (talk) 14:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Demn fine article, my good man. Jolly good shew, what! — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I would support this if the picture of Lord Mountbatten had source and copyright information. Jeronimo 11:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I could not find any information, so I have removed the picture. -- Emsworth 22:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Privy Council[edit]

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 13:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I read this article a few months ago to find out what exactly the privy council is, and found this article detailed and interesting. Dmn 14:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I also read this one a while back, also to find out exactly what the privy council was. Makes you wonder why I didn't nominate it myself, really... Angmering 21:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 00:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. OwenBlacker 15:26, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

2004 Democratic National Convention[edit]

Self-Nomination. I started the speakers list back when it was just a wee stub, but how it's grown! A true testament to the massively-parallel power of Wikipedia that just a week after the convention ended, we have an excellent article comprehensively covering the event in a much more complete and balanced way than any of the traditional news sources. It also seems to have slipped out of the news cycle, so it has pretty much stabilized. Would love to get this accepted and featured around the time of the RNC, to inspire creating a great article for that too. Gregb 23:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Neutrality 00:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic article. This is what Wikipedia does best. Ambi 01:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a wealth of information and details we didn't get in the mainstream media. It's well packaged. --Gerald Farinas 17:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good mix of raw fact-reporting and analysis. 20:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 02:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Good article, great lead section but TOC is overwhelming. I suggest moving the timeline/quotes section to a separate page. That should make this article more manageable. --mav
    • I have proposed a possible alternate solution in a software feature request. Thoughts? Fredrik | talk 00:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • The timeline/quotes should still be moved. --mav
        • I just tried my bestest to move the schedule of speakers to another document. I would appreciate peer review, as this is the first time I've tried to do something like this before, and mainly went off perceived norms of other articles. Full schedule at Speakers of 2004 Democratic National Convention. Do we have a 2004 US presidential campaign template/footer that we can place at the bottom of all these great articles we're making? --Gregb 17:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Good work, but the article could use a broader, historical perspective, looking back to when party conventions actually decided the nominations. Nominating conventions weren't always coronations, of course. 172 05:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)Support 172 19:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wasn't all that kind of hashed out in the link to the separate Democratic National Convention article provided in the introductory paragraph? --Gerald Farinas 17:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What? This is about a specific convention 172. That type of info should be at Democratic National Convention. --mav 06:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Very well, I'll support. Though links to backgrounding articles could be more prominent. 172 19:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Much better! Full support. --mav 00:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Of utter irrelevance to most of the civilized world, regardless of its compositional quality. Denni 00:35, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
    • This is not a legitimate objection. Nowhere at Wikipedia:What is a featured article does it say that the topic has to have relevance "to most of the civilized world". --Jiang 00:47, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Considering that it's one of the few widely-watched political events of the US Presidential Campaign and the outcome of THAT affects most of the world, I would argue that it has plenty of significance. Far moreso than most of the articles on here. Your critism is untrue, as well as not being a legitimate objection as mentioned above. --Gregb 01:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Invalid objection. Take your Anti-American bigotry elsewhere. --mav 03:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice roundup of significant speeches. prometheus1 07:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now.. needs at least *some* non-copyrighted images. +sj+ 02:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • There are currently two images taken by wikipedians in the article. One is the Kucinich interview pic near the bottom. I also added a pic of Boston in the venue paragraph, which also addressed one of the two pictures with no recorded source. Will this be enough? --Gregb 20:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • And I can't count. There are now four pictures that are under a GNU license. Two in the Venue section (one was ever-so-kindly added by Raul654 since my above comment), and two more down in the protests section. This is out of a total of 13 images used in the article. --Gregb 06:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I am really impressed. Acegikmo1 04:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Really well done article, comprehensive and enlightening. On the TV and such here (in Ireland), US domestic news is presented (or not at all) in such a way that one can dismiss the subject, much as the above objector did. Zoney 10:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object - includes at least two images with no information on their source. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 11:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I moved the uncited Gore pic to the speakers page until its source can be cleared up. As for the Kerry picture, it's a really nice one and our only one within the article (besides the pseudo-generic kerry-edwards train pic). I'd love to keep it, and have left a note on the uploader's user page asking for a source. I seem to remember that specific photo being on my local newspaper's front page, but don't know the exact source. An alternate Kerry pic would certainly be welcomed from anyone.--Gregb 20:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I just replaced the final uncited image with another image I found from a different angle of the same instant. As before, the old image was moved to the speakers page until we can clear the source up. I presume this'll be enough for support? --Gregb 03:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Self-nomination. Was previously a good article and a good subsection of bleeding; with the latter merged into the former, I feel that this is now worthy of featured status. -Sean Curtin 06:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Object - Its a good article but the writing is a little anaemic ;-) Sorry, a more serious objection is that some section headings would be a good idea (most obviously for the bit on modern usage, but an earlier section would be a good idea too). Also I would have thought there was a connection to trepanning to be made. -- Solipsist 13:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's a bit turgid. Couldn't it be broken up a bit with sections, images, etc.? — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 23:52, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've split the article into sections and added another image, as well as external links and a little more info. Any specific objections on the style, or other objections? -Sean Curtin 07:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Great! -Sean Curtin 23:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yesterday (song)[edit]

Was nominated about two weeks ago (see Archived nominations), but I'm renominating it based on two facts. Firstly, nobody ever responded to my request to review the article again after I rewrote it to fix much of my bad grammar. Secondly, it has already passed through Peer review; of the three who commented on it, they unanimously agreed it should be renominated. It's probably weird renominating such a recent failure, but I think these are slightly out of the ordinary circumstances. This article's rather content-rich for an article about a song, so it'd be pretty nice to feature it (not feature as in the front page). Self-nomination, btw. Johnleemk | Talk 07:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Strongly support. Ambi 08:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Incidentally, can you do one on Something too? I'd like to see that! Angmering 09:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As I said on Peer Review, this is ready to go live. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:53, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  • Support. Like you said, content rich for an article about a song. Smerdis of Tlön 15:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dandrake 19:20, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fab. Support. And peer review recommendation is an extra bonus. +sj+ 20:08, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Totally support. Whiners please line off at the pit drop zone. Denni 02:21, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
  • Nice! Support. --mav 06:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to include the sound samples in Wikipedia, rather than via an outside link? Otherwise, support. Jeronimo 10:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Not unless somebody knows of an easy way to convert the sample's format into Ogg Vorbis. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Easily done with Audacity. See Wikipedia:Sound (rewritten from scratch by me about 2 weeks ago) →Raul654 23:15, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • We probably should not convert the sample, but find or make a new one. As they say here "converting from one lossy format, like MP3, to another lossy format, like Vorbis, is generally a bad idea." Dan Gardner 04:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Since it's just a sample, we don't have to care too much about sound quality. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 09:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the head's up, Raul. I've added the sample to the article – can somebody please see if I did it correctly? Johnleemk | Talk 12:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not only fab, but totally gear! I am truly in awe. Support!! - Lucky 6.9 23:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support... and I hope Something gets up here soon too. Lyellin 09:38, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Should we really be releasing song lyrics under the GFDL? anthony (see warning) 14:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I have done a lot of work to rewrite this page, so I guess that would make it a self-nomination. I think the topic is interesting and highlights a critically endangered species. --Eudyptes 00:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. 09:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting piece. Angmering 10:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:55, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  • Support. Revth 02:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Fantastic! Support. +sj+ 20:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. jengod 21:27, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Would support if the kakapo image had source and copyright information. Jeronimo 10:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I noted the image has source information added, but judging by that information, the image is copyrighted. Jeronimo 18:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Added {{fairuse}} note. Wikipedia supports fair use of images. jengod 19:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not a lawyer, but don't think tagging "fair use" to an images makes it all well. I don't see any particular reason to call it fair use; the image was just ripped from a website. If we can do this, I might as well take a photo from the front page of my newspaper, and tag it fair use for Wikipedia. I don't think that will be allowed, but you might have to ask others with more knowledge on the subject. A better solution would be to write the owner of the site and ask for permission. Jeronimo 07:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Not as nice, but [1] might be an alternative. It appears to be from J.G.Keuleman and Buller's Birds of New Zealand, which had a second edition in 1888 so will be out of copyright. -- Solipsist 13:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • There's now a new picture at Kakapo and all seems to be in order. Does this resolve the problem? Eudyptes 21:52 11 Aug 2004 UTC
      • Looks good to me. As far as I can tell the new picture is Crown Copyright (NZ) and I've added a tag to that effect. Not as good as Public Domain, but good enough. -- Solipsist 16:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Does that mean that the objection can be withdrawn? I'm unsure on procedure here. -Eudyptes 00:21 13 Aug 2004
          • But the tag that has been added is misleading when it states that the image may be freely reproduced. The website in questoin ([2]) states: "Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. Permission must be sought from the Department of Conservation for its reproduction." -- Emsworth 15:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • The image tag in question is the {{CrownCopyright}} tag, which actually assumes UK Crown Copyright but is the closest match (not sure of the differences between UK Crown Copyright and NZ Crown Copyright, if there are any). Template_talk:CrownCopyright lists the usage with respect to various UK government web sites, but knows nothing of NZ. It may be that the notice on the site is not 100% accurate, but in the absence of any further information we should probably trust it and say that the image is not OK until permission has been sought. I hope that doesn't lead us back to Buller's Birds of New Zealand -- Solipsist 18:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, great article about a unique bird. Lisiate 02:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England[edit]

-- Emsworth 22:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Admittedly some of these are decidedly low-brow, but they are well-known too. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Oppose for now; I was gonna support until I read ALoan's objection, with which I'm inclined to agree. Damn good article, though; I've fixed (and broken-and-refixed) a couple of typos in the article earlier this afternoon, fwiw. — OwenBlacker 13:22, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • All done, except "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived." The mnemonic is grossly inaccurate. Firstly, Henry never divorced any of his wives. Secondly, two of his wives—Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr—survived him. Finally, Henry received annulments ("divorces") from four of his wives, not two: Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard. -- Emsworth
      • Perhaps the 'See also:' section should list annulment in place of divorce then — although the divorce article mentions annulments pretty early on. -- Solipsist 15:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent: unfortunately, that was the most important of my objections (well, perhaps not as historically significant as the Field of the Cloth of Gold, but, not to denigrate Carry On... and Herman's Hermits, certainly the most important in popular terms). At the least, the article should include the doggerel and explain why it is inaccurate. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Object - Should there not be some reference to King's College Chapel, its one of the main places where tourists are likely to come across Henry VIII and it seems to have been a bit of a project of his. First he had it enlarged to show that he was better than Henry VII and Henry VI, who had started it (in fact he had it extended right across the main high street—try getting that past planning permission these days.) Also it contains quite a lot of iconography celebrating his mother and father's unison of the Houses of York and Lancaster, along with monograms and tributes to some of the early wifes. On the other hand, I'm not sure that Henry VIII went there too often, and we don't actually have much to say about it in its own article. Isn't he also strongly connected with Hampton Court Palace? -- Solipsist 15:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- Solipsist 19:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Hampton Court Palace was Cardinal Wolsey's, but Henry seized it and made it his own. -- Emsworth 15:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Should it not also mention Nonsuch Palace, which, if I remember correctly, was built by Henry VIII (the article on Nonsuch Palace is very bad (read non-existent - it redirects to a ship!) at the moment). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) I have created an article for Nonsuch Palace now. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added brief references to his gambling habit, to his musical and poetic inclinations and to the constcruction or remodelling of certain buildings, including King's College Chapel, Hampton Court, Nonsuch and Westminster Abbey. -- Emsworth 15:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I've also added the doggerel, as requested. -- Emsworth 15:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Excellent - 100% support. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I can't help but feel that some of our objections here are a little frivolous compared to all the quality political stuff. Never-the-less we are used to seeing a more rounded picture of Henry VIII, so these things need addressing. If Simon Schama were writing, we would probably have heard of his youth as a 'playboy'. So continuing in the same vein: Didn't H8 also eat for England. We've covered his interest in music, but he is also famous for his love of sports (I've got at least one reference that claims he was responsible for inventing the 'service' in real tennis). -- Solipsist 16:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Henry was supposedly too fat to deliver the ball himself, so he had his servants "serve" it up for him to strike. This story sounds somewhat apocryphal to me, so I have not included it. But, having found many references to his involvement in sport, I have included it in the article. -- Emsworth 17:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - while mentioning the self-proclaimed titles "Lord of Ireland" and King of Ireland in the introductory paragraph - there is no history or background to his Irish endeavours. zoney  talk 16:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • English Kings did not actually do anything in Ireland, as far as I know. The Lord Lieutenant actually presided over the Irish Government. Sometimes, even the Lord Lieutenant did not do anything; for example, Henry was a Lord Lieutenant at about the age of four (as mentioned in the article); instead, lesser ministers were left to control the area. Furthermore, I do not include merely self-proclaimed titles; otherwise, I would have referred to Henry as King of France. He was actually the Lord, and later King, of Ireland, both de facto and de jure. -- Emsworth 16:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Was it not Henry VIII who got the Irish lords to accept him as King, in return he "officially" gave them the land already owned by them? What a neat scam! As regards "English" kings in Ireland, well, there's the example of King James II and William of Orange for one thing! I suspect there's others who had substantial involvement with Ireland. King John's Castle in Limerick was built by King John the somethingth. zoney  talk 13:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • From what I have read, he was rather displeased when the Irish "Parliament" attempted to give him the title King. He supposedly claimed that the royal style was none of their concern. In any event, he is said to have proclaimed himself king the next year in any event. -- Emsworth 13:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I withdraw my objection - but I remain unconvinced that the whole Irish situation as regards his reign is covered. Unfortunately I've forgotten a lot of my school history - so I can't help out. By the way, the article doesn't mention the Irish parliament attempting to give him the title King. zoney  talk 20:22, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a formal objection, but shouldn't there be something about the Mary Rose (an article which seems oddly inaccurate - was she really sunk "while in battle with the French"? I thought that her gunports had unadvisedly been opened in choppy conditions for a royal review and she simply foundered. As I understand it, Henry watched her sink) and the Book of Common Prayer ("the only Protestant service to be finished within the lifetime of King Henry VIII"). -- ALoan (Talk) 01:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The Book of Common Prayer should be mentioned in the article on Edward VI, not on the article on Henry VIII. Henry was a Catholic; he did not sanction the Protestant Book. Edward, however, granted it official sanction. -- Emsworth 01:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chuck Palahniuk[edit]

Self nomination. Unless I'm mistaken, if this becomes a featured article it'll be the first one about a living and still publishing author. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 17:29, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Nicely detailed article that covers most relevant information about his life and work. Sarge Baldy 01:00, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: The introduction paragraph or lead section is too short. -- Emsworth 17:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've extended a sentence and added two more. If that isn't enough, I'm open to suggestions. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 17:27, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's fine. I was just against having introductions that are shorter than proper paragraphs, and my concerns have been addressed. -- Emsworth 19:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - image is not only non-free, but just lifted from NYT source without even a passable fair-use justification - David Gerard 12:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The image (which I didn't add) could be removed for now, and we could replace it in the future; images aren't needed for featured article status, after all. Finding free pictures of Chuck that can be used by us would be tough, unless we could get someone to go to one of his book readings and snap a photo of him (he's done with the Stranger Than Fiction tour, unfortunately, and probably won't have another until Haunted is published). Maybe we could ask at the forums of, but I'm not sure if they'd allow us to ask around there. Still, I'll see what I can do. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 15:18, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • A bit of an update: I have gotten no cooperation from or its members. Neither the people who run it nor the members so much as give me a "no" to donating photos. It appears we'll have to wait until someone who is a Wikipedia member is able to do so. In the meantime, I have added the fair use image of the Fight Club DVD that is used in the Fight Club article, which now also appears in the adaptations section of Chuck's article. So now we have at least one picture that is ok to use (I'm assuming). -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 23:21, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
        • Picture removed. Is this OK otherwise? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:29, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
          • We could still use a picture of Chuck, but otherwise it should be fine to be accepted as a featured article. It probably won't be on the main page any time soon, though. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 17:54, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Speed of light[edit]

Renomination from a couple of weeks ago - I didn't nominate last time, but supported (and made a few edits to deal with past objections). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment:There is no picture in this article. [[User:Avala|Avala|]] 12:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • What sort of pictures would you like? There are some equations. :) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • A laser beam (I've added one) is fine, but what about a diagram of some of the experiments to measure the SOL? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:21, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
      • Would the schematic diagram from Michelson-Morley experiment satisfy you? Not actually measuring the speed of light, per se, though. If someone wants to draw some more diagrams, I won't object. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I've drawn a diagram of the Fizaeu method.theresa knott 18:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I have to object again. The explanation of why nobody can travel faster than the speed of light is short and underdeveloped (in the "Overview" section), mentioning causality and special relativity without explaining either (and the link to causality doesn't mention speed of light at all, so I had no way of understanding). Basically, the history section is fine; but the explanation of why nothing can travel faster than light, and why it's a constant for all frames of reference, is poor, and demands far too much of the reader; I've got no problem reading other articles, but there should be a decent summary or explanation of thorny issues in this article). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:21, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
  • Object: We really should make a better explanation of the constantness of the SOL: It is misleading to say, that this fact follows from Special Relativity. Historically, it was the opposite: The constantness was an empirical observation, and Einstein deduced his theory from this fact which allowed him to be confident in the principle of relativity. In other words: The Michelson-Morley experiment should be mentioned at a central place and not just briefly at the end, and the aether discussion should be mentioned as well. Simon A. 16:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • We are getting into deep waters here. The reason that speed of light is constant is not because it is observed to be so, but because the theory says it has to be. If someone makes a contrary measurement then we will have to tear up the theory and start again. As a historical fact, yes, the theory of special relativity was developed to fit the observations, otherwise it would not be a very useful theory, but the observations only tell you "what" not "why" (which is what Meelar had requested above). There is a short section on and link to the Michelson-Morley experiment - does we really need a longer explanation of a nil result and wrong theory here? However, I'll look at it again. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Id'say the problem is condensed in this excerpt: "Einstein developed the theory of relativity by applying the consequences of the above to classical mechanics. Experimental confirmations of the theory of relativity directly and indirectly confirm that the velocity of light has a constant magnitude, independent of the motion of the observer." Now, this is clearly wrong: The addition formula is a consequence of the theory not a premise. I'll try to rewrite the paragraph. I rewrote the paragraph. Hope you like it. Simon A. 13:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm happy if you are happy. Will you withdraw your objection? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, all fine now. ;-) Simon A. 15:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I've removed my objection as I do not think it is significant enough to hold up featured status. anthony (see warning)
  • Support [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 19:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (Not only fixed what I objected to before, but a bunch more.) Dandrake 17:57, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ancheta Wis 14:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. The article uses the first person; it ought to remain in the third person throughout. 2. The article sometimes gives imperial units as the primary units, with the metric units merely in parantheses. Perhaps metric units should be employed throughout; I do not see the need for indicating imperial units in relation to a science article, except perhaps the figure 186,000 mi/s. 3. Should not the article explore the phenomena experienced by someone traveling at a speed approaching that of light? Time dilation is mentioned briefly; effects relating to length and colour could also be indicated. 4. The article mentions that velocities cannot be merely added when considering the speed of light. Would it be useful to mention the paradoxes that would arise if velocities could indeed be added? For example, I recall Carl Sagan writing something about an individual who observes a collision between one vehicle, oving towards the observer, and a horse, moving on another road perpendicular to the road of the former. If one would add velocities, the observer would notice the vehicle approaching him arrive well before the horse, whilst the rider of the vehicle would himself experience a collision. Perhaps a better elucidation may be made by someone more well-versed in science than myself.-- Emsworth 17:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        1. Can you give some examples of where is the first person is used in the article?
        2. Has someone fixed this? I think metric almost always comes first (and often imperial is not used at all). There is one place where imperial is used without metric ("50+50=100") when the units are largely irrelevant, and imperial is used first once in the measurement section when I assume (I didn't add the facts, but apparently it was England in 1728) the measuremant was actually reported in imperial units. I may have missed some others - again, can you give examples?
        3. This is special relativity rather than speed of light, but I added a brief note.
        4. I think it is pretty clear from 4.1 that you cannot simply add velocities - unless anyone else would like to suggest an example.
      • -- ALoan (Talk) 02:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • The first person was used in section 4.1: "our usual intuitions," "We are accustomed," etc. But I have made the appropriate changes here.
          • Thanks for clarification and for fixing. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that metric units should be used throughout; however, the manual of style would seem to indicate that imperial units should be given in parenthesis. →Raul654 17:24, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't see 'first person'. There is a lot of passive tense. That is not first person. Natural units, which is what many theoretical physicists use, simply make the article obscure. Engineers like the ones in the illustration use imperial units and other non-metric units all the time, especially during experiments, as the standards usually haven't caught up with the science. The units of measure shouldn't be a show-stopper, in any event. Ancheta Wis 17:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • The manual of style is written by some individuals who choose to participate in the process. It only applies in some cases; it cannot be universal. It is, in my opinion, silly to include imperial units in science articles. They are never used, even in the U.S. (where they are most common), in relation to scientific matters. -- Emsworth 19:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Agree that SI units should be used in scientific articles, but I don't think we should have too much on effects as to what happens when the speed of light is approached. That stuff id relativity related and should IMO go on special relativity not speed of light.theresa knott 19:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree metric units should be used in the explaining text throughout, but not in history. For example, if Bradley calculated the speed of light as about 185,000 miles per second, it should be stated just so, just like if Ptolemy found the earth's diameter to be 50,000 stadia or what is was, we write just that. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 01:15, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Emsworth you don't know what you are talking about. US standard units are very commonly used for scientific topics, esp when written by federal government employees. Both should be included and the measured units (in whatever system they were measured in) should be first with the other system in parenthesis. Sometimes that will mean metric (US standard) and other times it will be US standard (metric). --mav 03:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, given that I attend school in the U.S., I know that science classes (at least mine) use only metric units. As for the federal government employees, I would have imagined that they would use SI units, given that they are officially sanctioned by the U.S. government. -- Emsworth 18:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • And where do you think I went to school? Geography clases still use US standard often. Last time I checked that is considered to be a science. If you had stated physics classes, then I would have to have agreed with you. But you did not, so I disagreed with your blanket statement. ;) Either way, having both units will be helpful (see above for the order). --mav 23:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support but would like to see the refraction explained better, an explanation of how light is slowed in a BEC, and a brief explanation of what happens when something travels faster than the speed of light in a material. theresa knott 19:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Avala|Avala|]] 18:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, all units except historical measurements should be consistent in metric units. The "50+50=100" example has no need to use imperial units and thus be inconsistent with the rest of the article. Also, in the "Faster than light" section, the two sentence paragraph on evanescent waves needs to be expanded to at least a summary of what that is and how it is involved in faster than light phenomena. If that can't be done, the section should be removed to the talk page until it can be expanded. In addition it notes - "it is not possible that information is transmitted faster than c." - what about the confirmed quantum mechanical experiments where measurement of the properties such as polarization of one photon instantaneously determines the polarization of the other particle which is too far away for that information to have traveled at the speed of light? My recollection of the physics of that is not perfect, but it does need an explanation in the article, as it is often brought up as a counterexample to the point I've quoted. - Taxman 19:57, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fixed the units of the simple example, expanded reference to evanescent waves, and added discussion of quantum entanglement (which, yes, permits quantum properties to be determined at a distance faster than light speed, but not information). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Nice work, one last note, the section about defining the meter talks more about two other topics. Should the topic heading be more like "Measurement definitions based on the speed of light", or "Definition of the metre and other measurement standards"? I couldn't think of a perfect one or I would have done it myself. - Taxman 00:06, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks - have moved light year part as not entirely relevant to definition of the metre, but discussion of the definition of the second is vital to the definition of the metre - you need to know the length of one second so you can measure how far the light has gone in 1/299,792,458 of a second. I have clarified a little further. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • comment: Speed_of_light#Definition of the metre is getting equal to Metre.--Nabla 12:30, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
          • Ok good work. Now another note, the intro states - "At present, the speed of light in a vacuum is a definition" - which is not correct. The magnitude of the measurement of the speed of light that we assign is a definition, but the speed itself is an inherent quality, not a definition. Also I'm concerned with - "The constant speed of light derives from the Lorentz transforms" - that makes it sound like the speed of light is constant because of the Lorentz transforms. The equations do have a constant speed as a consequence, but they don't cause it. - Taxman 13:11, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
            • "The magnitude of the measurement of the speed of light that we assign is a definition, but the speed itself is an inherent quality, not a definition." That's a philosophical point which to some extent contradicts relativity. While you could say there is an inherent speed of light, there would be no way to measure such a speed, as it is essentially just a conversion factor. I'm not sure how
              • All I was referring to by inherent was that the speed is what it is, and is not affected by whether we give it a magnitude of 299,792,458 m/s or something like 23 parsecs/minute. The way it had been stated was that the speed was a definition. In any case, it is much better now. - Taxman 19:27, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
            • this can be simply explained. I had tried changing it to "the speed of light in a vacuum, in terms of meters per second, is a definition." But I think the truth is actually stronger than that. Also I'm concerned with - "The constant speed of light derives from the Lorentz transforms" - that makes it sound like the speed of light is constant because of the Lorentz transforms. I agree. This is poorly worded. anthony (see warning) 13:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Reworded to: "The speed of light in a vacuum (denoted as c, reputedly from the Latin celeritas, "speed") is exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second, which is approximately 300,000 kilometres per second, or 186,000 miles per second. This exact speed is a definition, not a measurement, as the metre is defined in terms of the speed of light and not vice versa." anthony (see warning) 14:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moving back to the left margin... At Speed of light#Overview there is a factual error. There is stated that «observers in all such frames must observe the same speed of light» because «the speed of light in a vacuum can be derived from Maxwell's equations» and «laws of physics [...] are identical in all unaccelerated frames». The later statement already was part of Galilean Relativity and, by itself, is consistent with the Galilean transformation wich would lead to a variable speed of light when applied to the Maxwell's equations. The speed of light beeing a constant is a postulate of Einstein's Relativity. I wanted to fix that but I am having trouble finding a good phrasing for it. Help is appreciated.--Nabla 16:30, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

I've reworded the first one to "Observers travelling at large velocities will find that distances and times are distorted ("dilated") in accordance with the Lorentz transforms; however, the transforms distort times and distances in the same way so the speed of light remains constant. A person travelling near the speed of light would also find that colours of lights ahead were blue shifted and those of those behind were red shifted."
The section that Nabla refers to was added to deal with an objection by Meelar (see above) to explain "why nothing can travel faster than light, and why it's a constant for all frames of reference". If you can do better, I'd be grateful. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The causality argument covers all that just fine I think, ALoan. Fully support now in any case. - Taxman 19:27, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Phew - I think all the objections have been cleared up, but if anyone is still disatisfied, please comment below. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cold fusion[edit]

I was asked to draw a diagram for this page and whilst there read the article. It look's well written to me and gives IMO a balanced view on a contraversial (and hence interesting subject. Apart from adding the diagram I've had no other input.theresa knott 19:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, Good article. I fixed the American centred bias. Andries 19:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) object, too much USA-centric. Only if people or universities are outside the USA, their nationalities and countries are mentioned. Can be fixed quickly. Andries 19:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As I said on PR, this is a great article. --mav 23:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, well done, detailed article on a contentious topic. - Taxman 00:17, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme)[edit]

Self-nomination. Angmering 16:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. This article contains numerous spelling errors (e.g. "programme"); I'd fix it myself, but I have to update American List of America-related American topics. Seriously, it's a good article, but I think the controversy could be expanded. The word "subversive" is used several times, but what is meant by this is never made clear: who felt threatened and why? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:03, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments... I'm not sure I understand the joke, but I might be being a bit thick! Anyway, I have expanded the "reaction" section with extra details of some press reaction and the Conservative Party motions tabled to stop the repeat, and the worry of its depiction of a totalitarian government. (And to be fair, 'subversive' occurs exactly twice, once in the main intro at the top and once in the relevant section). I'm not sure what to do about 'programme' - I didn't know about having to stick to US spellings, if that's the case, so it seems I shall have to read the style guide a bit more carefully in future. Angmering 17:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, no! I apologize. On British topics, we use British spelling; on U.S. topics, American spelling; on neutral topics (e.g. color/colour) we go with whatever spelling the original author used. I apologize that my poking fun confused you. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:28, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Aha, gotcha! I must be in a very serious mood today... Angmering 17:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Added. Angmering 11:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object with only a few small problems. I must have been on crack this morning. I forgot the comments I made at PR, and didn't notice the same things when I breezed over the article today. One thing I noticed is an unsubstantiated claim - "While the vast majority of the audience were taken aback at the brilliance of the production and..." - how is that possible to know? I submit it is not, so that should be re-written as factually as possible. In a few spots, the writing seems a bit too folksy or colloquial for an encyclopedia article. A few informal sentences converted to encyclopedia style would fix much of that I would think. - Taxman 21:01, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Hello - thanks for the comments. First of all, I'm sorry I didn't notice and act on your comments at PR, but I gave up checking after a few days as nobody had left any comments so I assumed it had slipped out of anybody's notice. You are quite right about the "folksy" writing - I have gone through and tried to remove all of the instances of this I could spot. The worst offender seems to be the "Reaction" section, which I have hopefully adequately encyclopediafied (if that's even a word!). I'd be very grateful if you could take a look and let me know if you think it's now okay. Angmering 21:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Much better. Nice work. Now I support fully. - Taxman 22:27, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Felix the Cat[edit]

Another self-nomination that started out quite detailed, but lacking formatting. Some sections were so well-written that one user accused the original writer of cut-and-paste. I've left those as intact as possible, mostly correcting for little more than punctuation and a few throwaway words. I've been tinkering with the article on and off for a bit, but when I recently discovered that someone had added a terrific section about Felix's use as a Navy mascot, I felt that I had to clean it up further and add some much-needed pictures and additional facts. - Lucky 6.9 22:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. These were on when I was small, and it's been ages since I've seen one. Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Object - (Support really, but a technical objection on the VF-31 logo.) I enjoyed the read, and was particularly interested to find the Poindexter connection. All the images are claimed under 'fair use', which I think is probably fine, however the VF-31 logo has a non-commercial comment which is a problem for FA selection these days. During the discussion of Felix Chevrolet, I missed not having an image of the sign in question (presumably this one), although there is a link at the bottom of the article. The recognised by three-quarters of the world's population claim is very hard to credit, it would be nice to see a reference to show that Felix was well-known in Africa, India, China and Russia in the 1920s. Finally, is there a chance of getting a 'fair use' OGG sound sample of the theme music mentioned, just to jog the memory. -- Solipsist 18:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Interesting comment regarding the VF-31 picture. I'm a tad embarassed that I didn't check the source. The vidcaps came from the website who claimed that they were using them under a fair use clause themselves. The theme music comes up on that same site, so I assume that it might be under their fair use clause as well. So, one Ogg Vorbis coming up. :^) The photo you linked to is the correct one. I've never photographed the sign and I only gave a cursory look for fair use versions. The comment about the world's population was from the original text, but if it's unverifiable, I plan to fix it. - Lucky 6.9 04:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, the slight POV has been fixed. It looks as if the commercial use comment on the VF-31 logo was added by the gentleman who posted the article in the first place. He was having trouble getting the yellow background to render properly and is prohibiting the use of his updated version of the logo for commercial use. - Lucky 6.9 04:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The new insignia, should clear any copyleft problems, and I've moved the question about the 3/4 of the world's population known Felix to the talk pages. Hopefully, we can move it back to the main page once its been confirmed. -- Solipsist 18:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, a very well written article siroχo 16:05, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. What Siroxo said. Ambi 01:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't support or oppose, since I wrote the original piece. But I'd ask everyone to give the article another look -- I just went through and copy edited everything to make it flow better (there was quite a flurry of edits by many authors, which was great, but I think the article reads a bit better now). Amcaja 10:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Great job of readjusting the timeline and condensing some phrases. I took out a few unnecessary commas and "de-breezed" a couple of sentences. If you like the article, you certainly do have the right to vote on it. - Lucky 6.9 04:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - needs a ==Reference== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. ---mav 06:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    I've added the references I used. Lucky 6.9 may have a few more to add. Amcaja 09:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • My refs were memory and each of the listed links. I've changed the chapter heading of the external links section to reflect that. - Lucky 6.9 07:38, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've now added some detail about the 1928 TV experiment and a link to a .wav file of the 1958 TV theme. - Lucky 6.9 02:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Something (song)[edit]

It probably seems ridiculous having three self-nominations (yes, this is a self-nom), but I'm rather free for the next two weeks. I've placed this on peer review already, and I've answered/fixed any problems with the article (I mentioned considering nominating it, and nobody objected to the idea). I've worked hard on this article, but I won't mind if it's found to be in need of touching up, as I'm not exactly the best writer in the world. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Angmering 18:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Impressive detail for a song article — we could use more like this! (Disclaimers: This is one of my favorite Beatles songs, so I may be biased. Also, I'm hoping that featured-article attention will encourage solid contributions to the linked Pattie Boyd article.) Jeff Q 15:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is currently an open question on the talk page for Pattie Boyd as to whether "Something" was really about/inspired by her. If you can shed light there, great; if not then I guess the same question applies to the "Something" article. Jgm 20:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know. I opened the question. <g> I'm looking into it, as I hope others are, too, especially if more attention is drawn to it and this article. At the moment, "Something (song)" mentions both origins suggested in "Pattie Boyd" without calling out either as the "right" one. — Jeff Q 21:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, agree with JeffQ, impressive detail for a song article. I am worried about the fair use image, sorta free is not free, but I'm not sure if there is another option for something like this. - Taxman 21:20, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Dmn / Դմն 23:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - needs a ==Reference== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. ---mav 06:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for making me going rummaging through my week-old internet history to salvage sources. Fixed, anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 07:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey Jude[edit]

See the nomination for Something (song), as the background for this article is exactly the same. Please don't shoot me for having three self-noms. =) Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I've had four at a time before. -- Emsworth 16:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think we need the smutty innuendos ;-)   -- Solipsist 20:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. As I mentioned on peer review, good article. Angmering 18:33, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, nice work. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:30, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
  • Support. Acegikmo1 17:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, ditto my comment for Something, but this is an even better article. - Taxman 21:29, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - needs a ==Reference== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. ---mav 06:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for making me going rummaging through my week-old internet history to salvage sources. Fixed, anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 07:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Richard Feynman[edit]

Found this. Looks good. 20:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Writings fine, though I can't speak to the material. Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:19, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  • No photo, also I'd like to see a bit more on the lectures, these books have to be the most popular series of undergraduate physics books ever written. Everyone who is even remotely serious about physics owns the three volume set. Book three in particluar is very important as it presents quantum mechanics in a back to front sort of way. (I'll work on the article myself tomorrow)theresa knott 22:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Added cover of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. This is a fairuse image, as I could not find a PD image. Different Goverment labs have images, but with unclear copyright. ([3], [4]) -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. "Good" does not equal "one of Wikipedia's best articles." The article as is, is simply too short. A photo would also be nice. --mav 00:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Added material and there are now 4 images.Ancheta Wis 00:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Bio short and unstructured; so much has been written about Feynman that this article should at least do justice to more of his life, with perhaps more detail to some of his work -- individual books, and perhaps his Challenger-committee work. A good candidate for Wikipedia:Peer Review. +sj+ 06:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • More added about his life, Challenger commission, estimate of the reliability of the Shuttle. More about his books. Ancheta Wis 00:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Is there a time limit on the updates? I was working on the article in a leisurely way, and didn't discover the candidacy until today. Is it possible to delay the candidacy until others can see the changes as well? As a former student of Feynman, I could add some little-known details, but if it is a rush job, that may hurt the article's chances for Featured Article. Ancheta Wis 21:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Added more on his life, work, and students. Trying not to hurt the chances for this article.Ancheta Wis 12:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Since you want more time, I'll leave this nom here another few days and see what you can do with it. →Raul654 20:16, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thank you, I added some about quantum gravity. I am thinking of adding some about fundamental processes and Feynman's rainbow. Path Integrals are probably his greatest contribution, so that article might be quoted from. Ancheta Wis 22:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Good material, but I noticed a few things missing. The Feynman Lectures on Physics are considered of such high quality that they are still influential and used in teaching today. A search of Feynman at any university library will likely yield nearly the most results for the lectures out of all works by or about him. Their quality and importance are barely mentioned in the article. In general the section on his works needs to be expanded and maybe separated out of the biography. The article just doesn't feel like it flows as well, nor cover as much as an article on an important scientist should. Additionally, mentioning that he liked to pick locks hardly does justice to cover the zeal in which he was reported to do that in order to show the poor security at the lab, but more especially to just be a prankster for the fun of it, which he was well known for. - Taxman 19:19, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Added short descriptions of the three volumes. I just noticed your critique about the flow of the article. Feynman would have had no problem about the vignettes. My comments about the clear thinking and moral clarity about the man are perhaps the most revealing comments about him in the article. Perhaps I should add more ala Character of Physical Law? Ancheta Wis 11:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I like the addition on the lectures. Still needs more coverage of his antics. Would make the article more complete and interesting. - Taxman 13:44, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Added another drumming and dancing antic, to complement the samba. Ancheta Wis 00:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. Object (temporarily). The presentation of the quotes in the text is non-standard, and not encyclopedic. Also the passage about the blackboards and the frightening non-changing equations is baffling to me. Are the blackboards significant? Why? Why are non-changing equations frightening? If we can fix those, I'll support it.

(I took the liberty of fixing the quotes, but I don't know enough to tackle the blackboard equations). Markalexander100 08:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I dropped the sentence about Ulam. The Manhattan Project, you remember, was full of extremely smart mathematicians and physicists who were engaged in a war. Ulam fully understood the consequences of defeat. If he, as a world-class mathematician could not contribute to victory, then all those smart scientists would know it. Thank you for your work on the quotation style. Ancheta Wis 09:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (not being the one who posted the nomination.)Ancheta Wis 09:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Raul654, I inserted an intro paragraph and formatted thumbnail image on Talk:Richard Feynman; just in case it gets chosen for a Featured article.

Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9[edit]

Re-nomination of an article I wrote some time ago. It's going through peer review and has been reworked quite a bit as such. - Lucky 6.9 23:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • object. lead section much too long in proportion to the rest of the article. Fixed. --Jiang 23:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that looked funny to me as well. I've added a chapter heading to separate the opening. Looks much better, IMHO. - Lucky 6.9 01:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think I remember it's previous nomination - the article looks familiar. Anyways, very interesting. Always, no matter the topic, I like when a Wikipedia (or any other encyclopaedia) article is interesting. Zoney 13:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:23, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
  • Support. Actually I thought it already passed the last time! Securiger 16:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - photo does not have license information. --mav 06:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I had mistakenly posted a couple of other photos that were not useable. Angela removed those but kept the factory photo as fair use. It was from one of the discussion groups listed at the bottom of the article. - Lucky 6.9 18:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I just discovered while adding a taxonomical spec list that the photo also links to Sedan (car). - Lucky 6.9 07:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Lots more taxonomic details added and other details as well. I'd have to add the recommended tire pressures to get it any more detailed. :^) - Lucky 6.9 18:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object slightly. Good stuff, but one troubling sentence is "Today, a 6.9 is a rare and highly collectible yet reasonably priced automobile". Making such a seeminly contradictory statement begs for elaboration. What are prices for them today? If they fetch high prices then what makes them reasonably priced? - Taxman 22:38, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Glad you pointed that out. Now that you've mentioned it, there's a missing line from a previous edit stating that ultra-cherry 6.9s go for about $20,000 in the States, but the market is on its face. A super-nice 6.9 might fetch nearly half that right now. I'll make a tweak to that. Thanks for pointing that out. - Lucky 6.9 01:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Fixed the section in question. - Lucky 6.9 01:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I like the clarifications. I do think though that while the specifications are very valuable information, that they don't fit that well into the article, and the table looks a little awkward there. Moving it into a separate article referenced here would be perfect I think. With that I fully support. Good, detailed article on a unique car. - Taxman 14:28, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England[edit]

-- Emsworth 18:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • support. What more could be said? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support theresa knott 04:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 14:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • My home town, Virginia Water, is named for Bessie. Is the same true of other "Virginia"s such as Virginia? Should these be mentioned? Pcb21| Pete 21:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I could not say about Virginia, Illinois or Virginia, Minnesota. For all I know, they could have been named for the state of Virginia (the same was done with other states, such as New York). But the state of Virginia was definitely named for Elizabeth, and is now mentioned in the article. -- Emsworth 21:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although fairly detailed, it doesn't seem to flow well. It feels like I'm reading bullet points (even though they look like paragraphs). --Rebroad 20:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warsaw uprising

Mary I of England[edit]

More Tudor monarchs with featured articles! -- Emsworth 15 Aug 2004

  • ObjectSupport - another fine article, but:
    1. the last part of the last sentence of section 3, Reign, reads "...Elizabeth was imprisoned in the Tower of London, but was put under house arrest after two months." - was she put under house arrest in the Tower or somewhere else?
    2. section 5, Popularity deals with her later unpopularity (indeed, could be entitled "Lack of popularity"), but not her initial public support (section 2, Accession, says "the country remained devoted to Mary"), and does not explain how quickly her 'approval rating' fell. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I have added the appropriate information. -- Emsworth
  • Object - article is too short for a person this important. I'll work on expanding this on Friday. --mav 06:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded and two images added. Changing vote to accept. I'll change to a strong accept if the lead section is improved/expanded a bit and somebody makes sure I didn't mess anything up (esp British spellings and POV). --mav 08:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your additions. I have checked for British spellings, etc., and will afterwards expand the lead section. -- Emsworth 15:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mutt (dog)[edit]

Self-nom. I think it's ready for FA candidacy. It also deals with an issue (pet overpopulation) that I feel strongly about; the article is pretty thickly pro-mutt, but I want the word to get out there that mixed-breed dogs and cats are just as wonderful pets to have as purebreds. 259 21:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) (this bit edited at 15:56, 15 Aug 2004)

  • I think that the article is a little short. Specificially, the individual paragraphs are not well-developed; five of them have exactly one sentence each, the remainder seem to have at most three sentences each. A well-developed paragraph tends to have (this is by no means a set rule) five or more sentences. -- Emsworth 01:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I see where you're coming from, but as I was introduced to it, the "6 sentence rule" was a maximum; paragraphs were supposed to have no more than 6 sentences. (Of course, when a writing assignment said "write a paragraph", no less than 6 was also normally implied.) To me, though, paragraphs aren't about number of sentences so much as organiztion of information. Also, I tend to write small paragraphs because readers will get bored by and skim over large ones. So I'm not sure I agree with your criterion. 259 04:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • The 5-sentence per paragraph guideline is just that: a guideline. It is not a set rule. But a single sentence does not qualify as a paragraph. In this article, half the "paragraphs" (or, rather, blocks of text begun on new lines) have just a single sentence each. -- Emsworth 14:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I think you're right that some of those paragraphs could've been combined. Thank you. I did some work on that. 259 15:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, after moving to mixed-breed dog. Elf | Talk 00:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) This article is very different from when I last saw it a couple of days ago, and a large number of errors or dubious claims have appeared, e.g., golden retriever is not a mix of 2 known breeds; Muttley is not a common name for mutts (I've known hundreds & have access toa database of many & there's not one muttley)--and this appeared in the first paragraph, removing "heinz 57" which is a far more common reference in my experience; I'm not aware of anyone who considers bitches who have mated with other breeds to be tainted but I'll confirm with more of my breeder friends; Pekapoo is not one of the most commonly named crossbreeds that I've encountered (and where we have no article on this one, we do have articles on other more common ones such as cockapoo or goldendoodle. And more. I'd like to work over this article and I have more info to add but I don't have time today, most likely. Elf | Talk 15:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Golden Retriver as mix of 2 breeds: That was there before I edited it, and I took it on faith to be correct. I will remove it. I'll also take out "Muttley", though I have known a couple dogs named that, and it's also the name of a dog in a somewhat obscure video game whose title escapes me. 259 02:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually what it said was "A mix of otherwise well recognized breeds, ... Many popular breeds today, such as the golden retriever, resulted from such cross-breeding" but it didn't say two breeds specifically. However, this does point out that the original material must all have been much less clear than I thought it was :-) and maybe it's a good thing that the whole thing is being rewritten from scratch. Elf | Talk 01:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I object. Pet overpopulation *is* important, but that is not the main thrust of this article. I have not looked at this article in a couple of weeks, but it has changed significantly. Unsubstantiated information has been thrown in, not necessily in context, controversial positions have not been identified as such; some interesting information has been tossed out and the whole article now needs to be reworked. Some examples that jumped out at me (not using the exact wording here): 1. some pet experts recommend mixed-breeds over purebreeds. Okay, what's a 'pet expert'? And which ones have gone out on a limb suggesting crossbreeds over purebreeds? Their proportion to the other group of pet experts? 2. mixed breeds are cheaper in the U.S. than purebreeds. Way too ambiguous. This is true of some, but have you seen the price tags for some of the '-oodles' and '-poos'? 3. Why should the article be all about the U.S. all of a sudden?

:I would like to see all the recent edits reviewed carefully before this is up for FA. Quill 00:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Now support. Page has to be watched, though, erroneous edits keep making it back in. Quill 02:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would have supported 'Mongrel', but this works for me. Quill 02:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Rename/move article. I suggest Mongrel. Mutt is rather unencyclopaedic. (plus it needs a (dog) qualifier) zoney  talk 13:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, move to mixed-breed dog, keep other terms as redirects. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:09, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
  • Objections: 1. Title does seem unencyclopaedic. I would prefer "mixed-breed dog." 2. The article uses colloquial phrases such as "playing off." 3. Metric units should be given first, and imperial ones in parantheses, not vice-versa. 4. Captions generally need complete sentences. 5. Image:MixedBreedAgilityTunnel wb.jpg should be repositioned. -- Emsworth 14:52, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • 1. Moved to mixed-breed dog. Mongrel would have the same problem that Mutt did--it's also a disambig page so would have to be Mongrel (dog). Mongrel includes link to mixed-breed dog now. 2. Fixed "played off" but I think I've looked at it too much to be able to see colloq's. If someone wanted to identify them, that would be nice. 3. Fixed. 4. Fixed. 5. Fixed. (6.) Also shortened & rewrote Appearance section to be (I hope) clearer & more readable. Elf | Talk 23:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. After reading it top to bottom, the prose seemed fine to me (I didn't notice any colloquilisms, for example). The only thing that seemed lacking as an introduction, and I added that myself. →Raul654 18:51, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge[edit]

Self nomination. →Raul654 07:26, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • SupportObject - good article, but could do with a light copyedit (e.g. "airborn", "Reference" heading, dashes vs mdashes/ndashes). I will do myself if I have time. Also, no discussion of the Battle in popular culture (1965 film, Band of Brothers), nor the previous major engagement (Operation Market Garden, presuambly) or what came next on the western front (although there is mention of subsequent Russian advances). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've attempted to address each of these objections. What do you think now? →Raul654 06:12, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • Great - much better. I've also done some copyediting myself, so I'd be grateful if someone else would read and pick up any remaining problems, but support from me. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Damn - I was going to support but I have to agree with ALoan. --mav 05:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:22, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
  • Oppose, references section needs lots of info (ISBN, year, city, publisher). Also, the battlebox lacks info on previous and following battle. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:55, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've provided the ISBN information for the references - that should be sufficient. Also, previous/next battle was removed from the taxobox standard (it was extremely ugly). →Raul654 07:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Halibutt has good points but I don't think they are pressing enough for me to oppose this nomination. --mav 06:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The allied strength in the table to the right seems wrong. As it reads right now the Americans had 80.000 men and 400 tanks, of which 70.000 men and 700(!) tanks were destroyed. Thue | talk 08:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not that it's wrong - it's specifically dated for December 16 (start of the battle). As the article says, within a week, 250,000 more men arrived (along with tanks, guns, etc). →Raul654 08:56, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • IMO it would be nicer if the total number of participants were mentioned in the table, rather than the number of participants at the start of the battle. Thue | talk 12:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I would have to agree with Thue. The number of participants at the start of the battle is not very useful in a overview table of the battle. The total numbers should be in the table and the number at the start left to the text description. - Taxman 13:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • If there *were* reliable statistics for the total number of people, I would have included those instead. Unfortnately, those numbers vary widely depending on which source you use (mobile warfare in action), and what date they calculate it for There's no true value - for example, I've seen the american strength given as 140,000 in one source, and 500,000 in another. →Raul654 18:02, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
          • Thats fine. Then note the discrepancy and the sources. Noting 80,000 is misleading for the reasons noted above, and even moreso if there is a greater discrepancy as to the actual figure. Put something like "140,000-500,000 from varying reports" in the table. Ok I take that back, just make it a bit clearer, by saying the figures are start of battle strength numbers. - Taxman 15:04, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Edward VI of England[edit]

-- Emsworth 19:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(This only got one vote, so I am renewing it so that other people will vote on it). →Raul654 17:56, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - another excellent article. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 00:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Danny 03:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Color Graphics Adapter[edit]

I did not start the article in question, but have largely rewritten it.
The article rather successfully debunks the persistent myth that CGA only did 4 colours instead of 16. Well worth a read IMHO. Especially if you don't believe what you've just read. Ropers 09:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Really good read. It flowed well. Ah, good old slug-death graphics (cause it'd kill slugs looking at it) zoney  talk 00:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - needs a ==Reference== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. ---mav 06:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Err.. The sources are there, see: Color_Graphics_Adapter#External_links. I only didn't name it "Reference" but "External links" because naming it "Reference" would have made it awkward to include the links to the 160x100 screenshots in the same section, right below the link to their explanation at the external reference site. (After all, screenshots aren't strictly a reference, or are they?) Feel free to suggest a better way of ctructuring these links, but again, I would like to not that they're there -- and the relevant info is covered by in them as well. Please let me/us know if you want to withdraw the objection or whatever. Ropers 06:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
==External links== is a section where links to other webpages that have good additional information on the topic (some people think that that should be merged into a more generic ==Further reading== section, however). If that is still the case for the links listed, then leave them in that section but add (also used as a reference) right after each ext link that was also used as a reference. If that is not the case, then please move those links to the ==References== section. --mav 06:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've made some changes. Is the current version something you would agree with? Ropers 08:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Potentially nice article - needs a rewriter. Arguments aren't suited to an intro (the 16-colour thing). I might have a hack at it later - David Gerard 14:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've gone through the first half, severely tightening (bad style, loaded with redundancy and unnecessarily wordy and clumsy constructions). Even after my changes, it sorely needs going over by a good writer. And someone needs to take on the second half. The article has the content and the references, but it does have severe style issues before being feature material IMO - David Gerard 15:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it! Content is fantastic, however, I agree with David Gerard. It needs some style changes. List on Peer Review? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. Also, some changes have been made. Further contributions and reevaluations welcome! ;-) Ropers 20:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Update: The CGA article has now been heavily edited (with the second half hopefully improved.) May I kindly ask all who previously stated concerns to review and check if the above concerns still apply? If it's still not up to scratch, it would be good to know why (though I'm quite optimistic now). Please check it out. :) Ropers 00:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (particularly as I just went through it again ;-) It's a very nice article - David Gerard 21:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

England expects that every man will do his duty[edit]

Self-nomination. Interesting article about an interesting subject. Neutrality 01:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Interesting, well put together. Comprehensive. zoney  talk 01:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Lacks completeness; I can nothing but wonder why we have an article on this subject, why the quote is famous. It was frequently quoted, yes, but why was it quoted? [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 02:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Second this objection. I know it's important, but why is it important? Answer to this would make a second half for the article - David Gerard 14:28, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Very interesting and good article. The intro could use some help though to help the uninitiated reader. Without reading the article on the battle, my lack of history knowledge keeps me from knowing even what era this event took place. (I know, shoot me, I'm a science/math guy) Also, from the phrase "the British fleet closed with the combined fleets of France and Spain" I infer that is a military reference for the two opposing armies coming together to start the battle, but again I'm not sure. The addition of the flag codes make the article especially more interesting to me. A link to an article about the codes and a quick summary in this article would be great to explain their addition though. Something like ship flags or optical telegraph would be a good start. Is it known the flags shown in the article were the flags used, or were they proprietary, secret signals? The article on Popham doesn't say anything about the codes. - Taxman 17:56, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • the two opposing armies I think the technical term for an army on a boat is a navy. Markalexander100 01:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I think the technical term for boat is ship ;) Tagishsimon
        • to trump you all the correct term is fleet. Mintguy (T)
        • Tagishsimon makes a good point, but the technical name for a boat is "boat". Boats are used on rivers and lakes, are typically propelled by oars or outboard motors, and can accommodate maybe a few tens of people. Boats are what the Canadian Navy uses to impose sovereignty. The navies of Bolivia and Chad also rely on boats. Ships, on the other hand, would have no idea that they had just run over a boat. Denni 01:46, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
  • Shapely. concise. accurate. arresting illustrations. Wetman 01:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ropers 00:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (I used to have a dog named Winston, and I told him this every night when we went walking.) Smerdis of Tlön 02:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
BRAHAHAHA!!! :-D Class, Smerdis, just class!! ;-) :-) Ropers 01:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott Sig.gif]] 13:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It would be better if the table of signal flags were reduced in width, to fit an 800pix monitor (either reducing size, or splitting onto two lines). Curiously the flags on the painting by Turner conflict with the description in the article, which suggests the Victory should be flying flags 1 & 6 during the battle. -- Solipsist 14:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The Turner painting isn't intended to portray a single moment, but instead combines events from several times during the battle; see the more detailed caption to this picture in the Battle of Trafalgar article. Do you think this needs explaining at England expects that every man will do his duty too? Gdr 17:38, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC) (Note that it also shows the signal flying from the mainmast, when it should be the mizzenmast.)
      • Thanks for the explanation. An expanded caption would be too much, but I've copied your text (+ a little more) to the image description page, which is where you would have to go to be able to see the flags are wrong in any case. I hadn't spotted that the signals were on the wrong mast - that's even worse... Those artists eh - they wouldn't know a cannonball if it hit em... -- Solipsist 16:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Very good article; recent changes have taken care of most of the problems. I think the article still needs something added to the end about the quote after the battle: Were Nelson's words widely quoted? Did people remember it? Were those words ever used again to try to inspire others in the future? If we can have at least a paragraph dealing with that, I will change this to an enthusiastic support. -- Infrogmation 15:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 22:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support...but I started the article, so I guess my vote doesn't really count. I think the article needs to say up front how well known the phrase is - as an Englishman, I took this for granted. Then later on, expand on this - a quick google on "England expects" will give you an idea how widely used the phrase is. These days, it's mostly frequently used in a sporting context. Unfortunately, I have very little spare time for Wikipedia these days, hopefully somebody can write a couple of sentences on this. --Auximines 11:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Still object. I made some of the above changes, but some still need to be answered by the author. Also, some of the claims in the article are so specific and authoritative, that they seem to require specific citation for their source. Specifically that the exact phrase is different from the one some of the recieving ships recorded and is on the monument. That needs some additional explanation. - Taxman 13:53, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
I added a note about the evidence for the wording (Victory's log, accounts of Pascoe and Blackwood). It would be nice to quote the relevant extract from Blackwood's account. Gdr 10:51, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
Minor objection. It mention's Nelson's last words as Kiss Me Hardy and has a link to Wikiquote. As these words themselves are the subject of some debate, indeed some suggest his last words were something entirely different, the link should be to a Wikipedia article. Mintguy (T)

DNA repair[edit]

Here we go again. Please be specific and constructive in your critiques. prometheus1 07:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I hate to be a copyright stickler, but two of the three images are licensed as non-commerical, which Jimbo has specifically prohibited. Therefore, I must object. →Raul654 07:56, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, so what sort of licensing options do I have for those 2 images? prometheus1 08:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I object for the same reason as Raul. Copyright notices *directly* on the images also scare away non-commercial reusers, who may be ignorant of copyright law. I recommend licensing the images (hopefully with the copyright notice in them removed — the notice if necessary can be placed in the relevant Image: page) under the GFDL, which mandates credit to the author(s) of the image, but allows reuse by anyone, provided they credit the author(s). Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Copyright has been amended to CopyrightedFreeUseProvided - which I hope is sufficient. Is it absolutely prohibited to have the copyright notice on the image or is this just your view John? I'll remove it only if it is absolutely necessary. Please continue with other objections too. prometheus1 08:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I think it really needs to be GFDL licensed. That would retain the copyright for the author, but gives specific free use rights to others. Otherwise I would support, great material. In addition a diagram in the lead section is always a nice addition for interest, to draw the reader in, and to quickly help explain the topic at hand. - Taxman 15:16, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • That takes care of my objection. As to tagging the image itself - to my knowledge, we don't require an un-tagged image, but we much prefer them. →Raul654 08:21, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • I withdraw my objection but am neutral on this as I very much believe that including a copyright notice directly in an image hinders free reuse. Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've learned a lot just by refactoring this article and reading its references. Autrijus 14:10, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
  • Support. I am happy with the prose now. However, although this is not a formal objection I'll say that I am uneasy as well with the copyright tags on the images. They don't seem appropriate for the free-sharing spirit of Wikipedia. If I understand properly, you want to be credited for your work, and I don't really have a problem with that --- I mainly dislike the (C) symbol, which may scare off people from using the image (I don't know how the other objectors feel about this, though). Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to remove the (C) symbol but not your name and clearly specify that others are permitted to use it, so instead of "(C) Prometheus" you could have "by Prometheus, free use permitted" on the images? --Shibboleth 04:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. While this is a vast, vast improvement over last time it was nominated, it still requires a not-insignificant background knowledge to make sense of much of the article. I understand that this must be difficult on such a technical article, but at the same time, I think we can still do much better. Secondly, I also share concerns about the images. Ambi 12:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • What specifically did you have in mind to make it "much better"? It's not really possible to make an article about a topic like this intelligible to someone without at least some background, so the best that may be able to be done is highlight specific background material. People say this all the time about technical articles, but like I said it may not be able to be done at all, but especially not without specific suggestions. - Taxman 21:22, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ambi it would help improve the article if you could be more specific - you mentioned "much of the article" so I am hoping there are some sections which you find comprehendible in contrast to others which you do not. Once more please be specific and also take care to be fair and contextual in your appraisal - note the presently featured articles : Ackermann_function, Quantum_computer and Data_Encryption_Standard - do you think these articles also need some background? prometheus1 09:20, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I've taken a look at the articles you mention. IMO, Ackermann function would not pass FAC today. Quantum computer, on the other hand, is an excellent example. Despite being a rather technical subject, it's explained well enough that even someone like me can understand almost all of it. Data Encryption Standard is not far behind. I'm having trouble picking out exact points that I have a problem with. As I said, I think this has come a long way - and that I think it is very close to being deserving of featured article status. I just think it needs two things - a copyedit, as far as general wording goes, and further simplification, of which Quantum computer is a particularly good example to follow. Has this been through Peer Review? That might help. Ambi 10:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I've looked at the article once more to find regions of over-verbosity or where technical terms that need definitions have not been hyper-linked or explained in the article and I cannot find any. Can you provide an example of a section or subsection you have a problem with - there are 7 sections and 14 subsections - pick one. prometheus1 22:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Still have yet to hear of a specific contention Ambi. I am more than happy to listen to and act on suggestions but If you cannot provide one your objection cannot be considered fair and constructive. prometheus1 15:36, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I still think the article could do with a bit of work, but it's pretty good, and it's not fair to continue objecting when I can't provide a specific critique. So, as much I still have concerns about the article and the image licensing, I withdraw my objection.
  • Comment. I haven't finnished (re)reading through the whole article yet, but I'm leaning towards support. Technicality shoudn't be a blanket objection. As long as the lead section is generally comprehensible and there are ways to follow links out of a technical article to give you the background on jargon and concepts, that should be enough. The "England expects..." article also being considered here, contains nautical jargon which I didn't know, but with a bit of guess work and following a couple of links I could figure it out. Of course to pass FAC, technical articles still need the be the best example of technical writing on Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 16:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Technicality isn't a blanket objection. Quantum computer is a brilliant example of a good example on a technical subject, and as I've said, this isn't too far off that standard. Ambi 08:55, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support - Well written, interesting, and comprehensive Chubtoad 03:35, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Lovingly nurtured self-nom. Mostly my work, but I've had useful comments on peer review. Markalexander100 07:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Ropers 22:13, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Waerth 11:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 12:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. While I would like to see more information about the food and exactly how it is different from Thai and Laotian food, I certainly wouldn't want to hold up this from being a featured article - Taxman 14:41, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a bit more on that. Markalexander100 03:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I like the addition. Also, I've heard that street venders selling a wide array of food is common in Thailand. And even locals buy food this way, not just tourists. Is that more or less common in Isan? I was thinking less because there may be less large cities in Isan, but the article didn't mention any cities. Are there any significant cities in Isan? What proportion of people live in cities vs rural villages, etc. - Taxman 15:35, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • I've put a bit about cities and populations in the Demographics section, although the names and figures from different years are always going to be a bit confusing. Yes, Isan has the food stalls too, at least in the towns. Markalexander100 03:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic support. Fascinating article, I'm always partial to articles about places. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:11, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

George III of the United Kingdom[edit]

-- Emsworth 02:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. James F. (talk) 00:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:54, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
  • Support. Ornil 22:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Would be nice to have more about George (e.g., the tremendous library he amassed that's now part of the British Library) and less about the general politics and history, but if the typical monarch page is about the period of history during his/her lifetime, then that's that. Elf | Talk 00:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good work here. PedanticallySpeaking 19:48, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • SUpport. Very nice. -Pedro 00:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic Support. Emsworth, you're a huge asset to Wikipedia and we thank you. --Zerbey 19:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Support and I second Zerbey's comments. Excellent work as usual. Now, about those U.S. Presidents you were talking about, Emsworth... ;) Neutralitytalk 05:38, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Bishojo game[edit]

Self-nomination. Quirky topic that sheds light on part of modern Japanese culture. Note that all the images are fair-use screenshots or box art. --Shibboleth 00:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Very informative. Markalexander100 07:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent in every respect. GWO 16:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. "Girls in bishōjo games are frequently kind to the player and open to his advances beyond what would be expected in real life"--priceless, deadpan, encyclopedic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:52, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still lacking in depth from what little I know on this topic. For example, mentions on topics like Otaku and Moe are nonexistant and terminology are too short merely listing types of games. Also, there is nothing on games oriented for girls or why most Bishojo games remain 2D even today. Revth 07:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestions: I've expanded the article along these lines, and added explicit mentions of the terms otaku and moe. (Though if you look carefully, a large part of the article was already devoted to these topics, even if not by name. When I talked about the "dōjin subculture" or Tsutomu Miyazaki, I was talking about otaku, and the "portrayal of women" section discussed "moe" characteristics.) The only objection I was not able to address is the question of terminology: aside from subgenres, "otaku" and "moe", I can't really think of any jargon relating specifically to bishōjo games. If you can name some terms I haven't thought of, I'll gladly add them to the article. For now I've renamed the section "Terminology and subgenres" to just "Subgenres", since that's what I meant the section to cover really. --Shibboleth 16:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Added some jargons and terminology and I think I can support now. Revth 02:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gentgeen 14:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - a very comprehensive article. Denni 17:25, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and comprehensive Chubtoad 03:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - No ==References== section. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Besides that, nice article. --mav 03:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Added. This hasn't yet been the subject of serious scholarship in either Japanese or English (AFAIK sociologist Sharon Kinsella is the only one who has been interested in this kind of thing), so it felt a bit silly to include a formal references section. Anyway, I have pointed to what is available in English. --Shibboleth 04:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - mav 05:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


  • I'm surprised this isn't on Wikipedia:Featured articles already. --Eequor 19:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Very good article. A few copyedits here and there are needed, but more pressingly: The "glass flows" issue has been discussed at great length in the alt.folklore.urban newsgroup, and the consensus there (supported by citations from glass experts) is not acceptable for a Featured Article. If there is evidence against glass flow, we should cite experts themselves, not secondhand through Usenet! If this is fixed, I'll support it. DanKeshet 01:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • A minor objection. "History" section jumps from the Roman Empire to 12th and 14th century with nothing in between. Surely there must have been continous inventions that let Venice archieve such a success. Revth 05:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've tried to bridge this glaring gap, but I'm no expert. Still needs a good copyedit. Bmills 08:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks great. Will try to add something myself, though it's probably going to be sometime in next week or so. I don't mind having it featured as it is. Revth 09:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • mmm, some dodgy parts, stylistically. Overall pretty good, but could use a bit of tweaking here and there, and some of the more obscure scientific terms (such as in the first paragraph or two) should be explained. Exploding Boy 08:36, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Re: toughened glass and laminated glass - there's no mention of a specific issue I've heard of. With large plates of toughened glass used for walls and ceilings, is there not an issue with "catastrophic failure"? A bad batch will just suddenly shatter one day, or one by one over a few days? I had heard of this as a reason for laminated glass - a form of backup. Is this nonsense or is it something that should be included - I don't know any facts bar what I've described. Zoney 14:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)