Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2004

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

This is an archive of discussions about articles that were promoted to featured status. This archive covers articles from July 2004. Warning: discussions are incompletely organized in reverse chronological order.

July 2004[edit]

Russian language[edit]

Self-nomination. I've tried to give an overall sense of the language without veering off into politics, military history, ethnography (well, a very little)... all the stuff that really should be dealt with separately. A. Shetsen 06:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not a linguist, but it seems fairly complete. There are a few problems with writing here and there, so this is a weak objection. If someone with knowledge of Russian and/or linguistics wanted to do a quick edit I'm sure it would be ok. Exploding Boy 16:36, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Could you be more precise? Which sentences do you object to? Otherwise, how can this be "actionable"? A. Shetsen 17:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Copy-editing your own text may or may not be valid, but, at any rate, I've gone over it, eliminating as many passives as possible, breaking up some of the longer sentences, and generally trying to simplify. A. Shetsen 19:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • In action to a comment in Talk:Russian language (unfortunately anonymous) that complained of incomprehensible passages in the treatment of consonants, I've revised the Russian language#Consonants section. Thank you,, whoever you are. A. Shetsen 20:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection. This looks pretty good, but I do have some problems with this article. It looks rather messy, mostly because of the notes (there should be a good wiki-way to include footnotes, I think), and the tables. I realise the note problem is not actionable, but the table problem could be fixed. Probably removing the borders for some tables (especially those with only one row) would make it less messy already. My second problem are the examples. These have little context, and I can only why these specific excerpts where chosen. If it is only to show how the language looks, one or two examples would be enough. If it is attempted to show the evolution of the language, some more context and annotations are needed. I would also very much like a sound sample of the Russian language. Jeronimo 10:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Tables. Are you objecting to their visual appearance, or to their use, period? I've removed the borders. Notes. Do you mean the three or four paragraphs in small print? They define the approach taken to various technical points. If Russian were written in the Latin alphabet, some of them would not be necessary. Originally they were in ordinary print. Do you think that would look better, since the notes would then be in the main flow of the text? Examples. Any language has its cultural context, acquired by native speakers largely in childhood, whether spontaneously or in school. The examples are all schoolbook illustrations of linguistic and cultural development. I've provided notes to each of them, mostly on linguistic points. Any attempt to comment on the culture must be done very carefully, because POV and ideology are involved, both on the part of the reader, and on the part of the writer, as seen in the text. Perhaps the latter POV/ideology should just be picked out by the reader. But I don't think we should pretend there's no cultural dissonance between native speakers of English and those of Russian. Dissonance is not conflict, by the way. Spoken examples. Which ones? What do you suggest? Songs, television broadcasts, recordings of text being read? Also -- I know the Wiki language template encourages audio examples. But I wonder about their utility to someone who is reading the article for a first acquainatnce with the language, and cannot understand it.
  • As for the notes, I am indeed referring to the smallprint text, labeled "Note". But Wikipedia doesn't have a footnote syntax (that I'm aware of anyway). The tables are much better this way; this is much easier for the eyes to read. The example annotations are a good addition, I think. This is sufficient for me to remove my objection. I would still like one or more sound samples, but I don't really care what they contain. Perhaps it would be good hear one of the written samples spoken out loud, but any random sentence would be fine with me. Jeronimo 20:36, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I will provide: (a) audio examples of all the individual sounds mentioned in the text; (b) two or three very short audio samples of continuous speech. A. Shetsen 20:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Exploding Boy 11:20, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. However, are there any well known reference works that could be listed as further reading? (I'm thinking of something roughly equivalent to Fowler's "The King’s English".) Dan Gardner 01:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I used Russian sources. I'll try to find some English general references as well, but after I add the audio as per Jeronimo's request above. A. Shetsen 03:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • While still working on the audio, I've added the references I used, and a few other books in English that I've looked over. Comrie et al on 20th century Russian is what you're looking for, I think. If you want a how-to manual, see the Gramota web link. A. Shetsen 21:56, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Perhaps a few unlinked links and so, but nothing that stops it from being a featured article. Nikola 21:43, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added one-line labelled stubs for all the remaining red-links. They were all for the individual letters of the Cyrillic alphabet... A. Shetsen 22:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Treaty of Devol[edit]

This is a self-nomination, of an article I worked on while I had no internet access (that's the best way to write :)). I know it needs a picture and/or a map, and I will continue to fix the prose a is a little shorter than other FACs, but I think it is detailed enough, it's certainly more info than is available elsewhere on the internet. Adam Bishop 20:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • A few things are needed.
  1. A pic of either of the two signatories (or beter still, both) (or, even better than that, a map of Antioch's location--preferably old).
  2. The article makes reference a couple times to traditional Western distrust/dislike of the Byzantines. Can we get a little background as to why this prejudice existed and what exactly the Westerners did think of the Byzantines?
  3. I'd like a definition of what's meant by "Westerners", for those of us who aren't up on the Crusades.

Thanks a lot, and I'll support once some of these issues are addressed (if no pic is available, I understand). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:39, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I found a pic of Alexius I, and an old map of Asia Minor and the Crusader states...I can't find any more relevant maps, or any pics of Bohemond or Tancred. I have also expanded it a bit, hopefully clarifying the origins of the conflict between the Crusaders and Byzantines. Let me know if it needs to be more clear. Adam Bishop 19:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Nice article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:12, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. One question: Bohemond I of Antioch redirects to Bohemund I of Antioch. Which of these is the name commonly used in English language? Jeronimo 20:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • On the internet "Bohemund" appears to be more popular (and all of our prince of Antioch articles use that spelling), while in scholarly sources "Bohemond" seems to be more usual. Adam Bishop 01:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Impressive! Lupo 20:55, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it's quite good. Everyking 20:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Geoff/Gsl 06:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Black hole[edit]

I have never edited this article, but it seems quite broad, well written, NPOV and interesting. So much in fact, that I'm surprised it is not featured already. - Taxman 23:34, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent piece, it is scientifically accurate and well written. Props to the communtiy.
  • Support. Fascinating read and covers the most recent discoveries. --Zerbey 17:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not qualified to say if the science was right, though I'll take Zerbey's word for it, but very well-written. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:30, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
  • (not a vote) Can we get some pictures showing suspected locations of black holes (say, from Hubble)? Also, can someone expand the lead section? Thanks. Great. Dan Gardner 17:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Lead section expanded a bit. What do you think? - Taxman 17:29, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • (not a vote) Didn't Stephen Hawking say some of his theory on the black hole was wrong? Not sure how that fits in, but here it is. [1]
  • Support. And it has a nice picture too. Hawking did recently announce a modification of his view of black holes as mentioned in the article above. However its a fairly subtle point relating to how information may be released from a black hole and resolves the Black hole information paradox. It looks like User:Stw has already updated the black hole article. -- Solipsist 10:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Order of the Garter[edit]

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 21:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support.... but: (1) "Ladies Companions" could use a brief explanation where it first appears, because it looks like a spelling mistake, (2) the English meaning of the motto should be given where the motto first appears (this could be fixed by removing the first appearance and simply referring to "the motto"), and (3) do "sovereign" and "government" need capitalizing? Otherwise, bravo. Exploding Boy 16:47, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've clarified (1), and followed suggestion (2). "Sovereign," the noun, is capitalised, but "sovereign," the adjective, is not. When referring to "the Government," one refers to the specific body of British ministers (as in the article), but when referring to "the government," one speaks about the general political institutions of the nation. -- Emsworth 17:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lord Emsworth has been doing a ton of edits to the British Honours sytem lately - bravo! --Zerbey 03:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Postdated support. No offense to Lord Emsworth, but I feel that right now, thanks to the thorough and energetic rewriting he's recently given it, the page is basically the work of one writer -- better to feature the article once it's reentered the wikipedia collaborative community. So I vote to wait a month or so. Doops 06:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Clarification in response to User:A. Shetsen: Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. I realize that featuring an article doesn't set it in stone; I merely meant that it seemed to me that it would be more worthwhile to feature the article once it's receieved the benefit of collaboration. Give Lord Emsworth's improvements time to settle in before the article is thrust into the glare of public gaze. :)
Response to A. Shetsen: for my general reply to the notion that this is an "improper objection," see the discussion page. In this case, I protest that I am not objecting to featured status for the article! I'm just asking that it be postponed until other users have a chance to go over Lord Emsworth's work. This includes me -- there are a number of changes I'd like to see but haven't made yet, at first out of politeness to Lord E. (I didn't want to kill his momentum by interrupting him while he was so hard at work), and more recently because I just haven't gotten the chance to make them. But I suppose there was really no need for me to suggest a delay, since featured article nominations are supposed to have a built-in lag time of a week; and perhaps that's enough time for me, or anybody else who's interested in the article, to weigh in. So I'm sorry for bothering you all. Doops 22:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is excellent. BTW, can Doops' objection possibly be in order? Even featured articles can be edited, so says the policy. Sigh. A. Shetsen 06:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Response to Dopps. You raise a point further argument of which will definitely be off-topic, but is important. Therefore, see the new Improper Objections section under discussion for this page. But as it applies to the present article, I cannot see what specific action can be taken to fix your, to put it bluntly, objection. A. Shetsen 06:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin[edit]

Mostly a self-nomination. I am curious whether other folks can follow it, and whether there is too much detail or not enough. Smerdis of Tlön 15:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, a very thorough treatment of the topic, which is far beyond my meagre Latin skills to improve upon. There could be a couple of improvements though - the diagrams showing the vowel shift are rather space-consuming and ugly at the moment, perhaps a table might be a better way of conveting this information (sadly I lack the skills to make a decent table). This article could also go into a languages category, at the moment it is only linked to Ancient Rome, which is rather misleading. Lisiate 23:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Now that both my pints have been actioned my support is unqualified. Congratulations to all involved for an excellent article. Lisiate 21:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, it's a very good article. Could you provide more on the final transition from Vulgar Latin into proto-Romance? That seems to be the only thing lacking in an otherwise excellent general treatment. 03:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This has a rather odd structure. Basically, the info in the 'History' section and the 'What is Vulgar Latin' section should be merged. The stuff in the History section just looks like an afterthought at the moment. Morwen - Talk 17:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I have merged the sections, and added a bit of information about Late Latin being a written norm. Smerdis of Tlön 18:45, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Reads much better know. One little thing - I understand Latin didn't use the definite article, but the daughter languages did. Had this happened in vulgar latin? Morwen - Talk 20:42, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I've also added a section on the (rather obscure) invention of articles in Romance. Smerdis of Tlön 21:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the history section seems out of place. The whole article is about a historical language so the history section should either be expanded to be comprehensive or merged somewhere else into the article. With that, I fully support. Detailed and interesting. - Taxman 18:13, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - no lead section. --mav 10:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I have expanded and given a brief summary in the opening paragraphs. Smerdis of Tlön 18:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is scholarly and well-written. -- Cabalamat 12:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I know absolutely nothing about Latin (and only a little about linguistics), but I was able to follow this excellent article. What would be helpful would be sound clips demonstrating such things as the vowel shifts; I have to admit that SAMPA is Greek to me. :) Denni 20:16, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory[edit]

(Uncontested -- 22 July)

Detailed, well balanced. I love it. Burschik 09:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Object, for now, largely because of the title, which gives no inkling it is exclusively about the Indian subcontinent. In addition to the controversial theories about Aryan invasions in India, there at least used to be controversies about Aryan invasions in Europe. Marija Gimbutas is one of the last academics I'm aware of that accepts this theory. The belief that Europe was conquered or settled by Aryan invaders who displaced earlier people has had important political impacts (see Nazism), and continues to have literary and social consequences — today mostly because of the shared fantasy that Europe was once a peaceful utopia of Goddess worshippers who were overrun by "patriarchal" invaders. The history of these beliefs needs an article of its own, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the Aryan complex. Smerdis of Tlön 15:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, if the title is your only objection, let's change the title. Burschik 09:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) And for a (brief) discussion of the proposed Aryan invasion of Europe, see Indo-European. Burschik 16:06, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Support current name: the theory is well known by that name. Exploding Boy 17:00, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • If the rest of the world, or that small subset of 'em who care, understands "India" immediately upon hearing the words "Aryan invasion theory," I will withdraw the objection. Smerdis of Tlön 18:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • On behalf of the rest of the world, I do. Markalexander100 10:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Not an objection: I see your point, but I saw it and thought "Nazis". They've cursed the word "Aryan" like they cursed the swastika. The explanation in the intro says what it's actually about well enough for me, though - David Gerard 19:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If Smerdis withdraws his objection, is this now uncontested? - Burschik 07:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Coronation of the British monarch[edit]

(Uncontested -- 20 July) Self-nomination. -- Emsworth

  • Support, a great article on an interesting ceremony. Lisiate 02:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 16:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Consider this a support if you add a section about recent coronations.[[User:Avala|Avala|]] 20:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • What is the section supposed to include? The dates are already indicated in a link. The ceremony does not really change from coronation to coronation, except that numerous extremely obscure changes are made: e.g. at Elizabeth II's coronation, the Lord of the Manor of Worksop, who has the hereditary right to carry the Queen's glove, did not participate. -- Emsworth 21:15, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great if you're into that sort of thing. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:39, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
  • Object. It does need to mention the cultural impact of the most recent coronation, particularly the effect it had on television. 20 million UK people watched it, which in 1953 was astounding, and obviously far more than previous coronations. Morwen - Talk 20:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a paragraph; is more necessary? -- Emsworth 03:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I consider that adequate. Morwen - Talk 17:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Exploding Boy 17:09, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Zerbey 17:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:16, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Papal election[edit]

(Uncontested -- 17 July)

Self-nomination. The page was at "conclave," but I have moved it because the article now covers pre-conclave elections as well. -- Emsworth 23:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. 172 17:28, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written and informative. Satori 21:46, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: needs fuller captions. Other than that I support it. 13:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see a need for a fuller caption for "folded ballot paper." That paper is shown to illustrate the notes; essentially, the notes are the caption. In any event, I think anyone can see the relevance of a ballot paper to the election. For the Camerlengo proclaiming a papal death, again the caption explains the relevance sufficiently, IMHO. The only problem is with the Sistine Chapel picture, which I have just addressed. -- Emsworth 14:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This is slightly off topic, but do we allow unsigned votes here? I think we should adopt the same policy as VFD, and only allow signed votes, to avoid dupes. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:57, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
      • FAC is not a vote. Anyone can list improvements that should be made before an article is featured. Pcb21| Pete 23:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting article. Chris 73 | Talk 13:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating stuff. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Can we get a good picture or illustration of the smoke signals? I always wondered what those looked like. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:57, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting, i like it. Gkhan 22:09, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Operation Downfall[edit]

Self nom. It's a little something I wrote. I think it's pretty accurate and complete. Also, regarding the image - I spent 6 months trying to get permissions to use it, but it's basically proven hopeless. There's a GFDL version under construction right now. →Raul654 19:15, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Short but sweet, a good read. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Marlowe 19:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good stuff. 20:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - David Gerard 20:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - excellent article with hopefully easily fixed objections
    • The Estimated Casualties section is a little hard to follow. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th "paragraphs" seem to contradict the 1 million casualty estimate, and a single "however" in the next paragraph suddenly switches gears.
      • The paragraph you refer to was added by someone else later and I've never really liked it. I have removed most of it and refactored the rest. →Raul654 22:23, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • Hmm, I actually thought some of that removed material was making a good point. It was just unclearly written. If the proportion of allied casualties to Japanese casualties was actually increasing towards the end of the war, and the attack points were obvious to the Japanese and they had been heavily fortifying them, and over a million troops were on the home island, then the point that a million casualties was possible is supported. If those facts arent correct, then so be it, but if they are, they need to be left in the article, just more clearly written. - Taxman 14:41, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • (Warning: I am uncompromisingly POV about certain points in this article, as a reading of Talk:Operation Olympic will show.) The figure of one million casualties was what the troops expected in this invasion, & a study at will show that while this high figure might be inflated, the cost in American casualties would have been equal to one-fourth of what had been suffered prior to that point -- & Japanese casualties, both military & civilian (if one can make a distinction in this possible case), many times higher. One might ask which was the more humane act: Truman's order to drop the bomb, or Emperor Hirohito's agreement to an unconditional surrender? -- llywrch 22:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The first sentence in the 5th paragraph starting "however" is unclear - "...higher American casualties to Japanese casualties compared to those before." - before what? Before in the Pacific, or as compared to the D-day numbers just referenced? What two campaigns are being referred to and what really is a campaign? Sorry, I'm just not well versed in military terminology.
    • Maybe it is just my leariness that the categorization scheme will ever be robust enough, but just putting it in a category with no See also links seems to make it harder to access more background articles for the topic. - Taxman 22:14, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite sure what you are objecting to - can you clarify? →Raul654 22:23, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • Simply that the article needs a see also section. See also's are standard in encyclopedia's and help the interested reader find related material better or in at least a complimentary way to the categorization scheme. See also could include links to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example, which currently takes reading of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki articles to get to and certainly provides a contrast to the material in this article. There are others that would be valuable that someone that is familiar with the Pacific theater in WWII could add. For example even a link to an overview of the Pacific theater would be helpful. I think See also's should be standard requirement for featured articles in fact. - Taxman 14:41, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
          • "See also" is depricated - anything that should go in a see-also should be discussed in the text itself. →Raul654 15:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
            • Seems like that would make the text excessively long. Do you have any other basis for calling "see also" depricated, or is it merely your opinion? anthony (see warning)
              • I remember seeing it in some policy somewhere, although such policies are numerous and often obscure. I could, of course, be wrong. →Raul654 02:09, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Uses non-free image that may even be a copyvio. Once the GFDL version is constructed, looks good. anthony (see warning)
    • I found two very nice PD maps to use instead and have replaced the old picture. →Raul654 02:48, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt 00:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gender role[edit]

Just read this. It's very well written, seems quite complete, and deserves recognition. Exploding Boy 05:52, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Minor objection - can you expand the lead section? →Raul654 05:54, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • What, the section above the ToC? I think it's a good intro -- succinct and easy to understand. The concept is fully described in the body of the article. Isn't that how it should be? Exploding Boy 06:04, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • According to the usual Wikipedia News style, the intro for an article that size would want to be about 2 paragraphs, and to summarise the main points of the rest of the article. Morwen - Talk 06:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia: News style specifically says that articles don't have to follow that style. The main article on News style says:
          • The lead is the first sentence, or in special cases the first two sentences. The top-loading principle applies especially to leads, but the unreadability of long sentences constrains the size of the lead. . . . the goal is to articulate the most encompassing and interesting statement that a writer can make in one sentence, given the material he or she has to work with.
          • While a rule of thumb says the lead should answer most or all of the 5 W's, few leads fit all of these in. If they did they would either be tedious, opaque with jargon or too long.
          • The second paragraph is a fine place for vital information that does not appear in the first. At the very end comes the non-vital material.
        • On the other hand, Wikipedia: Lead section says that "the appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs."
        • Now, I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but since there are no specific guidelines, and we can't even agree here, all of this bears fleshing out. Actually, this article's lead section is one paragraph... But I'll see what I can do. Exploding Boy 06:33, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded lead section. Exploding Boy 06:42, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice article. Objection: needs pic, or several. Then support - David Gerard 15:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Any suggestions for photo? The obvious thing would to be have a 1950s-style married couple. 15:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The '50s married couple. Transvestites. Hermaphrodites. Manly men. Womanly women. That's just off the top of my head. There must be pics aplenty already on Wikipedia for the purpose - David Gerard 15:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • What about just a butch woman or effeminate man? Ambivalenthysteria 09:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've thrown together a quick graphic of the mars and venus sigils that are commonly used to symbolize gender roles. I think it would look ok as the graphic for this article on the front page, but it might be too cheesy. If someone finds a better photo (is there something from the kinsey studies that can be used here) feel free to replace it. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:37, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • eegh, that is so cheesy. I'll see what I can come up with. There must be something on Wikipedia already. Failing that, I'll round up TS and TG folks of my acquaintance for the camera ... - David Gerard 13:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. That's pretty impressive, and a lot of the other gender-related articles are horrid. In comparison, I can't find anything wrong with this at all. Ambivalenthysteria 09:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. However, the article would greatly benefit from images illustrating traditional gender roles. 12:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Igor Stravinsky[edit]

Self nomination. Rewrote a short and poorly written article. Marlowe 19:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. However, a nit: the portrait by Picasso is in BMP format; this should be changed to a more standard format. 20:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. EXCELLENT. small nit: city should be called St. P., not Saint P. (here's some trivia: locals never use the Saint except in officialese) A. Shetsen 04:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Changed to 'St.'Marlowe 21:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thank you. No objection even before, full support. A. Shetsen 21:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: really well written and structured article on a major figure. Bmills 10:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object reluctantly: lots of great content. However I think that someone with a golden quill needs to go over it for stylistic reasons; several sentences come across as containing too many commas, being too long or just being a bit clumsy. I've had a little go at fixing this but haven't finished (or done a particularly wonderful job). Lupin 11:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Just spent some more time picking over text and constructions. Ommited some commas where extraneous, and left others where helped with clarity. Also noticed that you and a few others have made some great edits. Hopefullly this clears up your objection.Marlowe 21:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Change vote to neutral. I've just gone over it again, and have made more changes. I think it reads better now, but someone else should read it again I feel. Also, the more I read it, the more the article reads like a eulogy. I think there must have been (and remain) critics of Stravinsky's work who should be given greater voice for the sake of NPOV. Lupin 12:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't think that there is a respectable view that he was a bad composer. (Some people don't like his music, but that's not the same thing as it being bad.) We don't need to mention in every composer's article that some people might not care for his stuff. Markalexander100 02:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • That some "people" may not "like" Stravinsky's music is not at all what Lupin was saying. Actually, among the pupils of Schoenberg and Stravinsky there was quite the animosity. Hyacinth 03:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • There certainly were people who hated Stravinsky's work, and the riot at the premiere of The Rite of Spring is a good example. But, perhaps this is covered in the articles on specific works (i.e. The Rite article)? This biographic article gives a good overview of the man and his music and is pretty scholarly, I think. To me, it reads objectively, does not fawn over the music, but does state he was influential-- which is undeniable (i.e. the quintessential NPOV arguement: even if some hated the music, all would agree that he was a gigantic figure of the 20th century. This is the view the article takes). I suppose this is a long-winded way of saying I don't see any NPOV problems here. Incidentally, could you cite this animosity between pupils of Schoenberg and Stravinsky? If true, that might be an interesting inclusion in this article. Marlowe 21:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (I've been doing the same as Marlowe). Markalexander100 11:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - A good article but it still lacks a lead section which is a basic requirement of being featured. That section needs to be a concise summary of the whole article - where he was born and where he died needs to go in the biography section only. For an article this size there should be one to two paragraphs (a paragraph needs at least 3 sentences). --mav 20:07, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing to Neutral and will change to Support once a slightly longer lead section is developed. --mav 20:15, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Done (two paragraphs of two sentences each, but we can stick them together if you're counting;)). Markalexander100 02:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Expanded lead further. Marlowe 21:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support'.
  • Support. Good article. I might tweak the serialism section some more--needs Canticum Sacrum, Threni and Requiem Canticles. Antandrus 03:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Lead section needs expanding. 2) The music section mentions the "rediscovery of his Orthodox faith in the 1960s"; the "Biography" section doesn't mention this. Orthodox Judaism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity? — Matt 03:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • exised the "rediscovered orthodox faith" line althogether. he "rediscovered" religion in 1926, not 1960s.Marlowe 15:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Expanded lead further. Marlowe 21:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks; it would probably be worth mentioning his "rediscovery" of religion somewhere, — Matt 00:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hyacinth 19:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Tynwald Day[edit]

(Uncontested -- 15 July) This is a self-nomination. It would have been nice for me to have thought of this last month, so that objections could have been resolved and the article displayed on the main page on Tynwald Day (July 5), but since I did not, I presume we will have to wait until next year. -- Emsworth 19:31, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. If Emsworth wants to singlehandedly dominate FA for years to come, who am I to stop him? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Generally a good article, but some repetition needs tidying up. Foor example, these three facts are stated twice: Monday if the 5th is a weekend day, hill is artificial, flag bears three leg symbol. Also, should the flag image be placed by the 1st mention to clarify the symbol right away? If these are fixed, I'll Now support. Bmills 13:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've addressed these issues. -- Emsworth 17:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article about something I had never heard of until today. Jeronimo 10:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article with one nit: maybe its just me that wants see also's but I feel strongly it connects the wikipedia material better, and I usually want to read more about an interesting topic like this. For example, links to History of the Isle of Man, Government of the Isle of Man would help along with others. I've already started it, but I'm commenting here because I think it should be a standard feature of featured articles. - Taxman 14:08, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Obscure stuff like this is what Wikipedia is best at. Bacchiad 03:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Louis Armstrong[edit]

(Contested -- July 8)

I was going to add the picture to Jazz (And still might), but it's so good that it deserves to go on the front page twice. And the article's good too. :) Snowspinner 06:11, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object-comparing to other featured biogarphies-this one needs work! Avala 09:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) btw why do you delete my comments?
    • Stop making personal attacks (In any language) and I'll stop deleting them. Snowspinner 14:29, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • On what grounds? Ambivalenthysteria 09:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Avala, please read the top of the page. You have to explain your reasons for objecting, and they have to be actionable. →Raul654 11:23, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • ok ok I said it don`t be histerical :) Avala 13:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. Ambivalenthysteria 09:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This is an excellent article, and I think it deserves to become featured, but I have a few objections. The most important one is that 1) The image is copyrighted, and the reason for fair use is unclear. The other two are small objections: 2) No books are listed as a reference. There's mention of an autobiography in the quotes section; this should certainly be mentioned, but I'm sure there are many more books that could be mentioned for such a famous person. 3) The legacy section contains three paragraphs starting with "As". This looks a bit ugly, but I'll fix this myself when I have time today. Jeronimo 10:13, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've tracked down the copyright holder of the image and correctly updated the image information and the caption. Since it is from a book of photos, which is our dicey middle ground on copyright, I e-mailed the copyright holder to double check for permission. Book info is being added as I type, and will be in in about five minutes. That should be your objections settled. :) Snowspinner 17:32, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I looked more - this is definitely fair use. Gottlieb, the copyright holder, has made it available through the LOC digital archive. He holds the copyright still, but this is clearly a non-commercial fair use. I've still e-mailed, and when I get a response I'll post that to the image page, but I'm sure we're fine. Snowspinner 18:09, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Great, I'll remove that part of my objection in anticipation of that confirmation. Jeronimo 18:13, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I fixed the other two objections as well. Snowspinner 19:17, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Support. Jeronimo 20:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, because it is a fine profile of one the 20th century's most famous cultural icons, but with one small question mark: Should the fact that an airport and a tennis court were named after him be included under "Legacy"? If this information is to be included, which personally I could do without, shouldn't it be listed elsewhere? -- Viajero 18:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Object. 1) Too obviously written by a fan and needs toning down for NPOV, particularly in the "Legacy" section, but also elsewhere: "The influence of Armstrong on the development of jazz is virtually immeasurable...irrepressible personality... virtuoso trumpet player, Armstrong had a unique tone and an extraordinary talent...masterful accompanist and ensemble player in addition to his extraordinary skills as a soloist. With his innovations, he raised the bar musically for all who came after him...Armstrong is considered to have essentially invented jazz singing...great dexterity as an improviser...greatly skilled...represent one of the greatest achievements of humanity." and so on. 2) There's little mention of any criticisms of him in the article (except the "King of The Zulus" paragraph), which is fine if noone has ever had any criticisms, but that seems unlikely for someone so prominent. 3) The article mentions his film career only in passing ("he...appeared in over thirty films."); I realise that he's not really remembered for this work, but thirty films is significant enough to warrant a paragraph: what types of role did he take: acting, or performing? Any notable performances? — Matt 19:56, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think your desire for criticism is actionable in its current form. That is to say, I don't know of any criticism of Armstrong, but it's impossible to "prove" this to be the case. If you know of criticism you would like added, I'd be happy to, but barring that, there's not a lot I can do. I can't really add information based only on speculation that it might exist. As for the NPOV... I respectfully disagree. I know of no one who seriously argues against Armstrong's influence, talent, or popularity. Part of the articles strength, I think, is it's lively language. NPOV is not a command for flat prose. Snowspinner 20:14, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not objecting to a lively style, but I think this article veers, in places, too far towards "gushing" language: streams of praise and superlatives. It's entirely acceptable to go into detail as to why Louis Armstrong is such a giant in Jazz, but I think it has to be done carefully. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts, though.— Matt 23:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • As to criticisms, I did some digging on the web, and came up with a few. Most relate to accusations of being an "Uncle Tom", also mentioned in the edit pointed out by Viajero below, so I think some more extended discussion about that would be appropriate. I found things like "[Sammy] Davis [Jr] criticized Armstrong ... saying "You cannot voice an opinion about a situation which is basically discrimination, integration, etc. and then go out and appear before segregated audiences ... which Louis Armstrong had done for many years." Davis went on to criticize Armstrong for singing a song using the word darkies. It must be added that Davis was quoted as saying, quite condescendingly: "Louis Armstrong has always been regarded--let me be as kind as I possibly can; I think Louis Armstrong first of all is a great talent--great, as much as I hate the wordage, a great credit to his race, but he has also been regarded by his race as a man who . . . well . . ."" [2] and "Armstrong was criticized from certain quarters throughout his career for “playing the clown” onstage, i.e., for performing a minstrel act." [3]. — Matt 23:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Musically, there seemed to have been some criticism too: " Armstrong's retreat into traditional New Orleans music during the latter part of his career embittered fans and musicians who had once praised his dazzling contributions. He churned out endless versions of "Basin Street Blues," "Do You Know What It Means to Miss New Orleans," and "St. Louis Blues," often employing players who weren't even close to being equals. Armstrong viewed himself as a popular entertainer; he mugged and clowned relentlessly in live performance, to the point that he embarrassed ultra-serious or militant jazz types. Unlike Charles Mingus or Max Roach, who didn't hesitate to speak out against racist injustices, Armstrong seldom made public political comments." [4] — Matt 23:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added a few lines here and there to the effect described. Hopefully this satisfies objections? Snowspinner 00:07, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
          • You've added "For the most part, however, his later output was criticized as being overly simplistic or repetitive.". — Matt 00:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • Ack! I didn't notice that one of my two edits hadn't submitted. I added a paragrah to "Life" as well. It should actually be there now. Snowspinner 00:20, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
              • Ah, thought it was a little strange! Thanks, that certainly helps. I'll mull the "style/tone" thing over a bit, and hopefully have other people's comments. (I've also added a query about his film career). I think this is quite a respectable article, by the way, it's just good to beat on it a bit to make it as good as possible! — Matt 00:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • Movies are fixed. Snowspinner 01:12, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • FWIW: Up until about ten days ago, there was a section called something like "Was Armstrong an Uncle Tom" which had various criticisms, but it was rmoved by user Stevertigo: [5]. Perhaps, Matt, you would like to review that edit and see if there is anything worth restoring. Otherwise, I agree with Snowspinner. -- Viajero 20:38, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Had no notice of Featured article candidate status until I added one today. -- Infrogmation 20:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Have the problem with this article been resolved? →Raul654 22:15, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've struck my objection; I'm still a little worried about the tone, but it seems more balanced than before. — Matt 23:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Father Damien[edit]

(Uncontested -- July 13)

Father Damien - has a picture, and a TOC, and nice prose. RickK 23:51, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Some minor points that need to be addressed. Jeronimo 11:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The external links do not point to anything specifically about Father Damien. Since there are no book references either, there's no good lead given to find out more.
    • A movie was made about his life, but there's no mention of it here.
    • The picture, while so old that it is in the PD, could do with source information.
    • Some of the text seems overly dramatic, e.g. "A surefire death sentence", "sacrificed his life".
    • All my objections have been resolved to my satisfaction; support. Jeronimo 07:16, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • A related point to the overly dramatic text, this article seems to take a very pro-Damien POV. If he's loved by everyone, fine, but there's really no need for things like: "He showed them that despite what the outside world told them, they were worth his own life. He showed them that what was left of their lives was precious. He restored personal pride and dignity." This isn't really a factual statement, strictly; it's just bad prose. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I added details about the photo of Father Damien and edited the main body of the article to address the pro-Damien POV issue and took out all that dramatization stuff. I also added details about the movie, Moloka'i: The Story of Father Damien. --Gerald Farinas 15:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. But it would be nice to have some account of the criticisms that RLS replied to. Markalexander100 03:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I added a treatment of the criticisms of the Presbyterian church leaders of Father Damien, as suggested by Markalexander100. --Gerald Farinas 19:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but some personal details on Damien's life (perhaps before the church) would be welcome. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - the article repeatedly refers to Hawaii as Hawai'i and Molokai as Moloka'i. They are the native language names, but definetely not the common ones. These are distinctly against policy. ("This is an English language encyclopedia, so for most geographical names of large and/or important features (countries, states, continents, oceans, seas, major cities, major rivers and lakes, etc.) the English name is used in preference to any term that is clearly from a language other than English." - Wikipedia:Proper names) →Raul654 07:25, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • While the place names are official under the terms of the 1978 Hawaii State Constitutional Convention, I took →Raul654's concern over the use of the 'okina and removed instances of proper-Hawaiian place names and replaced them with their American translations to satisfy the anti-Hawaiian-language movement that is quite pervasive at Wikipedia (Talk:Hawaii) --Gerald Farinas 14:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now; looks good. Also, Gerald, you should read the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll. →Raul654 14:56, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't realize there was a poll. Thanks for the link. --Gerald Farinas 15:16, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

History of the Peerage[edit]

(Uncontested -- July 10)

A self-nomination. -- Emsworth

  • Yes, again. Great work. James F. (talk) 10:44, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. Satori 18:52, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't say that I can find anything really objectionable in this article. Support. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It is well written. One minor note, the link to James Parke doesn't have an article yet. Other than that, perfect. Revth 04:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - "I've learned something today" Palnu 04:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Another good one. 16:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • (Not an objection) Looks fine, but I have some minor remarks: 1) the Queen Anne image is not dated. I assume it is contemporary (so no coypright issue), but I'd like to be sure. 2) The References section is awfully short, and while the 1911 EB might be a good source and is available only, it certainly doesn't contain recent information, and updated modern views. Any more recent reference works? I'd support with these two issues fixed. Jeronimo 17:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This objection was found under "Hereditary peers" nomination. Since there is no image of Anne on that page, and the References section includes ten references, I presume that this objection belongs in the "History of the Peerage" section? I have therefore moved it. -- Emsworth 17:07, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Queen Anne's image has been dated to circa 1702. As to the references: I added a few works, but only those that I actually used in creating the article (as is the practice for all other articles that I have created). -- Emsworth 17:21, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Just to say I agree with this practice. Adding references just for the sake of FAC hoop-jumping, as has been suggested and indeed implemented in the past, is not a great idea. Pcb21| Pete 18:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now, thanks for the replies (and sorry for the confusion with replying to the wrong article). BTW, I wasn't asking to add more references for the sake of having more references; I just think a good article should include pointers to major works on the topic, even if they haven't been used in creating the article. I helps readers to find more information about the topic if they want to. They shouldn't be added because I (or anybody else) requested them, but because they would improve the article. Jeronimo 20:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would help if the captions were full sentences explaining why each person got his or her picture in the article. Tips at Wikipedia:Captions. Thanks! -- ke4roh 23:45, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with the idea of having complete sentences in captions. In this page, each image is adjacent to relevant content. Hence, it is unnecessary to restate information found in the article. Furthermore, the extended size of the picture box appears wholly inelegant. Thus, I must respectfully disagree with the suggestion. -- Emsworth 00:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • I see your point since the text is so closely tied to the pictures. Different people read the article different ways. When I look at an article, I read the first paragraph (or until I hit information overload for that topic) and scan through for anything else interesting, looking at each of the pictures and captions along the way. Tank reads well that way. The captions tell something about the pictures — and most benefit from it. Admittedly, it's more challenging to write a captivating caption about a portrait, especially in this case, since the information is adjacent in the text — What about putting a teaser in the caption to draw the reader into the article: "William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs bringing a new style of government." Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is. (You might like to see Wikipedia_talk:Captions#Short captions which addresses short identifying captions of objects.) --

ke4roh 02:34, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

      • Agreed; long captions are not a good idea in well-written texts. James F. (talk) 14:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 172 22:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hereditary peer[edit]

(Uncontested -- July 7)

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth

  • Support 172 05:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I like several of the other peerage-related articles too. 19:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - seems rather complete and should do fine alongside the already FA peerage article (other articles in the series also look like they might be featurable). --mav 06:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support this Emsworth work, too. James F. (talk)

Royal Assent[edit]

(Uncontested -- July 7)

This is a self-nomination. -- Emsworth 02:34, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Question: the article on reserved powers mentions Germany, and seems to apply to many nations, while this article only mentions Britain and the commonwealth countries. Where does this apply, and how does it relate to U.S. veto power or the powers of other heads of state? For example, does the Netherlands have royal assent, and how does it differ from the English model? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, the phrase "Royal Assent" is a British one. -- Emsworth 03:24, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, the article's talk page seems to indicate that more countries than Britain and commonwealth are included. And I'd still be interested in seeing how and if it affected the powers granted other heads of state. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added a section on other nations. -- Emsworth 16:30, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • A good article. However, I object on the grounds that it does not cover royal assent in current crown colonies at all. Does, say, the Governor of Gibraltar have that power? Does he ever use it? Morwen - Talk 20:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I object. Royal Assent, when granted under the new procedure created by the Royal Assent Act, 1967, is not notified by Royal Commissioners in Buckingham Palace. The article states, wrongly, that under the 1967 Act´s procedure, Royal Commissioners are also used, but they notify Assent in Buckingham Palace, rather then in Parliament. This is wrong, as I have pointed out in the article´s discussion page. While Assent by Commission is still used in the end of session, and is still a possibility, when the procedure created by the Royal Assent Act, 1967 is used (which is the most common procedure nowadays and which is a different procedure than Assent by Commission), then no Royal Commissioners are used at all. Under the new procedure created as an alternative to Assent by Commission by the Royal Assent Act, 1967, there are no Royal Commissioners. The very text of the Letters Patent show that, under the 1967 Act´s procedure, no Royal Commissioners are appointed. The "Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Procedures of the House of Lords makes clear that, the 1967 Act´s procedure is totally different from Assent by Commission, videlicet: " ROYAL ASSENT 6.172 Letters Patent are issued from time to time to signify the Royal Assent to bills and Measures passed by both Houses of Parliament.; 6.173 Royal Assent is usually notified to each House sitting separately in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Assent Act 1967. Once Royal Assent has been notified to both Houses, the bills become Acts of Parliament. If notification is given on different days to each House, the date of Royal Assent is the date of notification in the second House.; 6.174 Notification is frequently given before starred questions, but it may take place at any break between two items of business, or at the end of business, if necessary after an adjournment. The order in which notification is given is as follows: supply bills, other public bills, provisional order confirmation bills, private bills, personal bills, Measures. 6.175 Royal Assent may also be signified by Commission, as described in appendix H (page 233). --Antonio Basto 12:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Having rectified the article myself, I do now remove the above objection, as long as the inaccurate information is not re-inserted in the article (as unfortunately happened before). --Antonio Basto 00:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

    • I've added information on Crown colonies/ dependencies, and also a passage about ceremony in the Isle of Man. -- Emsworth 00:30, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lots of good detail. 21:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely. James F. (talk) 04:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now - Nice article, but it needs a better lead section. So far I only count 2 sentences in the lead which arguably doesn't make one para when an article of that size should have two good-sized paragraphs in the lead section in order to concisely lead-in the subject. --mav
    • I've added to the lead section. -- Emsworth 18:02, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Support - great work! --mav 21:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. 1) The "historical development" section (UK) doesn't give many specifics as to its origin: Historically, "the agreement of all three was required for the passage of legislation."; at a minimum, a date or two would be helpful. 2) The usage of the Royal Assent needs more coverage, if this sentence is correct: "While the power to deny the Royal Assent was once exercised often..." — when / who excercised it often? The first mention in the history section is about Anne, the last monarch to use it. 3) Questions that might need answering in this article: Does anyone want to scrap the method of Royal Assent, in the UK or elsewhere? 4) Would it be realistically possible for the monarch to veto legislation, or is it all a ceremonial sham? What do people speculate would happen in such an instance? — Matt 02:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) and 2) Addressed. 3) I'm sure that people want to get rid of the Royal Assent. But because it is a merely ceremonial procedure, there isn't any major opposition to it. I think that the argument would almost always fall under broader constitutional reform plans, such as the abolition of the monarchy. But the article, in my opinion, should not be concerned with major constitutional reforms and sentiments directed against the monarchy in general (as opposed to the Royal Assent itself), as such a concern is merely tangential, if not entirely off-topic. 4) This question is the most difficult to address. It is theoretically possible for the monarch to veto legislation, but realistically impossible (this is addressed in the article). The possibility is so extremely remote that speculation would probably be futile. The scenario is so difficult to envision that one cannot say how the people would react. -- Emsworth 14:10, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the additions and answers to the queries; I've removed the objection. — Matt 23:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


(Contested -- July 6)

This was last week's Article of the Week. (I worked on it, so that makes it a self nom, I suppose). It's extremely informative and well written. Includes multiple pictures, and has been read by many pairs of eyes. →Raul654 20:58, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC) (info: Wikipedia:Article_of_the_week/History)

  • Object. That picture of the Siege of Leningrad still lacks copyright info. I've dropped a note on the talk page of the user who uploaded it, but I'd like to get it resolved. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I had a feeling this was going to come up. For the sake of expediency, I have removed the image in question. →Raul654 21:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Great article! 1) I found the start of one paragraph in the lead section quite confusing: "the great Swedish white-elephant fortification of Karlsborg was completed in 1869. One single fortified stronghold, whatever the scale (Karlsborg was conceived as a reserve capital for Sweden), was no longer decisive." — could we reword and add a little more detail to make this a little clearer? 2) In the "Mongol" section, there's a huge quote, and it's not primarily about sieges per se (although it's discussed) ; could this quote be either trimmed down drastically, or summarised ourselves, or both? 3) The article could do with a little more illustration, and I'm sure we can easily find material: for example, in the "New styles of fortresses employed" subsection, we might be able to find an image or diagram of a fortress that's has one of these designs against cannon fire; also one or two pictures of things like glacis, siege towers and so on would really spice up the article. 4) Are there any recent examples of sieges that could be mentioned? The most recent one in the article (unless I missed something) is the battle of Khe Sanh (1968). — Matt 22:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I shortened the Mongol section and removed off-topic info. I also refactored the modern seieges paragraph to make it more on-topic. →Raul654 22:38, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Re: More modern sieges - I don't think it'd be bragging to say a know a fair amount about the history of modern warfare, and I honestly can't think of a single clearcut example of a more modern siege than Khe Sahn. You could put forth arguements for the fighting in Tora Bora, Afghanistan and Fallujah, Iraq, but those are stretching the definition a great deal. →Raul654 23:40, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • Sure, I've struck that objection. — Matt 23:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • As per the objection below, I have added a picture of Cahir Castle. →Raul654 00:19, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
          • PS - I have also added a diagram of a Vauban fortress. →Raul654 07:21, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article looks great, but I have some objections. You'll have my support once these are fixed (or when I'm convinced my objections are invalid) Jeronimo 22:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Only a few sieges are named specifically. I know there's a list of sieges, but some of the really famous sieges could be addressed in this article. Which sieges brought "breaktroughs" or "records" in the field of sieging? Any major sieges that failed?
    • Is there any way to give an indication about how successful sieges have been through the ages? I'm not asking for percentages, just a general indication? Did nearly all of them fail or succeed, or was it more fifty-fifty? How did this evolve? Parts of these are already present in the text, but may it could be more explicit?
    • It would be clearer to state the links in full, rather than just linking the city that was besieged. Battle of Dien Bien Phu is much clearer than battle of Dien Bien Phu, which suggests it links to an article about the city, not the battle.
      • "The battles of Dien Bien Phu (1954) and Khe Sanh (1968)" - how is this confusing in the least? It specifically says "The battles of". If there were only one listed there, it would make sense to link the whole phrase, but since there is more than one, this is the best way to do it. →Raul654 22:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't agree, but I'll not make this a problem, and will strike my objection on this point.Jeronimo 07:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • In the lead section, there's talk of nations under siege, but this topic isn't really addressed in the remainder of the article. Some more words might be spent on this.
      • I have refactored that section as per Matt's objection above. →Raul654 22:49, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • There's an image of a trebuchet as a siege-breaking instrument; it would be interesting to have an photo of a fortification (perhaps de Krak des Chevaliers, or some other famous castle?). This is not part of my objection, merely a suggestion.
  • First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who worked on this. I nominated it because I thought it would be an interesting article, and you didn't disappoint. That said, it needs a certain something. 1) There's very little specific about medieval or especially pre-medieval sieges. 2) The extended section about specific types of fortifications in "Marshall Vauban" cries out for a diagram. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • My addition of two pictures (one of Cahir Castle and a diagram of a Vauban fortress) should eliminated your 2nd objection. →Raul654 07:23, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well done! I think I can support now, though I still wouldn't mind seeing more specific info/description on pre-medieval sieges. Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object (easy to fix) - the lead section is too long for an article of this size (well any size since a max of three paras is recommended). I suggest some condensing (the current lead is the length I would expect to find under a ==Siege warfare== section at warfare). --mav 10:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Intro concise-ified. →Raul654 06:26, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Much better - support. --mav 02:10, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt 02:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mount St. Helens[edit]

(Uncontested -- July 6)

I think this is a pretty exceptional article. Well written for the most part and well illustrated. The only involvement is have with this article (other than a few sp. fixes) is the addition of Image:NASAMtStHelensaerial.jpg. All images seem to be properly documented. Has just about everything I'd ever really want to know about Mount St. Helens. blankfaze | •• | •• 10:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Complete and deep. 11:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. And the separate 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption article seems feature-worthy on its own. Fredrik | talk 11:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, I know! I was half-tempted to nominate them both! But I figured one is good enough for now. blankfaze | •• | •• 11:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Could do with a locator map, such as Image:LocMap CarlsbadCaverns.png. 2) The 1980 explosion is in the "Geologic" history section, when it would fit quite well be in the "Human" history section too; would it be best to have this as a separate section entirely? — Matt 18:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree. I personally think this is a pretty lousy/petty reason to object. This is a pretty high-quality article. Better even than some articles that I've seen passed through here. blankfaze | •• | •• 19:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm the person who wrote the pre-1980 geology history and I put the 1980 eruption text in that section since it is about geology. But even though I'm a main author of this article I must admit that some of the human history and later geology should be disentangled - the events as described in the geology section should concentrate on geology while the same events as described in the history section should concentrate on the human aspects. The human history section could also use some basic expansion as well. So I guess I must also object, but I will try to fix the problems sometime soon. Thanks for all the kind words everybody! :) --mav 03:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • OK - I've moved the human history text from the geology section. Changing my vote to accept but the article could use some more images (esp in history section). --mav 06:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and complete. Second the feature-worthyness of 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption as well. Anárion 08:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. The article states, "Mount St. Helens was named for British diplomat Alleyne Fitzherbert, whose title was Baron St. Helens." I would recommend something like "Mount St. Helens was named for a British diplomat, Alleyne Fitzherbert, Xth Baron St Helens" or "Mount St. Helens was named for Alleyne Fitzherbert, Xth Baron St Helens, a British diplomat." This removes the reference to the "title" of Baron St. Helens (strictly speaking, peerage dignities form a part of the name of their possessors, unlike, say, Mister). 2. Images need information: are they licensed under the GFDL, or are they public domain, or are they (one hopes not) fair use. (I presume that most, being works of the US Govt, public domain works, but the same must be indicated on the image pages.) Furthermore, the first section seems rather cluttered with images. -- Emsworth 02:57, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
OK - all fixed. --mav 05:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt 23:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Russian constitutional crisis of 1993[edit]

(Contested -- July 6)

Self-nomination. Wikipeida's articles on post-Soviet Russia are dreadfully underdeveloped. Perhaps this is the one article in this area that's complete enough to go through the featuring process. I hope that a feature will act as an impetus encouraging some much-needed substantial work on recent Russian history and politics. 172 09:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Images need source information at the very least. Morwen - Talk 09:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. NPOV. Please be careful with using phrases such as "this brutal episode" over and over again. Let the readers form their own impression. While I do not necessarily disagree with any of the views expressed, I believe that the text as it stands is far too tendentious to be featured. Please put in greater analysis of Yeltsin's motivation, instead of setting him up as the straw man for your own theses. It is not for Wikipedia to state that Russia is or is not a democracy, whatever that overflogged word may mean. The trick of hiding potentially difficult points in the footnotes is old and, excuse me, cheap. WITHDRAWN -- see below. 17:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC), i.e. A. Shetsen 17:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So the references and notations make the article less credible? Come on. There are no "difficult points" hidden in the footnote that belong in the main body of the text. Yes, it's called a brutal episode in a passing remark, but the sparing use of emotive references in this article is evident when compared to, say, the article on the Tiananmen Square crisis. 172 16:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, the existence of the footnotes is not the problem. The problem is the basic assumption in the article that the (brutal) episode "proves" anything. Since I've begun to review, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to make changes -- but I would suggest the following points be considered:
The basic fight was over whether Russia was to be a presidential system or a parliamentary system. It was not proven, but rather made the outcome, that Russia is to be a presidential system.
Yes, while tremendous power was effectively concentrated in the hands of the president, in theory Russia is not a presidential system but rather a dual executive system along the lines of the French Fifth Republic. The constitution calls the president head of state but not head of government. Although the president's nominee for prime minister (the head of government) must be confirmed by parliament, the president can appoint and remove deputy prime ministers and other ministers without needing parliamentary consent. These decisions are, nonetheless, to be made upon the proposal of the prime minister. On this point the president's power is the same as that of the French president, and the language of the relevant provisions of the two constitutions the same. As in France, therefore, the Russian constitution seems to allow a good deal of room for variation in the possible relationship between a president and a prime minister. The key difference is that the power-sharing arrangement does not really work in Russia, with its weak party system. Although the sentences that you're calling into question can e clarified, they are statements of the discrepancies in real and nominal presidential powers. 172 00:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Consequences of the crisis included the present constitution, the present system of economy, and -- quite important -- the contiued weakness of political parties in Russia.
The first of the three can be addressed in detail in this article, and it is toward the end of the entry. The second and third points are better addressed in history of post-Soviet Russia and politics of Russia, as they are.
Prvatization was allowed to come in the fashion then favoured by the USA (which strongly supported Yeltsin's actions at the time). 172 00:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Again, this is addressed in history of post-Soviet Russia, and politics of Russia. 172 00:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The other comment I have is about the general style of the article. It reads like telejournalism, with Yeltsin being the villain of the hour. Not for something ten years old, surely. No generalizations of it can yet be proven, but may I suggest restructuring the article on the following top-level sections:
background (political, economic, external pressures)
events (internal: event/reaction, external reaction)
consequences (political, economic, external relations)

And please, please, don't make villains of anyone.

The content on the background and consequences is there; you seem to be ignoring everything but the middle part of the article on the shelling of the White House. The first section clearly establishes this as a two-way power struggle, so you can't say that someone is being picked out to be "made a villain" in the article. 172 00:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I should say that the text is quite as exciting as not-bad telejournalism -- that's a plus -- but I still have doubts on its impartiality. A. Shetsen 16:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Telejournalism" is now a term of derision? I usually get attacked for not following "news style" (by User:Maveric149, a strong advocate of news style, in particular). But now I'm getting attacked for following news style? At any rate, go look through the other English-language overviews of the crisis online, and you won't find anything better: you'll only find worse examples of "telejournalism." Just about everything else online is going to be a hell of a lot more slanted than this article-- the only difference is that it's slanted against the parliament, painting it as a another hardline communist coup attempt (like 8/91), not the mutual power struggle that it really was. I make no apologies for not bothering to spew the Yeltsin propaganda line as matter-of-fact. 172 00:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Now I'm attacked" - this is about the article, not about you personally. That's an important distinction to keep in mind, particularly on FAC - David Gerard 09:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
With all due respect, you make it sound worse by cherry-picking this line out of the context of the more complicated point that I'm trying to make. I'm not taking the criticism personally, as you strike me as suggesting. But I was suggesting that critiques of the styles of articles might be based on personal stylistic preferences.
Fair enough. Sorry.
For example, one user criticized Origins of the American Civil War for not following news style. But on this article the text is being criticized for following news style. Some users simply prefer news style; others do not. When it comes to articles like these, there is probably no way to please everyone. 172 10:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to FAC, here's your accordion ;-) - David Gerard 11:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Great lead section and summary of events! There are some NPOV issues but I don't think they are bad enough to block featured status. Oh and 172 - I support summary style, not news style and I've never attacked you. Summary style, BTW, allows the reader to have a choice between different sized summaries; short vs long. People who want the short summary will read the survey article whose sections ideally all contain a short summary and a 'Main article' link. People who want a complete article on the topic that the survey section covers can go directly to the article on that topic. And so on and so on until a topic is very thoroughly covered without overwhelming users with too much detail up front. That way both user types are served. --mav 08:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's great that the article's getting support from the user who taught me news sytle summary style, which is definitely the best way to approach recent history on WP, I'm finding. BTW, I meant that you criticized the article because of stylistic concerns, but I might not have been clear. 172 12:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Until (1) all mentions of "illegality" are put into neutral language (not "something is illegal", but "something contravened article xxx of yyy", (CHECK!) (2) all mentions of "brutality", etc are eliminated (and replaced with figures, presented in neutral language, "XXX wre killed"), (CHECK!) (3) the legal aspects of both the parliament's position as well as the presidents's are dealt with in the same way ("supported by xxx, opposed by yyy", where xxx and yyy are (a) laws, (b) internal entities, (c) external entities, (CHECK!) (4) longer-term consequences are analysed, as close as possible to the present day (or, if not analysed, fully linked to), my objection remains. WITHDRAWN - see below. A. Shetsen 19:54, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see where the article makes emotive references to the street fighting (BTW, the word "brutal" no longer appears in the article). Once again, the article's prose is quite plain spoken in this regard next to that of Tiananmen Square crisis of 1989. And it already explicitly states a couple of times that 187 had died in the conflict and 437 had been wounded, according to Russian police figures released on 10/8/93. Longer-term consequences are also already analyzed. There is an overview of how the government is structured under the constitution passed in 1993 and the strong presidential system toward the end. The crisis certainly laid the groundwork for Yeltsin's privatization scheme in the mid-1990s and the further weakening of parties, but this broader view is more appropriate for the articles on post-Soviet Russian history and politics, to which this article is linked. 172 04:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To achieve NPOV, you must not say that "A proves B" or "A serves to prove B": political history is not mathematics. Everywhere you are tempted to say it, QUOTE somebody saying it. Not that it will necessary make the article balanced (I note others have chimed in), but it would be enough. Since history did not end in 1993, Fukuyama notwithstanding, you'd better put in a little about what the longer term effects were. If you think well, two sentences should suffice. Too bad such conclusions can't be written news-style. Do that and I'll swallow the objection if not all of my reservations.A. Shetsen 04:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with you more. (As a historian, BTW, I have tried to argue countless times myself that 'A does not prove B' in history to often deaf on Wikipedia-- and I'm sure that Mav, among others can attest to this. And no one has ever insinuated that I buy into Fukuyama's thesis.) Moving on from this digression, there were indeed a couple of sentences suggesting that the crisis was emblematic of executive-legislative balance in what observers like Guillermo O'Donnell call "delegative democracies." They were indeed hastily and poorly worded and misleading (keep in mind that I was trying to make this understandable and accessible to the broadest audience possible), but they were already revised/removed thanks to your observations. I also agree that two sentences written in news style do not suffice when it comes to analysis of the longer term effects. That's why the article goes into the longer term consequences in far greater detail than you suggest and links to several articles that can offer this broader view (economy, history, politics of post-Soviet Russia). 172 05:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK. Fair enough. OBJECTION WITHDRAWN. A. Shetsen 05:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Some nitpicks: 1) The "Yeltsin's suspension of parliament" and "Origins of the crisis" section need one or two more subsections to break up the lengthy text. 2) "After ten days, Yeltsin fell back on his support in the army seized the White House by force." — currently doesn't quite make sense; not sure what the intended meaning is otherwise I'd correct it myself. 3) There are a batch of one or two-sentence paragraphs in "The shelling of the Russian White House"; could these be merged into larger paragraphs? Comment: After a naive reading of this article, I get the impression there's an anti-Yeltsin POV, but since I know nothing about Russian history or politics I won't sustain an objection over it. — Matt 01:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the observations. I took a look and was able to make some changes. 172 04:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks — the subsections make it quite a bit more accessible. — Matt 02:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 1. There is no "References section." I noticed at least one external link in the middl of the article; this, in my opinion, should not appear in the middle, but rarther at the end. 2. Sections should not have just a single subsection. The subsection "December 12, 1993 Duma elections" should be merged with "Yeltsin's consolidation of power." Perhaps all sub-subsections of "The intensifying executive-legislative power struggle" can be merged as well, but this is not required. -- Emsworth 15:27, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
    Good observations. [6] The notes (renamed notes and references), though, is a references section. IMHO, this is better than just listing the references, as it allows a reader to look up the sources point by point, making it much easier to verify. The external link in the middle of the article was integrated into the notes. 172 17:42, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


(Contested - July 5)

Seems stunningly complete, dealing with form, history, usage doctrines, relationships to other types of military unit and ammunition types, and practical considerations going beyond the theory. 18:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Could do with images. Will look around at other Tank articles and see if I can find any. Morwen - Talk 19:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • has some great ones. They're all modern U.S. tanks, unfortuately, but better than nothing. Added two photos. Any PD/GFDL sources for foreign/older tank photos? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I added one, still US but it's older at least --Taak 00:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment about images, US tanks are lovely, but do not represent a good cross-section of tank history. Images of the first tanks, Da Vinci's "tank" and others will have passed into PD by now. Oppose until we can get some other pictures here. Burgundavia 00:36, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have added 1 WW1 one. Burgundavia 07:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • 1 WW2 image as well
    • Current status: there are three images on the tank page: an M1A1 Abrams posing, a British WWI tank with its German captors posing, and a Sherman tank in the act of firing. To me this seems like an adequate selection, though pictures of reasonably modern (WWII or later) tanks from other nations would make good additions. There are also five pictures in "tank history", of which only one is post-WWI, a Sherman. I think those five should stay there. Any more images of pre-WWII tanks also should go in the history article. 20:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The captions could use some editing (see Wikipedia:Captions). -- ke4roh 21:24, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Made them more descriptive. OK now? 20:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Support: Superb! Thanks -- ke4roh 02:02, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • The article seems well written and complete, but where are the references? Exploding Boy 07:23, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • The history of the tank is far more varied than just what is presented. Oppose until this is expanded. Burgundavia 07:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes I have found the History of Tanks article, which I kind of missed, oops. However, the history section on Tank still needs a rewrite to include all of tank history, not stop at 1916. Burgundavia 08:04, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've added a summary history from 1918-present. (Does that make this a self-nomination? I'm the same user as I think the material I've added needs some more editing, and some of the WWI material should move to tank history. 12:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Looks better now, thanks. Burgundavia 08:25, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
        • I've done the editing I wanted to and now I'm happy with the history section. 19:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If you want to place the tank article as a featured article real soon, then the section on the types of tanks should be moved out to the tank History article because it mostly deals with tank types of the 1930s and 1940s There should be a section on tank types in the tank article but it should be more generic, and a bit more modern as is the case with the other sections. AlainV 08:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've moved the section into tank history wholesale. Tanks now being much more homogeneous than they used to be, is there still a need for discussion of tank classes in the context of modern tanks? 19:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection: Modern Tanks should be merged into the history of tanks section. Burgundavia 08:25, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It has nothing on targeting and other internal equipments or engine and the armor section should have something about armors that are added on to a tank. Revth 03:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - lead section needs expanding. Jargon like MBT needs to be re-introduced in each section since not everybody will read the article from section 1 on. Could also use some further reading and external links. Other than that, this is a really good article. --mav 05:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Expanded lead section. "MBT" now expanded in each section. 11:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I remove my objection and add my support. --mav 01:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Liked the article, but nitpicks: 1) The "mobility" section is unwikified. 2) Image:Sherman-korea.jpg could do with some image editing to remove the caption at the top. 3) I think some more photos could still be used to illustrate this article; e.g. closeups of the tracks or the gun or the interior of a tank. — Matt 00:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Mobility section now contains links. 09:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Olympic games[edit]

(Uncontested -- July 8)

Self-nomination. My (personal) objective is to have this article featured on the main page the day the 2004 Olympics start in Athens, 13 August. There should be plenty of time to resolve objections. I think the current article gives a sufficiently detailed overview of the Olympic Games, and I've already provided links to other articles for more details (some of them do not exist yet). There's still several "dead" links, which I hope to fill with at least stubs in the next few days/weeks. Jeronimo 20:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Object for now. Sorry to get so nitpicky, but this will get a lot of readers. All the best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The table at the bottom of medal winners needs formatting; the number of golds runs into the year.
    • No mention of the "amateur" requirement, or famous controversies over it, or why it was dropped
    • No mention of criticisms of the Olympics (i.e. cost, doping, etc.)
    • The section on "Summer Olympics" and the stuff about the founding of the Winter Olympics should be folded into a section called "Modern Olympic History", and the Summer Olympics should then have another page describing them (what sports go on, etc.)
    • Inconsistent capitalization, esp. of "De Coubertin". Which is correct, de or De? You learn something every day
      • No please, get nitpicky, we need that to get good articles. I will look into your objections. A few remarks: 1) I included a section on amateurism, but it disappeared, probably because I was edited the page concurrently myself. It should be back right now. 2) I'll look at the capitalisation, but if I'm not mistaken, it is normal use in France to capitalise "De" when the name is used without a given name ("De Coubertin"), but use lower case for the full name ("Pierre de Coubertin"). (This is also the case in my native language, Dutch). If this is incorrect, or if I should not use the French method, let me know. 3) As for your fourth point, I'm not sure what to do. I could make the Summer/Winter sections subsections of a new "Modern Olympic History" section. Would that accomplish what you envision? Jeronimo 06:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, people I know generally use lower-case 'd' in all cases (so, "John de Smith" and "de Smith, John"). Maybe this is a British thing? There's some recent discussion of this in the MoS... James F. (talk) 10:40, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a start. Currently, the section on "Winter Olympics" is almost all history, except for one paragraph beginning with "The sports conducted...", while the "Summer Olympics" section is almost all history as well. These two sections could be merged into a new section, called "modern olympic history". Then, perhaps, general details about the actual summer and winter games could go into one smaller section, perhaps called "summer and winter olympics", which would compare the two and draw in some details from the relevant articles.
Also, the table does need formatting--unfortunately, I don't know table markup. Also, there probably should be a section called "Criticisms and scandal"--no article on the Olympics would be complete without those East German swimmers. Brrr. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed all your above points now. 1) I slightly reformatted the table. 2) I've added a section on doping and one on criticism on the IOC; there was already a part on the costs in the modern history section. 3) I have refactored the organisation of sections on the modern history. – Let me know if you think I have addressed your concerns sufficiently, or if they still require work. Jeronimo 10:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A much better article now. Oh, and good use of images. That said, I hope that Revival of the Olympic Games gets made into an article by the time this gets on the front page. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. The article uses "Baron Pierre de Coubertin" and "Pierre de Coubertin"—both of these should be replaced with "Pierre, Baron de Coubertin." The article also uses just "Baron de Coubertin" without the definite article - this does not sound correct, for it is like suggesting "Contrary to what Baron of Coubertin had hoped"; obviously, in such cases, the sentence sounds better with "the Baron" rather than "Baron." Also, the article uses "De Coubertin" in the middle of sentences. To summarise my reccomendations on the naming: for the first reference and as the caption for an image, use "Pierre, Baron de Coubertin," with the capital B. For all subsequent references, use either "Pierre, Baron de Coubertin" or "de Coubertin" (with the small D, except of course at the beginning of sentences). One could easily avoid "the Baron de Coubertin," the "Baron," etc. 2. The article uses inappropriate dashes (for instance: "Either way, the 1906 Games again attracted a broad international field of

participants in 1904, 80% had been American and great public interest, thereby marking the beginning of a rise in popularity and size of the Games." Em dashes (—) would conform to standard practice more. 3. The article makes awkward use of certain words: for instance, "The perhaps darkest chapter" as opposed to "Perhaps the darkest chapter." One sentence ends in "however", which sounds rather unusual: "Most contemporary Olympic historians consider them to be official Olympic Games, however." (Not an objection: To be pedantic, some sentences begin in "however"; these howevers can also be reworked into the middle of sentences.) 4. The article rather inconsistently uses "Olympics," "Olympic games," etc., as both plural and singular: "The first modern Olympic Games were a success ... it was the largest international sports event ever." One should consistently employ the plural; this involves using "they" rather than "it." Also note the sentence "Many athletes have become celebrities or heroes in their own country, or even world-wide, after becoming Olympic champion." 5. The article uses both "while" and "whilst"—one could just employ the latter. 6. The table could perhaps use solid borders. -- Emsworth 02:38, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

    • I would like to note that small grammar fixes can usually be done by the person objecting. Snowspinner 05:21, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I went through Emsworth's remarks, but I have some notes: 1) There are two issues here. First, the formal name is indeed "Pierre, Baron de Coubertin". However, as far as I know, it is perfectly acceptable not to use this formal form at every occurrence. The name "Pierre de Coubertin" is used commonly in both English and French; both in books sources and the internet; I think we can safely use it here as well. Second, de vs. De. I explained my view on this in my answer to Meelar above. If you disagree, let me know. Changes made: first occurrence/image caption changed to "Pierre, Baron de Coubertin", changed "Baron de Coubertin" usage. 2) Done. 3) Done. 4) Done, although the occurrence you mentioned is the only one I could find. 5) I've replaced whilst by while, but as far as I know English (not a native speaker), there's nothing wrong with using them both. Whilst is just a British alternative for while, right? 6) This is actionable, but I don't see why this makes the table better (I guess this is pretty

subjective), so I haven't changed it. You're welcome to change it if you like. Jeronimo 08:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

      • My objection is based on the article's inconsistency. Both "whilst" and "while" are acceptable, but the article should use one or the other, not both. -- Emsworth 14:35, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've looked up the Baron de Coubertin on Encarta: it appears that the correct reference is just "Coubertin," not "de Coubertin." [7] This assertion is consistent with the rule that "de" is used for collation purposes only when the surname includes one syllable. [8] -- Emsworth 14:42, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I took a shot at improving the captions, and while I was there, I noticed many passive sentences throughout. Active sentences would help, though when I try to fix them, I sometimes presume an incorrect actor. -- ke4roh 00:15, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes[edit]

(Uncontested -- Jul 5)

Self-nomination, though the best work is done by others. Images are of book covers so they fall under fair use. Alanyst 06:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Pretty good article, but something needs to be done with the organization of the cover images. Everyking 06:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I managed to do something nicer with them; it's actually really cool to have all of them in the article. (Nominator/uploader should tag them with fair use and rationale though) [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 15:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Oppose, for several reasons. Image overkill. Possibly too short, if you take out the images. Thirdly, if it stopped being syndicated in 1995, why? Ambivalenthysteria 06:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Good points. I'll try to add some more background on the strip's history, Watterson's issues with syndication, etc. I have concerns about copyvio for some of the images added recently, so unless we can get those resolved I might have to withdraw the nomination. Alanyst 23:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I have resolved the copyvio concerns and the article is longer with more information on syndication. Ambivalenthysteria, can you revisit your objection to see if it still holds? Thanks. Alanyst 02:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It's looking much better. It's a much more interesting read now. I've changed my vote, but still two small suggestions. Firstly, the "Needed to have complete collection" header overlaps with the picture column in my browser (Firefox), and it looks icky. Secondly, how about spreading the images throughout the article, rather than having them in a heap at the bottom? Anyway, these are just small gripes, and I'm supporting this nomination now. Ambivalenthysteria 15:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • All intro, no article. There's several paragraphs of text and a pile of images and lists. Where's the article? - David Gerard 13:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • In all fairness, there's not terribly much that can be said about the topic, so I think that's a bit harsh. Still, it's not quite up to feature standard. Ambivalenthysteria 13:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Surely there is. A vastly popular cartoon strip that ran for many years? I want to read the article I'd like to see ;-) - David Gerard 14:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • It could do with a bit more analysis as to whether Hobbes is real. ISTR he was sometimes seen doing stuff that Calvin couldn't possibly have witnessed. Morwen - Talk 14:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I've reorganised things, which I think helps a lot, but I I didn't add much contetn. Morwen - Talk 20:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • David Gerard, do you see any improvement in the content now? I've added quite a bit more on the background of the strip. Is this the article you'd like to see? Alanyst 08:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I do think it is. Thank you :-) - David Gerard 00:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Oppose. While I think that this article has grown considerably, I have copyright concerns about all of the new images. I don't think that fair use can just be thrown around to justify use of any images, particularly considering that Bill Watterson has been very diligent in prosecuting copyright violations of Calvin's image in the past. If the images' copyright status are cleared up or if alternate images can be found I will change to support. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Any" images is a bit strong; after all, the book covers certainly seem to fall under fair use. I have removed the individual character images because I think they were indeed copyright violations. As of right now, I believe the article is in compliance. Alanyst 15:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I misspoke, I just meant any of the new images. I'm changing to a support, but I wouldn't mind some more content. C&H was kick-ass. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:14, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. Oppose, a number of subsections are short and list-like. -Sean Curtin 21:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Could you be a bit more specific: which subsections? how should they be improved? Just because they're short and list-like doesn't necessarily mean they're bad; a list of concisely written items can often be much more readable than lengthy prose. I'm not sure your objection is actionable at this point; please enlighten me. Alanyst 02:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The lists of characters are recurring themes really don't need to be sections - microsections like that for Coach Lockjaw ("Runs the school baseball team. Rarely seen.") don't need to be flagged up from the table of contents. Rearranging some of the subsections like that of the "Calvin's Alter-Egos" section would help in that regard. Also, the history and style sections would make the article flow better if they were moved to the beginning. -Sean Curtin 17:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've combined the less frequently seen supporting characters under one section per your suggestion, and it does seem better. I've also re-ordered the sections to put history and style at the front of the article. I think it makes the continuity better. Any more objections? Alanyst 19:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The use of "we" should probably instead say "the reader" or something similar. -Sean Curtin 01:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Done. Alanyst 01:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Suppose. With all the work that's been done since this was nominated, it deserves featured status. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, it can still be unworthy of featured status no matter how much work has been done, but I appreciate the sentiment. Am I to understand that you meant to say "support" rather than "suppose," or were you being purposely ambivalent? :-) Alanyst 02:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support after the recent changes. Anarion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly object - TOC is overwhelming (even at 1600 x 800 I couldn't see see the body until I replaced some heads with ; ), lead section is way too short for an article this size (3 good sized paras needed), and the article triggers a page size warning (but that is probably OK due to the size of the books table). Many of the sections are also stubs - there is little reason to give each paragraph a title (the result is rather inflexible and jarring). Instead I suggest combining many of the stub sections into larger sections (of say several paragraphs). The ==Recurring themes== section needs this badly. --mav 07:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I fixed the Recurring Themes section so the sub-heads are definition-style. The TOC is much more manageable at this point. I also added to the intro section. I will work on the more stub-like sections to address that objection. Alanyst 00:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Better - enough for my mild support. --mav 02:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object (easily resolved though) - In the opening paragraph, Intellectual and witty, the strip changed the way Americans viewed comic strips is not backed up by anything in the prose. How did it change the way Americans viewed comic strips? It sounds ethnocentric, too - did it not change the way anyone else in the world viewed comic strips? Is the fact that it was (sometimes) intellectual and (often) witty a first in American comic strips? (I'm sure Garry Trudeau and Berke Breathed would have something to say about that). Delete the whole phrase, IMHO. Mention the wit and cleverness some other way. -- mjb 07:44, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've removed it for now. It didn't really add much. Will look for an attributable quote to describe it. I suppose what we want is comic book artists saying it had an influence on their work. Morwen - Talk 17:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Looks good to me. -- mjb 08:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A fine article about a superb comic strip. I still miss 'em. Denni 22:15, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Object; 1) agree with User:Maveric149 that the lead section is too short. 2) However, I think most of the "stub sections" are probably OK, because they're in a "definition" style, but that "Style and influences" and "Trivia" are too short to warrant an entire section to themselves. 3) I think we have too many images; the "Calvin and Hobbes books" section suffers for it, and they don't really add anything that just one or two images wouldn't convey. 4) In the "Calvin and Hobbes books" table, the month dates are red links; are we linking to the right place for these?— Matt 17:45, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I have addressed (1); I'll work on the others in the next few hours. Alanyst 00:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that's a great lead. — Matt 00:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The others, (2) thru (4), are now addressed. Better? Alanyst 08:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, thanks; I've squeezed the images back into the "Calvin and Hobbes books" table more neatly than before, undoing your "spreading out" work from before — I hope you agree that it's an improvement.

Charles Graner[edit]

Self-nomination. A truly fascinating person to write about. It's timely, relevant worldwide, and educational, since Lynndie England seems to be the only enlisted person that most people recognize. Neutrality 00:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1) Image caption is a little long (over two hundred words). 2) His early life and military career shouldn't be in the lead section. 3) The section numbering / depth isn't quite right (see the Table of Contents numbering). 4) "Considered by many to be a torturer, sadist, and war criminal, Graner held the rank of specialist in the 372nd Military Police company during his tour of duty in Iraq." -- the first clause doesn't really have any relation to the second. -- Matt 01:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Everything is fixed. I've shortened the image caption and added the copy to the article, separated the early life and military career into its own section, fixed the section numbering/depth, and taken care of that sentence. Neutrality 16:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the fixes. Maybe other people can comment on whether the extended caption is OK, I'm still unconvinced; (captioned images aren't intended to be a design element for constructing floating text boxes). Also, having a "biography" section seems a little redundant (any article about a person is going to be a biography); perhaps we could "bump up" the subsections to full sections? -- Matt 01:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Fixed. I've shortened the image caption, and renamed the "Biography" section to "Birth and early life." Also, the subsections are now full sections.
  • Neutral- I haven't read it all. But I think "Are you guys ____ing in there" is excessively coy. ;) Markalexander100 03:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • On the classic skin that I use, all the images are all piled together in a mess (no pun intended!) at the top of the page. Any way this could be fixed? Everyking 07:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Objections:
    • NPOV: The extensive use of Abu Ghraib pictures borders on gratuitous, and with them collected at the top in the Cologne Blue skin on IE 6, it gives the impression that the page is either about an orgy or some sadomasochistic activities. Grainer must have been more than an Abu Ghraib torturer, as the article states - but the pictures tell a different story. Put one picture at the top and others in the section about Abu Ghraib. ke4roh 15:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
      Of course there is going to be extensive use of Abu Ghraib pictures. This individual has no other claim to fame. 172 02:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • With regard to NPOV: please explain how the pictures are NPOV. With regard to the pictures being collected at the top: I have fixed that. So it's not a problem on any of the skins. Neutrality 23:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I suppose the best way to view the pictures (and text) as POV is to read it as if you were Graner's defense attorney. Are there any pictures (Library of Congress, for example) of the town where he grew up? Captions must state Abu Ghraib or Iraq, particularly when they are in a section dealing with a different part of his life. Does there exist a more flattering person of the man? -- ke4roh 03:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm not Charles Graner's defense attorney. It's a good article, and that's what matters. Neutrality 15:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm suggesting that the article reads like the list of charges against him and circumstantial evidence to back it up (history of prison abuse, etc). The pictures, with the exception of the one with just Graner and England, are all evidence against him. Likewise, there are neutral facts (born in.., high school.., moved to...), but there's nothing redeeming - very little to balance against the allegations of atrocities. "Grainer denies the allegations" and the neighbor who said he joined the reserves because Grainer was fulfilling his duty both help, but there's nothing else in support of the character. Were I a juror reading the article, I'd certainly want to hear what the defense had to say before reaching a verdict. As it stands, the article would better be titled "Case against Charles Graner." For that purpose, the article is superb. -- ke4roh 16:02, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
              • Check the article now. I've made improvements you should like. Neutrality 20:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                • Thanks for the new info. We're getting there. The text still needs more good facts. Did he win awards in high school or some recognition in the yearbook? Any other accolades? Do we know if he volunteered somewhere? -- ke4roh 10:14, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • It is much improved with the pictures spread out across the article rather than assaulting the reader at the top, though there are still too many pictures to tell the story (see below), and the story appears one-sided. Action: find out something good about the man in photo or prose. What is his legal defense? -- ke4roh 03:31, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • There are too many Abu Ghraib pictures to tell that part of the story. Select the most descriptive photos of the lot and use them. ke4roh 15:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what you mean when you say "There are too many pictures to tell that part of the story." Please explain further. Neutrality 23:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • For the reader to understand the abuses at Abu Ghraib, there need only be a couple of pictures to accompany the prose. The one with the corpse and the one with the body pile and green hoods on prisoners are explanatory and expository of the types of events that occured. I suggest keeping them. The picture of Graner hitting prisoners is not as helpful because a) we can't see movement and b) it's not that clear to the eye what's going on in the picture and who's doing it. The picture of people with numbers on shirts and over heads conveys nothing. The picture of a pile of Iraqis mooning the camera is a duplicate - we have already gotten that information from the picture with the green hoods. The picture with England is a good I.D. shot in the absence of a proper pose. -- ke4roh 03:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Captions: Captions should help the reader understand the picture, tell something not obvious, and draw the reader into the article. Most of these captions are too long. If a section on the fate of Manadel al-Jamadi is relevant to Graner, put it there. (I do not think such a section would be relevant, but I would not object on that basis.) See Wikipedia talk:Captions#Mega Caption for a discussion. -- ke4roh 15:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have also shortened the Manadel al-Jamadi caption and included the information in the article. I hope that solves your objection. Neutrality 17:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, thank you -- ke4roh 03:14, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a very article but I have to ask does this rather tawdry character deserve so much attention? All the discussion of his previous jobs and domestic situation seems a bit over the top for a person whose only claim to fame is to be accused (along with others) in a fairly vicious crime. I'm inclined to oppose the nomination. ~!Lisiate 23:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • He isn't a guy I'd like to have as my friend, but that's not what constitutes a good, featurable article. For me, it's important to have (and feature) articles of all matters. It's a serious subject, and it deserves all of our attention. Also, there is so much focus on Lynndie England that some focus on Charles Graner is necessary. Thanks for your feedback. Neutrality 23:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Parts of this article are poorly written. For example, one sentence states, " displinary action was taken aganist Graner during his employment at the county jail except for refusing to work mandatory overtime one night to care for his children." In addition to the misspellings of "disciplinary" and "against", this simply doesn't make sense. Who refused to work overtime? And how was this a punishment? Another confusing sentence is, "..Yarris saw Graner and four other guards pull an inmate who purposefully flooded the toilet in his cell, dragging him." Did Graner pull while dragging? Where did he pull him from/to? Another example is, "At the time his employment was terminated, Graner had been as disciplined six times along with three suspensions and three reprimands." He had been as disciplined as whom? Were the three suspensions and three reprimands the "six times" or were there a total of twelve disciplinary actions? The first thing I look for in a FAC is good text, and I

don't see it here. I will reconsider my vote if these problems are addressed. Acegikmo1 23:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

    • Fixed. Thanks for the feedback. Neutrality 00:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Only one of the three specific examples I brought up was addressed. Also, please don't strike through my comments. I will do that if they no longer apply. I hope I haven't come across as rude, because you've been polite and have clearly worked hard on the article, but the problems I see are still present in the article. Thanks, Acegikmo1 17:29, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • Can you give any examples? If you do not, the objection is not actionable. Neutrality 20:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • "Actionable" shouldn't mean the person objecting has to provide a continuous stream of specific examples for a general problem -- that's not a peer reviewer's job. "Actionable" is defined (above) to mean that they must give a "specific rationale for the objection". A rationale of "poor writing" backed up by three examples seems specific and actionable to me. -- Matt 12:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I have withdrawn my objection, as the problems I brough up were addressed since my initial objection (and the article has improved in other ways as well). Acegikmo1 21:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) I think there's too much quoting: there's rarely a need to quote more than a sentence-worth from a source, and, while "Wikipedia is not paper", we still have to be careful to present information concisely and encyclopedically. I think we should instead summarise the information ourselves in a sentence or two and provide the external link. 2) One part seems slightly "overwikified"; I don't think we need to bother linking every military rank. 3) One caption reads "Graner punches handcuffed Iraqi prisoner"; how can we be sure he's mid-punch, and not just posing for the camera? While I'm pretty sure this man has punched Iraqi prisoners, a featured article should be impeccibly accurate; perhaps an "appears to punch"? 4) The article has eight images, all aligned flush right. It might be a nicer layout to stick half on the left. -- Matt 13:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plate tectonics[edit]

very good with nice images and lots of information Avala 19:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Tentatively support. Well-written, but perhaps it could be longer - citing specific papers, people, &c. in the history section, perhaps? I'm not sure... Also, did plate tectonics actually contribute anything other than theoretical understanding, because, if it did, I didn't get such an impression from the article -- perhaps something on resultant predictions/findings, or theories based on this? James F. (talk) 20:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This needs a list of the major plates in the article. Morwen - Talk 21:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • (not a vote) Does the plate image really need to occur twice? Jeronimo 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • they are differenr
    • Umm, what? There are two images, one a map of the major plates, and one a diagrammatic over-view of subduction &c. James F. (talk) 19:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please edit the captions. See Wikipedia:Captions. -- ke4roh 21:46, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support after recent changes. Anarion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support without reservation. An excellent article, rendering a sometimes-thorny concept readily accessible to the interested layperson. Denni 22:27, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)


I noticed we don't have many featured articles on mathematics. This is one of the few math topics with widespread appeal and lots of pretty pictures. Although it looks a bit short at first, if you follow the links to the specific types of fractals, there's a lot of material. I've verified the image copyrights and they all appear to be GFDL or public domain. --Shibboleth 23:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Having spent hours upon hour exploring microscopic regions of the Mandelbrot set, I can only say, "It's about time..." Denni 05:49, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
  • (Not a vote). It looks like all of the images are in the public domain (created by Wikipedians), but some fail to note so explicitly. Jeronimo 11:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now the only picture that does not explicitly specify public domain or GFDL is the Koch snowflake picture. Unfortunately the user who added it is not around anymore, so we cannot ask him to add the label. But I am inclined to think an elementary mathematical illustration like this cannot be copyrighted anyway. If it really bothers someone, it should be easy to re-create. --Shibboleth 21:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead section needs to be longer, including a mention that "fractal"s is derived have "fractional dimension", amongst other things. 2) We should discuss Fractal art in this article to some extent, given that most laymen encounter fractals in that form. 3) Similarly there needs to be a much more in-depth discussion of applications: Fractal landscape, Fractal compression...; we currently have "Fractal techniques have also been employed in fractal image compression, as well as a variety of scientific disciplines." 4) The article emphasises self-similarity; an image sequence would be one obvious way to illustrate this concept, e.g. a sequence of zooms on a fractal, showing self-similarity on different scales. 5) You can't read much about fractals without bumping into a discussion of chaos theory; what's the link? The article doesn't discuss this. — Matt 16:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[Etymology of fractal: although some web sources say fractal is derived from "fractional dimension", Mandelbrot himself says he coined it from the Latin fractus - see, for example, Mandelbrot's essay "Fractals - a geometry of nature" in "The New Scientist Guide to Chaos". I have added this to the article.Gandalf61 11:41, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)]
Ah, great. Maybe it's worth mentioning the mis-etymology of "fractal" as well, since it's quite common? — Matt 15:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've added a sequence of images demonstrating self-similarity. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 13:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, spot on. — Matt 15:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is good but I don't find the sequence of images quite clear enough as it is. The problem is that since they all look so similar, it's hard to understand at first sight that the fourth image is a 100x (or whatever) magnification of the first: it looked to me at first like just a big rotated chunk of the first, until I understood that your red squares meant "zoom". I would like a label added to the top of each image saying "Magnification: 1x", "Magnification: 5x", "Magnification: 25x" (or whatever the exact numbers are). Or even better, nice arrows linking the red square of one image with the next image. Though come to think of it I don't really know which would work better. --Shibboleth 21:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Avala 19:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - the article looks fantastic and reads fine but it does seem to be a bit short. I think some basic expansion is needed, but since I don't know much about this topic, I don't know what to suggest (and thus my non-vote). :( --mav 10:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jules Ruis says: I want to add some information about the Julius Ruis Set, being a smart presentation of 400 Julia sets, showing that the Mandelbrot set is the parameter basin of all closed Julia sets.


Self nomination (I worked on it a bit, and a lot on other Middle-earth articles). A good starting page for Wikipedian Tolkienists. Ausir 20:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a good article, but too much of it is lists, really. Oh, and there is too much text before the TOC. Morwen - Talk 21:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Way, way, way, way too much list - that's 80% of the article. →Raul654 21:18, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, much of it reads as though it's trying to perform the role of a Category. Oppose, for now, at least. — OwenBlacker 11:11, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
these objections are now irrelevant ;) Morwen - Talk 11:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've moved the whole list to List of Middle-earth articles by category. Ausir 11:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, thats sort of an improvement I suppose. However now its rather shorter. It needs a detailed summary of the whole creation myth; the Ages; who the principal races are - that sort of thing. Summaries of the plots of the Hobbit and LOTR perhaps. Morwen - Talk 14:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The map image is copyrighted, per the website from which it was taken. Jeronimo 17:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    The website's conditions of use indicate that items can be used for non-commercial purposes, under certain conditions, which are, in this case, met. See [9] Snowspinner 18:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll support. Could use another image. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Specifically, it could use an image of Middle-earth as a whole- at the moment there are only parts. Markalexander100 07:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • There's an image of the whole world of Arda in "The world" section. The action of the books never takes place in other areas of Middle-earth than the north-western part, so there is not much info about the east of Middle-earth. Ausir 07:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added a wodge of summary of history. Support. Morwen - Talk 22:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a lead section. — Matt 23:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • How is that? Morwen - Talk 18:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (partial self-nomination). I have helped put in a bit of work coping with concerns raised above and believe they have now been addressed. Anarion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent article, informative. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hmm, can you throw some bones to the LotR movie fans who'll be reading? - David Gerard 23:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - overwhelming TOC and article triggers a page size warning. I suggest summarizing the history and moving the detail to a separate article. Also does not follow MoS by having links in headings. --mav 06:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Bah. Do you realise how hard it was to get the history that short already? Morwen - Talk 10:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Better now? I don't think it can be made any shorter and still make sense. Ausir 11:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I've also done some removal of headers so the TOC is not so bad now.. Morwen - Talk 18:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Great work - support. --mav 05:24, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


May be self-nomination (I fleshed out the history a little). However, I believe it's a good article -- well-organised and with good content, not to mention brilliant prose. If anybody has questions on Coke's history, I borrowed Mark Pendergrast's "For God, Country & Coca-Cola" from the library (originally for leisure, but then I realised it's an untapped gold mine for expanding the Coca-Cola article). Johnleemk|Talk 13:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support: I support only if the controversies surrounding coke are highlighted (at least, as it is now) in the article. In the name of NPOV, they should not be censored. --ganesh 15:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • ..."(verse) One man come in the name of NPOV / One man come and go / One man come, he to justify / One man to overthrow / (chorus) In the name of NPOV / What more in the name of NPOV?"...woah, sorry. — Matt 16:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • (N)POV isn't the only thing wikipedia is based on. --ganesh 15:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Overview needs more citations, and the list of brands needs more wikilinks. anthony (see warning) 13:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've edited the page to fix this criticism, but hopefully someone with a more experienced hand can correctly wikify the Brands section - I only linked to those brands whom I recognise. Johnleemk|Talk 14:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There are still a few statements there that could probably do with a citation, but I withdraw my objection. I'd also like to see an image better than Image:Cokebottles.jpg. anthony (see warning)
  • Support. A glance at the amazing list of international brands oif Coca-Cola reveals that opposition on that score is subversive comedy. My criticisms: the classic shape that made "cokebottle" an adjective is missing among illustrations; "Spin-the-bottle," the Santa Claus iconography and "Coke collectibles" need to be touched on and linked Wetman 19:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC).
    • Subversive comedy? We should add wikilinks to at least the articles which we already have created. anthony (see warning)
  • Object. Most of my earlier objections were solved (I removed them from this list), but this one remains: The Heatlh/Environment/Labor Controversies surrounding Coca-Cola section seems totally out of place. It just lists some facts from three events. Are these the only controversies? How did they affect the company? This needs removal or expansion.Jeronimo 08:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've fleshed them out, moved the Mecca-Cola thingy to the urban legends section, and made that a subsection of the Controversies. Johnleemk|Talk 10:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm still not really happy with that section, so I'll hold my objection for now, even if this is only a minor issue. The "Controversies surrounding Coca-Cola"-section still only deals with separate issues. The India-controversy is worked out pretty well, but it stands a bit alone; perhaps a separate sub-section? Furthermore, "Coke has also been the subject of controversy in its relationship with unions." suggests there have been more than only the issue in Colombia, but none are listed. "The Coca-Cola company, of course, denies these accusations" is rather POV, I think. Also, little context could be provided here. Are union-troubles common for multi-nationals, or rare? But like I said, this is not a major objection Jeronimo 16:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Ok, I have fleshed out the union section and split the controversies into three subsections. I have also improved a couple of other minor details and rolled back a couple of changes in the opening paragraph that I felt were detrimental to its value. Johnleemk|Talk 08:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've fixed about half of Jeronimo's concerns by refactoring the article. I'll get to work on the rest of it tomorrow. Johnleemk|Talk 13:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I have spun out the two bottom-most lists into Coca-Cola brands and Coca-Cola slogans (they might be more suited in the singular, though). I have deleted the "Notable Employees" list as they are all mentioned in the History section. Johnleemk|Talk 09:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There's absolutely no mention of any of the company's current (and past) controversies regarding trades unions or the exhibition over here (in London) about the Coca-Cola company trading with Nazi Germany (see [10], [11] and [12], for example). For completeness, I think that at least a cursory mention would be in order. — OwenBlacker 10:47, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I've addressed that now. Johnleemk|Talk 11:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'm happy with those aspects now. I'd like to see a little more on each point, but that would prolly make it less NPOV, if I'm honest with myself. It's a good article; I support. — OwenBlacker 20:07, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead says, "Coca-Cola also registered a trademark on the distinctive bottle shape" — we need an image showing this shape. 2) The "History" section is pretty long; could it be broken up into two or three sections, or subsectioned? 3) Style: some of the section titles are in capital letters. 4) The related articles: Coca-Cola brands, Coca-Cola slogans should be summarised in this article (for the former, we currently mention Fanta and Sprite). 5) The lead section needs expanding to summarise the entire article >and to give some indication of its importance as a global brand. 6) Could we have some dates for the introduction of Coke variants, like Diet Coke, Coke with Lemon, etc? 7) Could we have some explicit mention of the rivalry with Pepsi? It's mentioned implicitly in various places in the article, but it would be good to have it spelled out. — Matt 11:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • All have been addressed (with the exception of perhaps number 4; I don't know how summarised you want them, so right now they're rather sparse since the articles themselves are quite small). Johnleemk|Talk 12:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your refactoring, I think it's much improved. — Matt 13:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Noticed you're still objecting though — any reason why? ;-) Johnleemk|Talk 13:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Oops, sorry, misplaced tag (I'll probably try and nitpick some more tomorrow, though...!) — Matt 13:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. All my objections have been resolved, good work on that. I think the article has greatly improved since it was nominated, and is now worthy of being featured. Jeronimo 09:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hm. I'm afraid an edit war may be brewing. User:Drbalaji_md has been making some obviously blatantly POV changes in the past few days to the article, especially to the intro paragraph. I don't want to discuss too much with him, because I'm afraid of saying things I don't mean to say. This probably isn't the right place to be putting this, but I think it's only fair since this concerns the article. The user in question has been removing some things that few other people contest (actually none; for example, the mentioning of Pepsi in the opening paragraph, and the mention of where Coke is sold beyond a general description of "nations around the world"). Besides that, I don't think bolding negative text in the opening paragraph is NPOV at all. Aren't we supposed to fight POV with NPOV, not more POV? Johnleemk|Talk 14:47, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. chocolateboy 15:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 15:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - the stub sections bugged me so I combined them with larger sections. The article will one day need to be split between Coca-Cola the product and Coca-Cola the company, but I think that a combined article is OK for now. --mav 08:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas[edit]

This has been nominated before, but was not selected as a featured article. I’ve made some edits [13], and it looks pretty good. Neutrality 04:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#June_2003.)
  • Approve - It was a great artilce before your refactor and it is even better now. --mav 01:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Acegikmo1 21:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The public response should be noted as well - this one was international news. Are pictures possible? e.g. notable reaction from the public? - David Gerard 10:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice pics! Who is the other guy in the second pic? Garner? The public reaction and news quotes should be a section, that would cover public reaction reasonably easily. See Hutton Inquiry for an excellent example of media reaction coverage, though I'm not asking for something that good - David Gerard 22:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Er. The pics really need why they are fair use. At present there's just a link to the source and the assertion this is fair use - David Gerard 22:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Done, thanks. Neutrality 02:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Aaand the lawyer pic! - David Gerard 16:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I'll withdraw the 'public reactions' objection if you can source the lawyer pic - the pics tell that story nicely - David Gerard 16:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Fine by me - David Gerard 15:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Suporting for good measure. Ambivalenthysteria 15:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I think the notes section is an excess of detail; could we trim this, and provide an external link instead? — Matt 16:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Not for a legal article it isn't. I consider your objection invalid. --mav 03:06, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but perhaps you could elaborate -- I'm not sure why the fact it's on a legal topic has any bearing. The notes section is longer than the history section, and doesn't really provide detail that would be of interest to the general reader; it seems to me that the article would be better off without it. — Matt 03:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Because it lists a lot of detail that would interrupt the flow of the text but still is necessary for reference (knowing just who wrote amicus briefs is important - the Notes section is no different than a complete list offered in any other article). --mav 03:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Long lists in articles that aren't central to the topic (but still useful for reference) are commonly split out into separate articles; perhaps that's an alternative? — Matt 03:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • That is only done when the list is overwhelming the article. That is not the case here. --mav 20:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great Mosque of Djenne[edit]

Self-nomination, but it has undergone a peer review. The article is about the largest mud-brick building in the world and the most prominent icon of Mali. The article has four sections (including External links), four pictures, and is three pages long when printed. If it is selected as a featured article it would only be the second building to be selected. -JCarriker 02:58, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Peer review as in Wikipedia:Peer review? It is a lovely article. My only complaint -- could someone create stubs for one or two of the red links on the first page of text? +sj+ 20:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Peer review: No just a peer review, I asked three wikipedians to review the article. Redlinks: Done. -JCarriker 23:39, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Burgundavia 21:00, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Wetman 01:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. One note: there must be some books written about this famous building. I'd like to see one or two of them listed as a reference in the article. Jeronimo 11:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 172 11:54, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia:Captions: The captions look good, though the passive verbs diminish their efficacy. -- ke4roh 16:11, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (And I think the passive verbs in the captions are good- they emphasise what the picture shows). Markalexander100 03:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating, well-written, well illustrated. ALargeElk | Talk 14:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Great article. 1) Can we beef up the lead a little? In particular, could we have perhaps one sentence each on the history and the cultural significance of the Mosque? Currently it takes a page of reading into the article until you learn when in time it was built, which makes it harder to get a grasp of what the building's all about. 2) "The walls are between 41 cm (16 in.) and 61 cm (24 in.) thick. The wall thickness depends on the height of the walls: the taller the wall, the thicker the wall, and especially the base the wall has to be thick enough to support the wall's weight." -- too many instances of the word "wall". 3) It's quite tricky to get a feel for the layout of the place from the article at the moment; a diagram would be great for this. Something along the lines of [14] or [15] would be ideal. -- Matt 16:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Numbers 1 and 2 done. Markalexander100 01:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 3. Clearly marked links to those the diagrams have been added, under external links. -JCarriker 17:49, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm...I'm going to continue to (reluctantly) object — a featured article shouldn't have any obvious gaps, and I think an article about a famous building should include some kind of layout / plan / diagram, in addition to photos. If they're located behind an external link, then it's not really the best of Wikipedia as such. Would it be worth contacting the Getty Trust about releasing their diagrams into the public domain or licensing them as GFDL? — Matt 15:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I e-mailed the Getty Trust in early June, seeking permission to use photos(not the cross-section or site plan), and they have yet to respond. Perhaps they did not recieve my e-mail, however others I e-mailed at that time did. It certainly wouldn't hurt if you contacted them again. However, the only other building that is Featured is the Parthenon and it does not have a cross section or a site plan. I think it would also be difficult to include a cross-section or site plan with labels in the article at a readable size that would not be distracting. Including a cross-section really isn't pragmatic; when minimized the appear as nothing more than a vague connection of dots. I can make a grayscale and labless (the usual style) site plan using the Getty image. I'm would not make an exact copy, I would not go into the detail about the raised platform they do to increase clarity for when the image is reduced as well as aviding a copyright infringement; although I fear that may not be enoguh to avoid

an infringement Also if a site plan is included, it needs to be in a new section; it would be too distracting in any of the existing sections. -JCarriker 19:39, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

          • Not all images have to be reduced to thumbnail size, especially if they are a key diagram; check out Traditional counties of England. It would be great if you were willing to make a diagram. — Matt 08:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I really think it's asking too much to demand a cross-section/plan. Effectively that means that no building will ever be a featured article, which would do no good at all. Yes it would be nice to have, but I realistically this is as good as we can get (and it's pretty good). Markalexander100 05:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • I don't think that "no building will ever be a featured article"; it's not that difficult to produce figures and diagrams. (Note also that my objection doesn't necessarily mean the article will not be featured.) I agree that this article is pretty good, but I object because I see an obvious way that it could be better. — Matt 08:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • Well, if you object we probably don't have a consensus. A featured doesn't have to be as perfect as it could possibly be ever; just good enough. I'd be sad to see this one not make it. Markalexander100 08:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • Consensus doesn't mean unanimity; this article has a lot of support. I agree that a featured article doesn't have to be the (legendary) perfect article, but I don't think we should feature articles either with obvious flaws or with obvious omissions. — Matt 09:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                  • After further review, I beleive my proposal would infact be a copyright violation. Since the Getty images are the only ones on the net, I sincerly doubt that the objection is actionable. I hope you will consider withdrawing it. If you are able to secure an image, it would be too distracting to add a huge site plan to the article; it would need to be minimized or not present in the article at all. -JCarriker 14:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
                    • Why would a (medium-sized) site-plan / diagram distract from the article? I'd certainly find it useful when reading the description of the building, because on its own I couldn't grasp the layout; a large image helped in the "counties" example mentioned above. Also, is it really a copyvio if you create an original diagram of a real building, regardless of how you learned the information? Clearly, you couldn't simply duplicate the Getty diagram, but that's not necessary. IANAL, but I'd be surprised if this is a legal problem here. Finally, the objection is "actionable" because it is A) specific and B) something can be done to "fix" the problem — someone could create their own diagram; just because the information on the Internet is limited (although I think it is sufficient), doesn't mean that there's nothing that can be done. — Matt 14:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                    • I'm not willing to take the risk of a copy vio, I personally can't afford a litigation and I don't want to burden wikipedia with another court battle. If you are confident enough to take the risk, then by all means proceed. If you are not, then please withdraw your objection. If this is not resolved the articel would not be featured, and that would be most unfortunate. -JCarriker 04:39, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
                      • What's your copyvio fear? Also, you say, "If this is not resolved the article would not be featured" — as it stands (9/10 support), it is very likely to get promoted. It is perfectly acceptable for me to object even if I'm unable (or unwilling) to fix the cause of the objection myself. Just out of interest, you say "another court battle"; how many court battles is Wikipedia embroiled in? — Matt 14:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                        • That a site plan utilizing the Getty image will be similar enough to it's source illiciate a suit. Wikipedia is envolved in sevaral court cases or threats there of; most notably in some sort of dibacle involving IBM and our software. (It's been a few weeks since I saw it so it may be sketchy). It is certainly acceptable for you to object even if you don't have the means to resolve your objection; it is not if you are simply unwilling. However, articles with unresolved objections are removed from the candidate list: If enough time passes (approximately two weeks) without objections being resolved an article may be removed from the candidates list.. Your objection will kill the article's chance of becoming featured if it is not resolved, regardless of your circumstances. -JCarriker 16:16, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
                          • 1) I think a site plan could be made using the information obtained from the Getty images and the photographs that wouldn't constitute a copyright violation. If I created a list of countries and their capitals with information obtained from some copyrighted almanac, it wouldn't be a copyvio unless the articles were overly similar. You can't copyright knowledge, just an particular expression of that knowledge. Two site plans are always going to be similar 2) What's to stop me objecting even if I'm unwilling to fix the objection myself? We're nominating and selecting articles for Featured Article status, so a person either agrees or disagrees as to whether an article is suitable, and expresses their opinion accordingly. "Actionable" doesn't mean that the objector must fix it or else back down, just that something can be done. 3) You are mistaken about "killing the article's chances" — articles are promoted with continuing objections; a recent example is Laika. All that's

necessary is consensus, and consensus does not mean that noone objects. — Matt 17:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 14:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Avala 19:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

City status in the United Kingdom[edit]

Self nomination. This isn't just a list of cities, it contains background info about the peculiar definition of cities in the UK, the various statuses the cities have, etc. Morwen - Talk 21:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Good article, but a list is an almanac article while the prose in that article is encyclopedic (only one part of the article is a list!). I suggest renaming the article to City status in the United Kingdom so that readers know to expect to find an article on the topic instead of just a list (if and when the list on that page gets too long, then it can be spun off onto its own page). The lead section needs some expansion as well as the 'City councils' section. Also, the article on the whole also seems a bit short. So until then, I regretfully oppose. --mav 01:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I *strongly* agree with Mav's suggestion. →Raul654 06:03, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Moved it, started to expand bits. Not really suitable yet. Morwen - Talk 17:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • How does it look now? Morwen - Talk 22:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a really good article; my only comment would be that there's a very cursory mention to the title "Rt Hon", yet it doesn't say anything about whether or not these titleholders are members of the Privy Council and, if so, whether or not it is ex officio, by virtue of being the Lord Mayor of the relevant city (which I guess in some cases it is). I don't think fixing that is necessarily a prerequisite for FA status, though. — OwenBlacker 11:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. I think I will add a bit about the former cities of the UK too - ie the ones now in the Republic of Ireland. Morwen - Talk 13:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose In re "The Right Honourable"; I would like to ask that the sentence Six of these Lord Mayors and two of the Lord Provosts are styled "The Right Honourable" instead of "The Right Worshipful" - though they are not members of the Privy Council which this style usually indicates be rephrased, as it is now rather confusing. The new passage could indicate:
    That Lord Mayors generally use "The Right Worshipful,"
    That some Lord Mayors use "The Right Honourable" though not Privy Counsellors,
    That either style is applied to the office, not to the personal name (as in "The Right Honourable The Lord Mayor of X" rather than "The Right Honourable John Smith," etc.),
    That only Privy Counsellors use the form "The Right Honourable John Smith."
  • Furthermore, the table needs to be, in my opinion, reformatted. The blank cells could be filled by non-breaking spaces; furthermore, "Right Hon. the Lord Mayor" should, IMHO, be replaced by "The Right Hon. The Lord Mayor," or, better still, "The Rt Hon. The Lord Mayor." In addition, perhaps the key could indicate that a hyphen indicates city status since time immemorial. Finally, it would be nice to have the now-Republic of Ireland's cities listed in the table, rather than at the end. -- Emsworth 15:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok - shall do those. With respect to the last suggestion, I think would be a bit political, not to mention confusing, to have the Irish cities treated in the same way as the cities in the remaining parts of the UK. Morwen - Talk 15:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, for the Irish cities, I was hoping for a table of the same format as the British cities: one column for "City," one for "Mayor," one for "Since," and one for "Cathedral" (we need not have a "Gov." column. -- Emsworth 16:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
        • Ah, ok. Done. Morwen - Talk 17:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Objections withdrawn. -- Emsworth 20:16, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many red links. The lists should be spun off, as they have very little to do with "city status of the UK". Article should be clarified to better discuss what "city status" means in an NPOV way. anthony (see warning)
    • I don't agree with splitting out the list. I think a list of entities with city status in the United Kingdom has a lot do with city status in the United Kingdom. Would any third parties like to comment? Morwen - Talk 12:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe it's just the title. How about cities in the United Kingdom? This would probably address the problem of explaining what "city status" means, also, by not using that term at all. anthony (see warning)
        • Have renamed and fixed redirs. Morwen - Talk 13:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • The red links alone aren't enough for me to object. Looks acceptable as of now. anthony (see warning) 13:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The Rochester thing: "lost this status as a result of an administrative error" — what the hey? This got me really intrigued; how can you de"city" a city through an administative error? It'd be great to flesh this paragraph out a little more, as it seems to be an interesting (and embarrassing) episode in the context. 2) Lead section needs to mention the historic relation to cathedrals, and the "informal" usage explaining, e.g., why London is / isn't a city. 3) Given the title of the article, should we consider adding a list of "unofficial" cities — settlements that might be classed as a "city" if they weren't in the UK? This would also help NPOV because "some have doubted the right of the Crown to define the word 'city' in the English language.". — Matt 17:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • All done. Morwen - Talk 17:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I've been musing on the name, a bit; I do think that the name was better as "City status in the United Kingdom, (or City designation, or Appointed cities or some such), because otherwise the article assumes too much that the "official" version of city is correct — it's quite odd to have an article called "Cities in the United Kingdom" where London isn't part of the main list.) — Matt 18:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, I can't possibly satisfy all the name objections at once ;) Nobody gets upset about the government claiming the right to define cities, really. it just gets ignored. Perhaps a difference could be made between 'city' and 'City' - but that isn't in general use either. Does this count as uncontested again? Morwen - Talk 18:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I, too, think City status was a better title. Difficult to call, though :-) James F. (talk) 19:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • "City status" is a better title. The Lord Chancellor's site, for example, refers to the "City status" contests so the phrase cannot be dismissed as never being used, etc. [16]. -- Emsworth 00:33, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
            • If the name gets changed to either city status in the United Kingdom or city status (United Kingdom), then I'll change my (now) mild oppose to accept. The 'cities' name is not really correct (as noted above) and also does not conform to our pluralization naming convention. --mav 08:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support as is, name and all. Bmills 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The first photo is not great; pretty blurred, for one — could we do better? 2) In the table, the meaning of the "Gov." column heading is not very clear, and the numbering system for that column is used in the main UK table, but not the RoI table. 3) What's the history of this "Royal charter" thing? When were they first given out, and to whom? — Matt 16:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) Shall we just move the image of York Minster up there? I think that may be the best option. 3) done. Morwen - Talk 18:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Makes more sense, and the blurriness of the Lord Mayor pic doesn't seem to have such an impact there. — Matt 19:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt 19:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- mav 03:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Self nomination. The painting used was previously uploaded by another user; I uploaded the other two images from the German Wikipedia, which asserts that both are in the public domain. -- Emsworth 01:42, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. The first image is a bit dark, but it's obvious the original painting is dark also...we're better off with it than without it, to borrow a phrase from Ann Landers. Jwrosenzweig 17:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jwrosenzweig about the pictures, but it's an excellent article. I've just added a link to List of Reichstag participants (1792) in the last section, as the content is very closely related, but it's a fantastic article; good job! -- OwenBlacker 18:22, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 21:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Query: "The German monarchy has since time immemorial theoretically been elective rather than hereditary." — is it possible to be more precise? "since time immemorial" means "reaching beyond the limits of memory, tradition or recorded history" (; surely that can't be verifiable? — Matt 16:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know what the precise meaning is in German law, but in English law I believe it means "since before the time of King Richard I" i.e. 1189-1199. -- Arwel 16:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I've removed the phrase "time immemorial." -- Emsworth 15:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Some years (or rough periods in history) are needed in the lead section. — Matt 16:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. I don't know much about the topic, but it's very well-written and seems comprehensive. One thought: the topic covers over six hundred years of history, and the article goes into quite some detail at points (which is great) — because of this, one thing that might help a reader to get the overall picture would be a timeline / chronology. Would this be worth adding? — Matt 22:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with the idea; a timeline would, for the most part, be a repetition of the "Composition" section. -- 16:37, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm...maybe; I've "unobjected" — my thought was it might be an easier way for a reader to get a grip on the entire chronology of the topic, complementing the "Composition" section (700 words long), and the events mentioned in the other sections. — Matt 16:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan[edit]

I think it's very neat. Muriel G 10:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. But getting better and with a little more work... Marlowe 20:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't like the section headers - they read too much like a children's schoolbook, not an encyclopedia article. The whole thing could do with more detail. In particular, more detail is needed on Magellan the person - David Gerard 13:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Headers have been streamlined. Text on Magellan's life has been greatly and, i think, well expanded - Marlowe 22:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for the reasons below. Jeronimo 13:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The article's quite short: I would expect more information to be available on Magallan.
    • The image has no source/copyright info stated.
    • The tables look ugly, and and I'm not entirely sure they're necessary.
    • Two sentence sections should be avoided.
    • The article continues calling him the first man to sail around the globe, a feat he did not accomplish (he died in the Pacific).
    • A map of his journey would be nice (this is not part of my objection, although I wouldn't support the article without it).
      • Some of your objections have been addressed (will try to do some more editing later. some passages could use clarityMarlowe 22:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)):
      • The article's quite short: I would expect more information to be available on Magallan. Article has been greatly expanded.
      • The image has no source/copyright info stated. Source cited.
        • There are copyrighted images used, claiming fair use -- but I'm skeptical whether this legitimately falls under fair use. IANAL, and I don't know if this is the right forum to discuss, but some of the sites these were taken from could be considered as competition, or at the least, they are providing similar information as Wikipedia about Magellan. I just doesn't "smell quite right" to me to take their work and repackage it for essentially the same purpose. olderwiser 20:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The tables look ugly, and and I'm not entirely sure they're necessary. Possibly ugly, but i think the table add insight, especially the names of those returned-- fascinating considering how many actually came back.
      • Two sentence sections should be avoided. Remedied.
      • The article continues calling him the first man to sail around the globe, a feat he did not accomplish (he died in the Pacific) This has been addresses in the lead, as well as later in the article.
      • A map of his journey would be nice (this is not part of my objection, although I wouldn't support the article without it). I agree, will try to find one.
    • Great improvement, but I'm not withdrawing my objection. New notes listed below. Keep up the good work, though! Jeronimo 06:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The two map images of Spain are copyrighted, and I see no reason why these should be fair use. Regardless, these images illustrate the - I think - least interesting part of his journey; the article could easily do without.
      • This article is really more about Magellan's journey than about Magellan. There should really be more about him personally, if that information is available.
        • Considering that Magellan would be a footnote in history without the circumnavigation i think it is appropriate to focus much of the article on it. Even so, the bio has been expanded so hopefully this addresses your objection. Thanks. Marlowe 20:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • As for the tables: I may agree they are interesting, but they still look ugly. Removing the borders would greatly improve them. Also, they should not be presented as entire sections, but rather as "side information". I'm not at all interested in the list of names of those who returned - none of them actually accomplished anything else (or did they?), but that's no reason to remove it.
      • A minor point: the "early life" section has three paragraphs starting with "in 15xx". This looks a bit ugly.
        • Fixed. Marlowe 21:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, this looks much better. My only remaining objection is the Sanlucar image. It's copyrighted, and I don't see why it is fair use. Jeronimo 21:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • If this is your only remaining objection, then i suggest removal of the picture. Its not essential anyway. Muriel G 16:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Created a new Sanlucar/Guadalquivir delta image from a NASA satellite shot. Ancheta Wis 01:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A fine article about an important historical figure, and please, while I can agree that a two-sentence section could stand some revision, does that bar a work from feature article status? Denni 06:02, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
  • Good article. My objection is that I don't understand how we can use Image:Magellan Map.gif as fair use, I think this is not something we should do in FAs. [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 13:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) (I addressed this myself 16:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC))
  • Object. Contains non-free images. anthony (see warning)
  • Object. I don't think the copyrighted images qualify for "Fair Use" in the way they are used here. See my note above. olderwiser 17:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless I'm missing the blindingly obvious, both those images are out of copyright. One is a portrait (which uncropped comes complete with Latin inscription) painted hundreds of years ago; the map is clearly pre-20th century, at least (they don't do them like that anymore). I've amended the copyright information. Markalexander100 06:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Self-nomination. I've done a lot of updates to this article recently and it is an interesting story. Laika was the first living creature in space Zerbey 17:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Object. There is too much missing from the story, e.g. the training, the feelings of her handlers, the news stories, the equipment. It also needs another photo, perhaps of a postage stamp or the plaque. It's a rather short article. --Yath 19:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Even though it's kind of short, I don't know whether more material is available. And it is pretty well-rounded. --Yath 21:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I doubt if there was any significant training for the stray from the streets of Moscow. The Soviet Union didn't provide so much detail in their news. I'm impressed to see so much on the top dog. Captions could use some work. -- ke4roh 16:18, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Following suggestions by other users, I've added the requested updates and tidied up the article. Feedback would be appreciated. --Zerbey 20:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Small objection: Image credits: What makes the stamp PD in the US - Are we sure it wasn't protected under Berne once the US signed that? Is the Sputnik 2 image actually produced by NASA (hence PD) or someone else's that was on their site? Same for the image of Laika - David Gerard 21:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The Sputnik 2 image appears on NASA's website with no attribution, it appears on several other websites captioned as a mockup of Sputnik 2 on display in a museum in Russia. It appears to be public domain. I have corrected the attribution on Laika, this was also taken from NASA's website. The stamp picture also appears to be public domain and appears on many web sites about Laika, but I will try and find out if it is definitely OK to use. I'm investigating all pictures to make sure they are PD. --Zerbey 21:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Found [17]. How annoying. But I'm sure Philip Clark doesn't own them either. The article definitely needs pics, probably these pics ... do we have any readers based in Russia? - David Gerard 22:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Copyright solved: as per Wikipedia:Copyright issues, "Soviet Union (pre-1973): Soviet copyright laws are non-retroactive, and all Russian works published prior to May 27, 1973 remain unprotected outside the former Soviet Union." The clearly Soviet pics are clearly PD. - David Gerard 23:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutrality 03:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • SupportAvala 19:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) One of the scientists said, "We did not learn enough from the mission to justify the death of a dog" — what exactly did the scientists learn from the mission? The article could do with some discussion of this. 2) The lead needs to summarise the entire article, including the controversy about how the dog died. 3) "In Russia and elsewhere, it sparked a debate on animal cruelty." — I think we should attempt to provide a brief summary of this debate. 4) "References to Laika" should be merged with "External links" 5) " Laika's final voyage was as a shooting star in the night sky." — this is a tad sentimental / slushy for an encyclopedia article; could we reword it? 6) Russian Space Dogs discuss Laika and say that "She was also known as Zhuchka ("Little Bug") and Limonchik ("Lemon")."and "She died between five and seven hours into the flight"; this information isn't included in the main Laika article. 7) There's internal links in

the external links section. 8) "It sparked a debate across the globe on the mistreatment of animals to advance science" — was this the first / one of the earliest / a well-known reactions to animal testing in science? 9) There's too much information about Sputnik 2 in this article; we have a separate article on the spacecraft itself, we only need at most one paragraph. 10) There's information about Laika in the Sputnik 2 article that's not present in the Laika article. — Matt 16:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    • Updates have been added to the article which should address your concerns --Zerbey 16:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I've still a few issues, I'm afraid. — Matt 16:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • 1) This is addressed at the end of the article, 2) Lead has been reworded to include the requested information, 6) Alternate names have been added, but the rest is already in the article, 7) fixed, 8) I couldn't find any more on this! Any other Sputnik buffs out there who can help out?, 9) This has been condensed, 10) More information please, I can't see anything relevant in the Sputnik 2 article that is not included in the main Laika article. --Zerbey 18:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • OK, I think most of these are covered between your and my changes. Re: "8" — it's just that Laika seems to be an important? early? example in the history of the debate over Animal testing, and it would be good to go into that in a little more detail. I'll "unobject" on this point, though. — Matt 19:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but a couple of small comments: 1) The stamp doesn't look Russian to me, as it's not using a cyrillic alphabet; 2) I don't think there is a need to summarise the debate on animal cruelty directly, but I'd like to see a link to a Wikipedia article on vivisection, and would suggest that such an article include a ( brief ) note on Laika's contribution to the vivisection debate. IM.
    • The stamp turns out to be Albanian. How annoying. And Albanian law is closer to European law. More research is indeed needed. - David Gerard 13:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It turns out, after research, that Russia never had an image of Laika the space dog on a stamp. Apparently, there's also a breed of dogs called Laika that have feature, but they look different (Laika was a mongrel). They did have an image of Sputnik 2, however. She has appeared on numerous other items, such as posters, toys, clothing, cigarette packets, etc so I'll put one of those up. --Zerbey 15:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • A new section has been added that covers the vivisection debate, the stamp has been replaced with a different memorial and is definitely Russian this time. --Zerbey 14:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. We could do with a Russian Cyrillic alphabet spelling of Laika (and possibly Kudryavka) (and if this was to be a Wikipedia:Perfect article, Zhuchka and Limonchi as well!). 2. How famous is Laika among real dogs? I'm trying to think of other famous, non-fictional dogs, but I can't think of any (Lassie go home...). Surely Laika isn't the world's most famous dog? 3) What's a "Blok A" core? Could we mention what it is in the article? — Matt 02:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've no idea what a Blok A core is, and it's beyond the scope of this article anyway, I've rephrased this section. --Zerbey 17:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • If you can't think of any, that doesn't mean it's the nominator's job to try to concoct some. We are, after all, working to Wikipedia:What is a featured article, rather than necessarily Wikipedia:The perfect article. (Though you've done a hell of a lot for the article yourself.) I'll see if I can turn up the Cyrillic - David Gerard 10:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, the objection was phrased badly; let me try again. The article really should mention how famous a dog Laika is compared to other canines and animals. As an aside, I've a suspicion that she's the most famous real-life dog ever, but I wanted to check that before adding it, hence the somewhat speculative wording. — Matt 13:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I should have something for you later, I already had plans to add this to the article. We're getting dangerously close to TMI here, though.. Added some other famous dogs. --Zerbey 17:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Object. The list of famous dogs doesn't belong here, but should probably appear in the general dog article. Other than that the article is excellent. 21:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • I've removed it (again), following discussion in #wikipedia the general consensus seems to be it's not worth using but I'd appreciate Matt's comments as well. Maybe this discussion should be moved to the article's talk page? See talk page for more. --Zerbey 22:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Traditional counties of England[edit]

Self nom. This article has been the subject of huge disputes in the past, with it being more of an argument than an article. Getting involved led me to do a lot of research, and after a while thinking about it, I've refactored it entirely - with the agreement of one of the people on the other side of the argument. Morwen - Talk 15:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's a nice article, but the past editorial instability is a worry. I'd really like to see it stay relatively stable for a while, say a week or two, to show that the warring factions really can settle for the present version, structure and wording. Call this support if it's not warred over for a week ;-) - David Gerard 15:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely support, it's a fantastic article; I've gone to it several times over the last month or so and amn't sure why it's never occurred to me to nom it myself. -- OwenBlacker 15:33, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting, detailed article. It's much better article than it was a month or two ago thanks to Morwen's work on it, and seems to satisfy those on the other side of the argument. Warofdreams 15:48, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- pne 14:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Good article! Yet:1) Can we incorporate the abbreviations list into the previous list of counties? 2) The "Names and Statuses" section might be better placed at the end of the list of counties, rather than a separate section; the sentences in that section are quite disjointed, but might work well as footnotes to the list. 3) It would be helpful to define "enclave" and "exclave" within this article. 4) Unusual colon style "lastword_:_" ('_' is a space); does the Manual of Style specify what we should do? "lastword:_" is more common. 5) Logically, it seems that the "Origin" section should come earlier in the article. -- Matt 16:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) no - because then the numbered list of counties and the map will have trouble fitting on one screen neatly. I tried this is didn't work out.
    • 2) yes, can do.
    • 3) ok
    • 4) will look into ;)
    • 5) ok
    • Morwen - Talk 17:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • regarding 1) (the abbreviations); I can see it's tricky. The map won't fit neatly anyway at certain resolutions and font sizes (the map starts going off screen at around 1000px at my usual reading font size). Surely there's some way of getting the information in neatly without having to have a separate abbreviations list? -- Matt 17:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, please feel free to suggestion one. I really can't see a way to do it. Possibly the info could be moved to Postal counties of the United Kingdom as they are mostly postal abbreviations. Morwen - Talk 17:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Would scaling down the image help (keeping the numbers visible, of course)? (Sorry, I'm not much of a layout guru). -- Matt 17:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • I've had a play around, and I think Morwen's right - merging the abbreviations into the map section just isn't going to work very well, sadly. Scaling down the image probably won't work too well, either... Moving to the postal-codes article is possible, I suppose, but they are perhaps rather less useful out of context. James F. (talk) 17:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • Most of the abbrevs are quite dull, so I've summarised the interesting ones into a short paragraph. Morwen - Talk 17:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • Right, I've rather boldly marked this Uncontested, since (1) is now moot.
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • An excellent article, but certain minor typography-related objections: 1. Single quotation marks are used; they should, per Wiki policy, be replaced by double quotation marks. 2. Furthermore, one should use em dashes instead of hyphens surrounded by spaces. 3. My only "substantive" objection relates to the section "The counties." We mention the use of "shire" and "County of," but it appears that no explanation is given for the special usage "County Durham." -- Emsworth 21:28, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • All done. Morwen - Talk 21:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Then I support the article entirely. -- Emsworth 22:37, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The lead section need dates (or rough periods in history) of when these counties arose and when other county systems partially superceded them. Likewise, the "origin" section needs some more specific dates and time periods for a reader to easily grasp the history. 2) Are "enclave" and "exclave" synonymous? (The article uses both). Also, "exclave" is defined twice; we only need to define it once -- the first time it's used in the article. 3) There's an unnumbered region on the map (near the Scotland border, next to "7" and "36"; should it be numbered? 4) Curiosity: why is Yorkshire such a large county? 5) What's the smallest county? 6) I'd query the usage of "worn down by erosion" -- is that the usual linguistic phrase? (Just querying) 7) The "Usage" section is quite long; could this be broken up somehow into slightly smaller chunks (e.g. subsections or two sections)? -- Matt 13:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) done. 2) we already have perfectly good articles about both those terms, i don't want to duplicate those articles here. 3) this is the detatched part of Lancashire mentioned. 4) 5) done. 6) done. 7) done. Morwen - Talk 13:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks; would it be possible /desireable to add a "19" label to Furness (presumably in the sea, but with a line connecting it)? -- Matt 14:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Already done. Try force-reload to get the new image. Morwen - Talk 14:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Ah, great -- thanks.
  • Support. -- Matt 14:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've done some cleaning, but nothing major. Markalexander100 07:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Separation of powers under the United States Constitution[edit]

Self-nomination. (Note: The above title has been shown in a condensed form so that this page's TOC is not too wide.) -- Emsworth 19:50, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Another gem. I've added two sections to the end that somebody might want to look over. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:16, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article - Taxman 20:55, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The section on presidential powers mentions Nixon and the first Roosevelt, but for some reason it overlooks FDR, who I had understood to be the most powerful president of the 20th century. Isomorphic 02:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that FDR did not hold an extreme view of Presidential powers (like TR) or expand the constitutional power of the Presidency (like Nixon). I think that FDR expanded political power, while Nixon and TR attempted to expand the constitutional power of the presidency. (The nineteenth century Presidents are also noted, but for their struggles with Congress.) In any event, I will look into the matter and add any information that I might find about FDR. -- Emsworth 03:02, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • See my comments on the article's talk page. Isomorphic 02:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • This objection is the only one holding this article back - has it been resolved? →Raul654 06:05, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Two of the pictures have no source listed. One is a painting, and probably in the public domain. Jeronimo 07:02, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The US Government does not own copyright, so I believe that the Senate picture is in the public domain. The two paintings are so old that they would be in the public domain by now. -- Emsworth 13:00, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • If so, please indicate that the Senate picture was indeed taken by the US Government. This is not at all clear. Also, the Lord Chancellor picture is not dated, and no other information is provided. Therefore, it may very well be copyrighted.
  • Support. I think this is a well-written and informative article, and I enjoyed reading it. My reason for objecting is that there's little discussion of criticism of the "US separation of powers" structure. The only thing I could find was: "John Kingdon ... cites its [Seperation of powers] complexity as one of the reasons for lower citizen participation.". -- Matt 16:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added sections on the purported misinterpretation of Montesquieu and on the inefficiency promoted by separation of powers. Is more necessary? -- Emsworth 17:40, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • It's good enough for me. -- Matt 18:02, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to image information shortage. A lovely article. I think we should be very careful about the images we use, however; we are rather rudely grabbing all manner of images without noting just what they are of, and when and where they (or the originals they are images of) were created. A good place to start seems to be with our small collection of peer-reviewed articles... Please forgive me for pressing for this double degree of brilliance, but I should hope that every image in a featured article has an informative description about its contents and provenance. "Lord Chancellor painting" does not meet this standard (painted by? when? is that a title or a description?); the image of the Clinton impeachment proceedings is slightly less unacceptable (it should approximate the date and note what news service or government site it came from) and the Anders Zorn image can skate by, but should properly note the detaails of the original painting (which I just added). +sj+ 05:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The Senate image has been replaced on Mr DiPierro's suggestion; the two paintings also have the relevant details noted. -- Emsworth 02:31, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

GNU/Linux naming controversy (Uncontested — Jun 25)[edit]

Self-nomination. Meets the criteria except a relevant picture, which I can't think of any possibility for. It appears stable at present edit-wise - the more strident GNU/Linux advocates seem to concentrate on Linux. - David Gerard 00:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support (with some quiet mutterings about including quotes from MozillaQuest...); a good example of how to write from the NPOV. I can't think of a relevant picture, either; presumably if it's ever put on the main page, Tux could make an appearance? — Matt 00:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • MozillaQuest has actually done worthwhile coverage of SCO v. IBM ;-) Tux is on at least four pages already (in three different versions of the Tux image) — and two linked from this one (Linux and Linux kernel), which I think would feel like overuse - David Gerard 00:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, sorry, I didn't mean on the article itself, but as an image for just the main page: ("even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the Main Page (it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself is helpful."Wikipedia:What is a featured article) — Matt 01:08, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article, well written and includes a picture, and the NPOV tone is exemplary. →Raul654 01:16, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • One possible image might be this one from GNU, which is available under the GFDL. This is sort of the cartoon form of the FSF's side of the issue. I can't think of anything representing the other side. —Steven G. Johnson 22:21, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • That image is of course perfect :) Please add it to the article. (The color version, of course.) Fredrik | talk 22:46, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice and conclusive. Simon A. 11:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:46, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
  • Support. --TreyHarris 06:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not quite stable :-) but it is able. chocolateboy 00:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Twelfth Amendment (Uncontested — 19 Jun)[edit]

Self nomination. I think the article provides a good explanation of the background behind the Amendment, and of its provisions. -- Emsworth 15:11, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Solidly written. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 06:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. One of the images is not credited (although likely in the PD). Jeronimo 09:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've replaced Mr. Adams with another image, which is in the public domain. -- Emsworth 13:08, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Please add details on the Jefferson portrait -- I could not find a catalog of the artist's work online. Title, date? Thank you! +sj+ 05:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added details on President Jefferson's portrait. -- Emsworth 13:56, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I would also like to be sure that at least two US history buffs had looked this over since it was totally rewritten last week; Emsworth is clearly one. Is Neutrality another? +sj+
  • I agree with Meelar; solidly written indeed. Object until someone other than the primary author with relevant expertise supports it on comprehensiveness & accuracy. (This article is unusual in that it was effectively written by a single author only a week before being nominated. FAC is above all things our one real form of peer review.) +sj+ 23:49, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Humpback Whale[edit]

Self-nom. I am sure there are typos (I am terrible at spotting my own), but I think the topic is covered fairly well now, and it has the all important pics. Pcb21| Pete 22:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. That's a nice article! - David Gerard 23:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 06:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support with two caveats: the article could use an external links section, and I'm wondering whether it's necessary to capitalize Humpback and Humpback Whale each time they appear in the article? Exploding Boy 14:01, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I'll have a scout round for good things to link to. Suitable things I can think of are a) greater depth articles on specific aspects of the subject (i.e. academic papers) or b) articles that have images that show the whole body (these are almost always drawings rather than photos for reasons of practicality!) Ideally the article would have one of these itself, but they rarely freely available from the copyright point of view. Secondly the capitalization thing is a general policy of the Tree of Life WikiProject. We should keep this article in line with the general policy - even if that policy is the source of endless debate :)! Pcb21| Pete 15:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The question is -- is it proper English? Fredrik | talk 15:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • No, it's not. Humpback whale is not a proper noun. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • A Humpback Whale is a species, not merely a whale that is humpback. Similarly the blue jay that you see in the yard may be a Blue Jay, unless you live west of the very rocky mountains, where it may be Steller's Jay. But there are other North American jays, and not every blue bird is a Bluebird, as not every miller is Mitch Miller or Ann Miller. Wetman 19:33, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC).
            • But a lion is not a Lion, right? Surely this is an inconsistency, or am I missing something? Fredrik | talk 19:48, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • Right! not every lion is the Nemean Lion, or a particular species or sub-species. I'm probably hopelessly old-fashioned. Correct me; I won't fuss. Wetman 19:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
              • Many particular species are listed in the dictionary. For the record, both Britannica and Merriam-Webster spell the Humpback Whale "humpback whale". Does that correct you? ;-) Fredrik | talk 23:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I guess we could come up with a rule that no ToL articles can be featured because there is always going to be a significant portion of people who disagree with the policy (whichever way round we have it). I personally hope that no such rule is required. Of course if there any new issues that are not considered in the 600k of text in the ToL archives (and hundreds of mailing list posts) which led to the current policy then we must explore them, but not here. Pcb21| Pete 17:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm not objecting. The article is quite good, and I'm not prepared to argue with dozens of irate biology-lovers over capitalization. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I think this article should include some description of the whale's song; quoting from [18]: Humpback whales are probably best known for their “songs,” which are considered to be the most complex vocalization in the animal kingdom. . (We have "This whale is famous for its long and complex song - see the whale song article for details."). I don't think we should duplicate the content, but perhaps provide one or two summary paragraphs (if the external quote is true.) — Matt 21:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object (sorry!). I think this is a nice article, but... 1) It could do with a full view (underwater) photograph or a diagram; the current pictures don't really give the overall view (even the breaching pic is obscured by spray). 2) I get the impression there needs to be more raw facts: e.g. [19], [20] have details about feeding, the size of body parts and behaviours (skyhopping, "lobtailing" etc) that we don't have. — Matt 00:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't say sorry. I know putting a nom here is definitely asking for a thorough examination and I welcome it. As I mention above I agree that a full-body image or diagram would be a great improvement but are hard to find. I will send some emails to those sites that look like they may be amenable to the GFDL and Wikipedia's aims. I must deal with lobtailing, spyhopping, (though skyhopping would be cool too I am sure :)), breaching etc in a separate article and reference it from the article with the usual short summary. Pcb21| Pete 08:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neat article. It could use a *lot* of expansion; this is much more important than the all-important pics :). Please provide more insight into how humpbacks fit into the grand scheme of things -- evolutionarily within its genetic family, and in its current ecosystems. What do its social groups look like? How, broadly, do humpbacks interact with other species, human, whale, or otherwise? Who are the people who like to study these whales; who wrote about them hundreds of years ago when they were only occasionally sighted, tell me more of the history of human interaction with these easily-spotted and remarkable whales, aside from kill rates and numbers. +sj+ 06:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    The article states ...the most-studied and well-understood of all cetaceans as researchers have been able to follow the trials and tribulations of individuals and small groups in studies ongoing since the 1970s, but tells the reader nothing of these trials and tribulations, or of these ongoing studies.   More detail on Phil Clapham and his book (perhaps a few words in this article, but a good one-paragraph stub in their own articles) would also improve the article.
    Lots of good ideas here. I will deal with them as many as I can when I get home to my books and report. However I fear the answer to some questions may simply be "unknown". Pcb21| Pete 08:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to image descriptions. Please provide full descriptions for the photos you didn't take yourself; a proper link to "NOAA site", naming the site without the acronym, and perhaps a link to their image-use policy. +sj+
    • I'll ask the person who uploaded them to help me out with that. Pcb21| Pete 07:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Turns out I didn't need to. I have tracked down the source of images and lengthened the description of all of them (including mine). Pcb21| Pete 08:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctant object - Nice article, but I must echo the call for an image showing the whole animal. I would also like to see some more info on the animal's behavior (mating, parenting, feeding, etc) along with evolutionary history and the role these animals play in their ecological niche. --mav 07:47, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Taking on board the many bits of encouragement, advice and objections, I have substantially expanded the article and hope I have basically covered all the bases. Please see Talk:Humpback Whale for a more detailed analysis. Pcb21| Pete 15:17, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice job! Accept. Although it is still a bit lean in the areas I cited (other than the image), I think that that article covers all major aspects well enough for featured status. More can be added later - but a solid foundation already exists. --mav 09:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Does this picture address the problem of not having a full-body shot of the whale? [21] RickK 23:07, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm impressed by Pete's followup of this process. ✏ Sverdrup 22:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, despite the naming issue. Fredrik | talk 23:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The "Taxonomy and evolution" section needs tweaking for creation-vs-evolution NPOV; I guess it only needs a few careful changes of things like "it is known" to "evolutionary biologists believe" and the like. — Matt 15:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. Evolution is *the* accepted method by which animals come/came to exist. We do not need to drag out creationism every time we talk about evolution, nor do we need to undercut the language. →Raul654 17:50, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • I had the same initial reaction as you but realising this suggestion had implications for the whole tree of life project, I thought I should take the question there (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Creationism in Tree of Life articles), and a correspondent pointed out an improvement without necessarily getting into creationism. I've implemented that suggestion, so hopefully all sides will be ok. Pcb21| Pete 19:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • The rewording conveys the same information in an NPOV way without loss of clarity, thanks! — Matt 22:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice job JoJan 17:28, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. — Matt 21:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Yath 04:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)