Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2005

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

Objectivist poets[edit]

Self nom. A not uninformative (I hope) account of an important group of poets. This had a peer review that resulted in a number of improvements. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Object, over a few, easy-to-fix, details in a very good article. The article wikilinks every year mentioned. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). The last two paragraphs of the the "Legacy" section fail to have the scrupulous referencing of the rest of the article; the statements of infuence aren't attributed to anyone (great work on weaving the references into the rest of the article, though!). There are few incoming links, so I'd suggest creating a redirect from Objectivist poetry, and see if you net some that way. There are something like a hundred links pointing at the disambiguation page Objectivism, some of them may want this article (although my quick scan didn't reveal any). One could spend a sentence on who the Beat poets and LANGUAGE poets were. Lastly, the article left me wanting to read some of the poetry, but it wasn't obvious to me from the External links section precisely where I should go to do that. I look forward to changing my vote. Jkelly 18:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment I found one link which should have been pointing to Objectivist poets, an article on the Beat movement. It is now properly disambiguated. The others look like the creations of Bland Rand enthusiasts, persuing their philosophy of self-interest by contributing to a free encyclopedia. Anville 22:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, the MoS is a guidlene only. I believe that the links to the years are useful because they help provide an appropriate historical context for what was, after all, a group of poets who stood outside the mainstream of their time. Unless there is a really strong objection, I would prefer to retain these links. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I have added links to texts and expanded on the Beats and lang. poets. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the year links should be retained, and I appreciate the expansion. (I probably should have mentioned that I preferred the years linked when I voted below, but oh well.) Anville 17:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I like the year links also. I guess I disagree with Mos here. Paul August 22:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, informative and beautiful article. I like especially that, purporting to be about the poets and not merely the poetry, it really is; i. e., the loftiness of poetic discussion and careers is supplemented with a biographical and humane "Objectivists after Objectivism" section on the later lives, which are sometimes part of the poetic careers, sometimes not. As always Filiocht's brilliant prose flows clear as water. (P. S. William Carlos Williams: what a babe.) Bishonen | talk 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Object for the moment (but this will probably be easily addressed): I believe that much as with images, quotes this lengthy from copyrighted poems need to acknowledge copyright and indicate whether they are used by permission or with fair use justification. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As I understand it (and I have some experience of print publishing) quotes as short as this (to give a context, the Reznikoff quote is from a 20 page sequence, the Zukofsky is a 14 line part of a 6 page section of an 800 page poem, and the Oppen is a short section from a 30 page work) do not need to acknowledge copyright but are fair use by definition. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • While I don't necessarily think it is required to give such notice, it can't hurt to have it. To avoid cluttering the page, it should be a footnote (or inote, possibly). —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I tend towards the "if it's not needed, don't add it" approach. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It isn't needed. I understand JMabel's original concern, as it's not made clear on the page that the outtakes come from poems that long; in fact I rather came away with the impression that the Oppen and Zukovsky quotes were whole poems. But now that Filiocht has explained the context, there is no copyright issue, they are indeed fair use by definition. (I have some experience of academic publishing.) However, I'd like to see the point that they're taken from long originals touched on in some way in the text, so as not to raise the same alarm in future readers. Also: "To avoid cluttering the page, it should be a footnote" is a contradiction in terms in my book; footnotes are clutter. Sometimes they're necessary clutter, but not here. And nobody should be made to use inote unless they want to, as there are very reasonable objections to it. Bishonen | talk 14:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I have tried to implement this suggestion. What do you all think now? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak object for the reasons Jkelly and Jmabel gave above. I expect these issues can be addressed relatively easily. Anville 22:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Support now that the context of the quotations is better explained. Anville 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support: This is a great article. One of the best. I had never heard of Objectivist poets before seeing this. I would too wanted to read more, so looked here [1] - One types in the author's name, and then purchases the book and reads it. There are 86 books in Britain alone beginning at £0.98p for works by Robert McAlmon (very good value indeed - I've ordered one) . The page is more than adequately referenced, all this constant referring back to various books is unnecessary, so long as the sources are listed in the reference section the reference books can always be read by those wishing to check or further their knowledge. The style and prose are well up to Filiocht's usual high standard. Another great page for Wikipedia. Giano | talk 12:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment could do with an image towards the last half, maybe a bookcover if anyone has one? DVD+ R/W 07:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As no book is discussed in depth, I think that might be pushing fair use a bit. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly written and informative; excellent article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent article and very nicely written. violet/riga (t) 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Another fine Filiocht fashioning. Paul August
  • Support. What Paul said. Mark1 01:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dawson Creek, British Columbia[edit]

It is a town of 11,000 people in northern British Columbia. I believe the article is of feature quality so I bring it here. All comments are welcome. --maclean25 09:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dawson Creek, British Columbia/archive1

  • support. only 11,000 people is nothing compared with wikipedians deleting thousands of smaller cities and towns with 100,000 - it's a unique city more than just any city. It's a city with a great history, and it's specially good place for bounty huners! There is always gold in that old Creek!
  • Support. Great article! Though I might make a suggestion to vary the size of the pictures in the article. Some are a bit hard to discern at their current size. In addition, the fabulous graph of the town's population should be bigger. There is also one detail that I think may need a bit of clarification: Why did refugees from the Sudetenland choose to move to this particular area? Lovely job! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the support, and also the comments. I expanded the Sudeten sentence and provided a new reference that has a better description of their settlement. The Sudetens were refugees in Europe (I think they fled to Britain) waiting for a country to accept them. Canada accepted a few of them and since there was still a lot of open, arable land in northeastern B.C. many went there. --maclean25 02:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: This should be a model for all small town articles that wish to ascend to FA Status. It meets all of the WP:WIAFA criteria, it's free from edit warring from what I've seen, and it's a great tool for likewise articles on similiar subjects. Karmafist 18:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A good read indeed. I agree with the Sudetenland suggestion though. Quite a well-written article! -- user:zanimum
  • Strong Support. Absolutely remarkable! --Hollow Wilerding 01:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is the sort of article that should be set up as a model for its kind. Well done! A few comments for you, Maclean, regarding the content, follow this vote. It is mostly nit-picking, so feel free to ignore any (or all) of it. :)
  • 1. sub-section: History - "the community boomed" - The meaning may be lost on non-Native English users.
  • 2. sub-section: History - "Elevator Row" - I cannot parse what exactly this might be other than having a connexion with grain elevators.
  • 3. sub-section: History - "Since the 1970s, the town's population and economy has not expanded greatly due to the nearby town of Fort St. John taking most of the industrial development and Grande Prairie the commercial."

suggested rewrite, with the changes in bold:

  • "Since the 1970s, the town's population and economy has not significantly increased. This is primarily attributable to the nearby town of Fort St. John becoming a centre for industrial development and Grande Prairie becoming the same in the commercial sector."
  • 4. sub-section: History - "and the factory was half built the industrial company abandoned their plans." - Which company?
  • 5. sub-section: Demographics - "and its participation rate was 69.5%" - The term "participation rate" is unfamiliar to me, and there does not seem to be anything linked to it here or at the other Wikis. Is there a synonym for the concept/phrase that does have a linkable article somewhere?
  • 6. sub-section: Economy - "As city acts as the retail and service center for the region" As city acts? Looks like it is missing a word somewhere in that clause.
  • Overall, a shining piece of work. Again, well done!--P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Good points, all of them. The industrial company was Louisiana Pacific veneer plant. It is now an abandoned factory (the kind super-villians make they HQs in). I am amazed that participation rate is red linked. It is the percent of people in the labour force. It expresses the confidence of the population in finding work, whereas unemployment rates just show the supply/demand ratio of work (not willingness to work). Tracking unemployment is useless without understanding if more or less people are actually looking for work. What is that called in the US? Also, Canada has a funny way of calculating unemployment rates. Canada uses a base population of those over 15 years old, whereas the US and the rest of the world use those over 21 years old. So we have a little higher unemployment rate and lower participation rate as not many 16 year olds are employed or even looking for work (especially during the May census periods). --maclean25 03:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, economics is not something I know very much about, so 'participation rate' may very well be quite appropriate, and it does seem to be so based on the definition provided here. The Canadian system of describing unemployment conditions does seem rather useful in giving a better 'picture' in statistical terms. Anyway, glad I could help. It pleases me to see really good articles at Wikipedia- kind of a 'buffering the Wikifaith' sort of thing. :) Slainté, P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 15:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work. Jkelly 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, as the article is very good!!! 23:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great small town article! Carioca 05:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object – the table on the political parties looks terrible on 800x600. Please ensure that the tables fit on the screen in lower resolutions. Width must be set to 100% or <600px =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have adjusted the tables. I did not know you could use % instead of px. That's fantastic! Thanks for your help. Let me know how it looks now. --maclean25 07:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      Yeah, it works. I wish I could fully review the article, (it looks good at first glance), but sadly I don't have the time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Look what happened to my little baby stub. It makes a papa proud. Gentgeen 19:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good article, but I strongly recommend a copyedit, as there are a fair number of strange word choices and grammar oddities: over-casual phrasings such as "As for the railway," grammar errors such as "Since the 1970s, the town's population and economy has not significantly increased.", and comma usage and spelling errors such as "As a service center Dawson Creek has a large retail sector that craters to the rural community as well as the city’s inhabitants." -Silence 22:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant object. The article is perfect up until the last paragraph of "Demographics", but after that point needs a copyedit in quite a few places. Silence highlights some of the worst examples of this, but I'm sorry to say that quite a bit more is needed. Ambi 01:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Silence and Ambi, you two are correct. However, I wrote the vast majority of the text and have read & re-read it dozens of times. It all makes sense in my head as the errors and oddities just flow by. It has had a few copyedits which made it a much better read, but it still needs a fresh pair of eyes to read through and identify what is odd. But that "craters" is pretty funny, I'll change that now. --maclean25 02:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'll give it a read-through, then. -Silence 02:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Rosa Parks[edit]

50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' bus protest coming up on December 1.

Lotsofissues 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support. I don't have the time to read this article in depth at the moment, so I can't say if all picky things are in order, for example, picture tags, grammar, copyediting, and the like. However, the actual content is worthy of the honor of being featured. If consensus is that all small things are in order, then I must support. RyanGerbil10 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • .. So your vote is essentially "support, as long as the article's good enough"? Isn't that a tad redundant? ;D -Silence 01:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A small stylistic issue is that I don't like pictures being aligned left, but prefer thumbs down the right instead. If this is changed, and no other problems pop up, I'll support this important and wonderfully written article wholeheartedly. Harro5 08:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Good work, but please expand the lead to atleast two paras. Also, align all the images to the right side, so the flow is maintained. --PamriTalk 16:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree that moving all images to the right would improve the article. Just the opposite; I think it would make the article seem much more crowded and unbalanced. There are some articles where I agree that predominantly right-aligned images are better, but this is not one of them. It also seems strange to me to base one's support on a loose, stylistic issue rather than on one of the FA criteria, but maybe I just haven't seen that practice before. -Silence 20:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I also strongly disgree with moving the images to the right. It would make the article look so heavy to the right and would constitute as a graphic design faux pas. Staggering the images helps to balance the flow of the eye. I realize Wikipedia isn't a design piece per se but the rules of design apply if it helps information design to ease flow for the article. --speedoflight 09:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on a few points that should be easy to address:
  1. Notes in the text should have corresponding notes in the reference list, there is also a mix of notes using ref/note and plain html link in the text- all the notes should have full citiations in the notes list.
  2. I have tried to verify that a number of images are actually in the public domain- the link on Image:Rosaparks.jpg doesn't work, so it can't be checked. This image Image:Rosaparks bus.jpg is not a work of the US government and needs a full fair use rationale provided. Image:Rparksmug1.jpg should also have a fair use rationale provided given that the status of the image is unknown, I have a feeling that the same should be done for all the scanned police documents unless they can be shown to be in the public domain.
  3. The lead is too short, the lead should summarise the content of the article.
  1. I can't see any reason why the large text section of text from her Presidential Medal of Freedom Award Ceremony is included- move it to wikisource/wikiquote and include a short excerpt in the awards and honours section.--nixie 23:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Arr, I really didn't want to have to get too involved in this article, but there seems to be remarkably little interest in actually putting in the work needed to get it Featured. I've moved most of the text from the quotes-heavy section to the Talk page, where it can be transferred to sister projects if appropriate. I've also put Fair Use Rationales on the two items you identified as not necessarily being in the public domain, Image:Rparksmug1.jpg and Image:Rosaparks bus.jpg. For most of the other images on Rosa Parks, I advise that someone contact User:Speedoflight, since that user is the one who uploaded almost all of them to Wikipedia.
  • Most of the images featured for the article are available on US govt sites. They have reproduction numbers, etc. Does that not constitute work that has been released to the public domain for reproduction and hence, no need for a fair use blurb? --speedoflight 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The original Rosa Parks on the bus image for the article wasn't uploaded by me (speedoflight). But because it was such a poor quality jpg, that I decided to go find a better version of it. I found a copy of it on the Library of Congress site. And this is the caption from the LOC site:
United Press photo. Location of Original: New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection.
Library of Congress Digital ID: cph 3c11235 Source: b&w film copy neg. Reproduction Number: LC-USZ62-111235 (b&w film copy neg.) [Rights status not known.]
Given that there is a reproduction number associated with its rights unknown and that the image is now in the LOC collection, I think it is safe to say it has been released to the public domain. --speedoflight 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the lead; it may look a little short, but I think it does do an effective job of summarizing Parks' life, considering that she is almost entirely known for a singular incident. Any more text feels like it would just be filler, and while I could make filler, it wouldn't seem right for an intro, which is usually supposed to be as short as possible while conveying the necessary information. If anyone else wants to give a try at bulking up the intro, feel free; I divided it into two paragraphs are requested above, though if they're too short to stand on their own feel free to re-merge them. -Silence 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Finished standardizing the Notes and putting them all in order. Surprisingly tricky. So, all that's left now is possibly expanding the intro a tad, discussing the right-align issue, and verifying whether all the "U.S. Federal Government" photos are all really public domain, eh? -Silence 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
You can click on the US Fed Govt images with links and you can see that they indeed are listed either with the Library of Congress or the US Archives. They have reproduction numbers associated to them. They have been released to the public domain. Not need to put a fair use blurb with these. --speedoflight 09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The intro does not need to be expanded. Her importance is succinctly distilled. Going any further would inevitably create a too glowing for an encyclopedia intro. It's now an images issue. Lotsofissues 03:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Cool, someone who agrees. So, yeah, let's find out about those images. -Silence 03:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see my comments in the paragraph above. Click on the links associated with the images in their caption. When I downloaded them from the LOC or US Archives, I was careful about copying their source links for precisely this reason (people asking about their status). Those that have been stored in the LOC or US Archives have repro numbers and are considered works owned by the US Gov, therefore, there is no need for a fair use blurb. I did not upload the mugshot image. I thought it was an image owned by the LOC but turns out that it may not be. --speedoflight 09:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you please point out the rational that all works stored in the LOC or US Archives with a reproduction number are works of the US government. The description of that image clearly lists the original photo as residing at a newspaper (who would own the copyright to it). --Martyman-(talk) 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that that the brevity of the lead downwplays the significant contribution she made to the civil rights movement- she did more than get on a bus- and the lead should mention that. At the very least it should mention why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a significant event. See Wikipedia:Lead section.--nixie 03:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Montgomery Bus Boycott be the article that mentions in any detail why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a significant event? And the opening does already say that she had a huge impact on the civil rights movement and on American history, and properly attributes this to stemming originally from her bus protest and the fact that the Montgomery Bus Boycotts used her arrest as a uniting symbol. I don't see a major problem here.... Though again, if anyone else wants to try their hand at improving the opening, be my guest... -Silence 04:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I've expanded the information on the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the intro paragraphs quite a bit, hopefully satisfying the three requests on this page to expand the intro. Also, two of the images on the page have been removed by Speedoflight; presumably Speedoflight did so in reaction to reading this page, and those are the two that weren't public domain. So, does that satisfy your objections yet, Petaholmes? -Silence 01:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Silence, I did not remove that portrait image of her that is found here: I feel it should be featured under the later years section. I have inserted it back to the later years section where it should belong. It is an LOC image, released into the public domain. It can lend some weight to the article to give people a different perspective of Rosa Parks other than ones of her being arrested, etc. I have scoured the archives of the LOC and the US Archives sites and have found no childhood image of her in the public domain. The 1964 portrait, the 1955 portrait, the finger prints, police report, bus diagram are images in the govt archives. If you click and read the caption, you will see the source links. I was very careful about capturing their reproduction numbers, source links, exact caption as listed by their sources. --speedoflight | talk to me 11:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support Very impressed by the article. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding Image:Rosaparks_1964.jpg, is it automatic to assume a photo listed at the LOC taken by the associated press of unknown copyright is a work of the US government? Wouldn't the copyright reside with the photographer who took the photo? The LOC page here seems to back up mty argument. Also what is with Image:Rosa Louise McCauley Parks in 1979.jpg? It is of terrible quality and blown up way past the resolution limits of the camera it was taken with. --Martyman-(talk) 21:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, provided that User:Silence, after his excellent upgrades are finished, comes to support the FAC himself. Also, Petaholmes/nixie's points of objection must be first addressed. I trust Silence's voting judgment. I've actually read the text thoroughly and did do copyediting a while back (before this FAC), and found the prose exceptionally clear and well organized. I see that more references have been added as well. One minor suggestion (which can be safely ignored at Silence's discretion) is that perhaps a "Impact on popular culture" or suchlike section be spun off from one or more of the currect sections (especially "Awards and honors"). Otherwise, I'll offer more constructive comments here as I think of them. Good luck. Saravask 02:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh. My upgrades are pretty much done for now, I've copyedited the article and addressed the above problems. The main issue seems to be the mysterious origin and copyedit status of some of the images now. If there are specific images which there are problems with confirming the status of, maybe we should simply remove those and put them on the article's talk page until their origin can be confirmed? Once that's cleared up, I'll gladly support; my only other concerns are with whether the article is as expansive and thorough as possible (your popular culture category, for example, and also more details on her life and reactions to her civil disobedience), and whether there are enough print references for this article (it seems to have been constructed almost entirely from newspaper articles, which may be reliable but often ignore interesting details), but that's more of a problem to address in the long-term than an immediate concern, and shouldn't get in the way of FAing a very nice article. -Silence 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The improvements are great, but the images still need to be dealt with, appearing in a US govenment library/archive does not make a work PD, anything of unknown copyright that presumably is not old enough to be in the PD needs {{Non-free fair use in}} and a fair use rationale. Image:Rosaparks.jpg still doesn't even have a working source URL--nixie 22:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK. Replaced "public domain" tag with "Non-free fair use in" tag (and rationale) for Image:Rosaparks.jpg and Image:Rosaparks 1964.jpg, until those images can be shown to truly be in the public domain, at which point the "public domain" tag can be put on them. Anything else? -Silence 22:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligence, support--nixie 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Image dilemma seems to have been resolved. -Silence 00:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Arrested Development (TV series)[edit]

Partial self-nom. The character and themes/characteristics sections are particularly thorough. I will be working to correct any problems that arise in this FAC, so please frequently check this nomination for updates. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 08:25

  • Object, for several reasons:
    1. The image Image:GOB on stage.jpg does not have the proper copyright info; also, the article lacks images as a whole. Try and find some as they add variety.
      • Done and done. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 19:19
    2. Some of the English is awkward. I'd advise the article to be copy-edited.
      • I've copyedited some of the sections that I thought needed improving. If you want more changes, please be more specific about what needs changing. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 21:19
    3. Following the "Spoilers warning" tag, there should be another tag that reads "Spoilers end here". If you don't add this, then some people might think that the plot of the article never comes to a conclusion; that's a crucial issue. Fix it, please. --Hollow Wilerding 13:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's that simple. There are spoilers throughout the article, not just in the plot section. I've never heard of this "end spoilers" notice, except as used on internet forum discussions. I don't think people will believe that the "plot" section constitutes the entire article without this notice. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 19:19
Better English and images, but still lacking the spoilers tag. I've placed it on the talk page for you to view and include in the article. --Hollow Wilerding 00:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. We appear to have paved a path. Excellent job! --Hollow Wilerding 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - I thought the article was quite well written, but only two references? A featured article should cite its sources much more than that. I suspect a lot of the information was gleaned from some of those "external sites", and could thus be moved to the references section. With more references, I'd be likely to support. Fieari 15:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added more references that were used in creating the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-20 21:56
  • Support. Good article, comprehensive. Two notes. One, the date for the DVD release is clearly wrong--it's before the show is said to have been first broadcast. And the reference section is wholly inadequate. Where are the printed articles, e.g. Entertainment Weekly, Variety? (Cf. Dawson's Creek). PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed the DVD date (it's a typo on Amazon's site). I don't understand your last question, do you want critical reviews of the show? The Dawson's Creek article overkills it on the references section. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 17:37
    • I've added some prominent reviews, including Entertainment Weekly, in keeping with WikiProject Television. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-21 20:21
  • Support. Very comprehensive and well-organized overview of the show. Valid concerns raised above seem to have since been addressed. Andrew Levine 18:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Great article for a great show. Every stated problem has been addressed so far, any other comments for improvement are appreciated. --TheMidnighters 05:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on numerous isses
  1. The lead is too focussed on the broadcast of the show in the US. eg Three unaired episodes will run in the show's regular time slot beginning December 5th, 2005. The five remaining episodes may air later this season, or possibly over the summer. It also focusses too much on the shows demise.
    • Fixed, hopefully. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 03:04
  2. There is no detailed information later in the article on where else the show is aired or how critics/viewers in other countries have received the show, and how it rated in other countries.
    • Done, hopefully. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 06:15
  3. There is no detail on how the show rated in the US, it is mentioned that ratings were low, how low, ratings information should be available and cited.
  4. The numbered notes in text do not have corresponding numbered references.
  5. If the trivia section must stay- I think an attempt should be made to turn it into prose rather than have it presented as a list.
    • I've removed some of the unnecessary trivia, and shortened the others. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 03:18
  6. External links, especially to fan sites and to the petitions are excessive.
    • I've removed several unnecessary links, and think the rest are alright. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 01:27
  7. Dawson's Creek has a good section on the how the show was created and production information, this article should probably have a similar section.
    • Done, hopefully. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:05
  8. The prose is average, brackets are used too frequently to explain things that can be described in the text, word order and phrasing are uncomfortable in parts, and there are innacuacies for example psycharists don't get disbarred.
    • I've removed all of the unnecessary parenthetical comments, fixed the psychiatrist wording, and made other general cleanups and removals. If you find anything else a problem, let me know. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-24 03:52

--nixie 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Thanks Brian, the article has improved alot. I would like to see fair use rationales and source information added to both the cast photos, which currently lack source information. Ideally the screenshots should also have fair use rationales, and there are probably a few too many screenshots.--nixie 12:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Someone complained above that there needed to be more images, so I added more. Then, someone removed a few saying that there needed to be fewer fair use images. I think the current amount is alright, since they are all talked about in the text. I've added source info for the two cast photos. The fair use rationale is already on their pages, in the {{promotional}}. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 16:58
      • I've also replaced some of the images with publicity-photo equivalents, for which the fair use rationale is always much stronger. The rest are discussed enough in the text that I think it's alright. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 17:22
  • Comment I suggest that more prestigious sources be found for the critics' reviews quotes e.g. Variety, the New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter. I would also suggest that all reference to non-US critics and non-US screening details of the show be removed (except for the bare fact that it has been broadcast in these countries), in order to make the article's context more focussed and established (and no need to update about when which season is showing in the UK; and it also gets rid of the question of if you mention the UK, why not every other country its shown in?) just my two cents. Bwithh 02:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The international content was added in response to the Oppose vote above. I think it is alright to keep it in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-25 06:05
      • The tag is not enough, the image description page needs to specify the rationale for use in a particular article, see the images in Cool (song) for a recent example.--nixie 12:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Done and done. I removed less important images, and added rationale for the remaining ones, in the wording used at Cool (song). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-26 14:29
          • That's everything I can think of taken care of, support--nixie 22:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Carnildo hasn't voted on this FAC yet so I'll cover his ground. The seven screenshots used are all copyrighted, and it seems excessive to use them all. Do we really need the blue Tobias pic, the boat skit pic, or the shot of Charlize Theron? Wikipedia needs to limit the amount of copyrighted pics from the smae source, or else we are testing the bounds of the fairuse on these stills. Please deal with this, and just keep the most relevant and useful images. Harro5 09:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Done and done. I removed less important images, and added detailed rationale for the remaining ones. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-26 14:29
      • Support with a fair use rationale on the logo in the info box. Unless anyone else sees problems with the images, this is a very good article on a hilarious show. Brian, would you be interested in helping bring Seinfeld up to this standard after its recent FAC? Harro5 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


I would like to self-nominate the article on the Emperor Claudius. I have completely overhauled this article over the course of the last day. The previous article was lacking in detail and heavily criticized on its discussion page. The new article encompasses a variety of new and old sources on the subject, which are listed in the new bibliography.

  • Nomination by User:LaurenCole. No vote. PacknCanes | say something! 03:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I quote from above: "I have completely overhauled this article over the course of the last day." I'd like to see the page given a while to seetle as the editors who have been discussing it on the talk page get a chance to review the new changes. You cannot say this article meets the FA stability requirement if it has been rewritten in the last 24 hours. Harro5 04:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to Peer Review - well done, but: (i) Some more images would be nice. (ii) Presumably the "Bibliography" are references? (iii) It would also be nice for other editors to have a chance to review. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - same reasons as Harro5. I like the changes but we shouldn't rush into a featured article. --Ignignot 14:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand, I will remove the article from consideration and put it up for peer review. -- LaurenCole

Omnipotence paradox[edit]

Self-nom. This page has gone through some trauma, but the Cleanup Taskforce left it in good shape, and it was stable for several months afterward. Following the references added during cleanup and those suggested during peer review, I expanded the article to cover more twentieth-century philosophy. To the best of my knowledge, it is a decently comprehensive treatment of a fairly ticklish subject. (I realized I rushed this through peer review a little faster than normal, but my gut feeling was that it wouldn't attract too many more comments, and in a couple weeks, I won't have the time to address comments that I do right now.) Thank you in advance for your input. Anville 22:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. Very well-written and informative. At first I didn't like the parenthetical style of citations, but after reading more I think it's the best way to do them. Very nice job. The Catfish 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. Great job on what could have been a boring topic. Balanced and easily comprehended by the layman. Hydriotaphia 03:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. A very accessible rendering of the topic. One quibble: the paragraph that begins "it should be noted that this particular derivative of the omnipotence paradox is inherently flawed" tends to vitiate the main example around which the article is constructed. If the stone example is inherently flawed, should the article discuss it at such length? That section in general could be slightly re-jigged. Topically, the paragraphs go A, B, A, B, C, and then more or less discuss of A for the remainder. Marskell 12:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I can reprhase all of the step-by-step lists in terms of Homer Simpson's version. Would that help? (Half-joking.) I have rearranged a few pagagraphs under "Philosophical responses", since I think your point is quite valid, and I added a note on how the examples can be rephrased. Anville 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of being humourless, I'm going to ignore the Homer Simpson reference and oppose until the sentence I referenced is altered. It simply does not follow for me that you can construct an article around "x example" and simultaneously suggest "x example is inherently flawed." Marskell 22:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
It's about the example because the example is famous [even though it may be flawed]. I understand it and I think the article is very good. I am hesistant to support because I don't if it's referenced enough (I'd like footnotes for some things, but there are lots of references, so I'm not sure). Broken S 01:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with BrokenSegue that it would be strange for the article to not be written in terms of "Can God make a rock he can't lift?", even if it does have some interesting flaws. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Para 1 introduces the stone example, 2 and 3 introduce similar examples, 4 offers one answer to the stone example, 5 suggests the stone example is inherently flawed, 6 notes similar problems for irresistible force, and 7 actually reads as an introduction "this article will..." This just doesn't hang together for me--and this is the single largest section of the article. By all means use the best known example, just introduce it with consistency and don't hop about. Marskell 08:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Sentence was moderated, therefore no oppose. I'm still uncertain about the movements between topics in the intro to that section but not enough to oppose. Marskell 17:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral/Question: Averroës advanced the omnipotence paradox for this reason (for which he was condemned by Bishop Tempier), although instead of phrasing it in terms of stones, he asked whether God could create a triangle with internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees.

Can that really be considered the same paradox, or a paradox at all? I think it only takes on the flavor of the being the same paradox if you also posit that God created the universe that contains these rules that he can't break. I realize that Averroës almost certainly believed God created the universe, but the article doesn't make this explicit in discussing his version of the paradox. Am I making sense? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I have continued to shuffle, expand and elaborate the "Philosophical responses" introductory section, and it may go some way towards replying to these (very nicely presented) comments. Whatever else happens, the article will probably leave FAC stronger than when it came in, which is a good thing. Anville 10:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is the "pop culture" section necessary? Jkelly 02:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'd say "yes", weakly. First of all, articles tend to accumulate cruft, and any device which helps keep the inevitable trivia away from the "real" material is, in my book, a Good Thing. It may be less "serious" than the Wittgenstein, but at least it's all in one place. The same thing happened at Schrödinger's cat, and the excess material was eventually spun off into Schrödinger's cat in fiction. Second, and this is only anecdotal evidence on my part, I've heard more people use the Simpsons version than any other, save the rock-He-cannot-lift one (around 11,200 Google hits for "could Jesus microwave a burrito", 2,200 for "omnipotence paradox"). Anville 08:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, as the article lives up to its standards, good job! 23:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, and I quote: "The purpose of a supreme being is to create a universe. The laws of physics serve as a flexible framework to support that purpose, but if the nature of reality gets in the way of a little rock lifting, then simply use omnipotence as you go about working on the universe. Being too wrapped up in natural laws can cause you to lose godhood, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules ... including this one." --zippedmartin 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well written and all, no reason to reject it. -- Ashmodai 21:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose.

This is not a paradox at all, as is easily seen and has been explained on the talk page. It is a shame on Western rationalism to be unable to perceive such simple things in the right light. The article does not even try to explain this. --Yecril (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


I'm probably taking a chance with this, since it's been a long time I've taken an active part in FAC, so the standards are certainly higher now than they used to be (which is good, of course). However, as far as I can see, this article cuts it. It's had a really long and healthy maturation time, with much constructive discussion and many different contributors helping on it. It's a good example of a "hub" article about a wildly popular concept. It's got it all: summaries with links to more detailed articles, a large template with all the pages related to the SC universe, links to other wikis, and most of all, detailed, reality-oriented discussion of the subject's relevance as a cult video game. For those who don't care about video games, StarCraft is a legend in gaming. Its impact on the strategy genre can safely be compared to Doom's impact on the shooter genre. Do me a favor and promote this. Phils 16:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. PedanticallySpeaking 19:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Good work to all the people who contributed towards this article! — Wackymacs 21:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: The image Image:StarCraft.png is used for decorative purposes only, and so does not qualify for fair use. It needs to be removed from the article. --Carnildo 22:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed the image. Phils 22:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article; no apparent issues. Ambi 23:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object, please take out the piped html links and include them in the extenal links section, also please provide a full citation for html links used as references in the text so that there is a record of the item being referenced - and if possible convert them to footnotes- they loook nicer.--nixie 01:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and did the footnotes, I think the awards section would be better as prose and a screenshot thet demostrates gameplay wouldn't hurt either.--nixie 02:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-structured for the most part and comprehensive. I'd also rather see the list go, and a one-sentence paragraph jumped out at me, but the problems aren't widespread. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, how was the influence section created? It doesn't seem to be sourced at all... gren グレン 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Most references to other fiction works are apparent throughout the game. There is no real "reference" that could be given to show the quotes and appearance are indeed those in "Aliens", apart from the game itself. Some "hero" units simply share their (distinctive) names with fictional characters (Gui Montag from Farenheit, Tom Kazansky). Your comment is valid though; I will try to find authoritative reviews mentioning the similarities to popular fiction works and find images where they are obvious. Phils 05:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportMinor object. Can we have at least one screenshot?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. I agree - there ought to be at least one screenshot up. Otherwise, an excellent article. 00:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Moderate object I'd like to see more info and discussion regarding the characters and units in the game, which were a big part of what made this a great game. I usually hate storylines, plots, and narratives in games but this was an exception for me. Also, more comparison with Warcraft would be interesting. But I think this is a great subject for an featured article Bwithh 19:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Units and characters are discussed in separate, StarCraft-related articles (see StarCraft storyline, Terran, Edmund Duke, Arcturus Mengsk for examples). See the "StarCraft" internal links list at the end of the article. The main article simply cannot discuss all these, because it would become too long; we already had to trim and split it several times. I consider your objection invalid. Phils 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - Get a screenshot of the game in action, and that's all this article needs. No more detail required in the main article due to having so many sub-articles. It's a detailed, complicated subject, and deserves all those sub-articles, some of which might one day join the main article with featured status. Fieari 16:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Two screenshots added. Phils 19:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've seen quite a few computer games articles, and this is a general point about gaming articles, which also seems to apply to this one. It only mentions sales figures in passing, only giving a singular estimate in this article of how many sold. Now, chart positions in gaming are nowhere near as important as in the music industry, but still, I think more should be made of the sales figures, and in what regions. It's not just missing from this article, but also from Super Mario 64 too, which is an FA. Katamari Damacy is a bit better, in that it some further information on the game's sale figures, but still could be improved. I'm not opposing this article because of this though, because other FAs don't have that information in either, but I still think it's useful to include. - Hahnchen 16:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I think with the minor storyline edit, it meets the standards of a featured article. Kimera757 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

PS can someone explain something to me? Is StarCraft actually a featured article, or just being nominated for one? The icon at the top of the discussion page is a little unclear about that.

Yuan (surname)[edit]

This is a self-nomination. I've been working on and off on this article for about a year now. After incorporating suggestions from peer review in the last few days, making many improvements and adding a full list of references and sources, it's now relatively stable. The article by far the most comprehensive source of information on the surname in English. Yeu Ninje 23:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • support. very well written and comprehensive. this information can only be found in English and compiled as such on wikipedia, and nowhere else online or in another encyclopedia. excellent work! --Jiang 00:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as per Jiang. Saravask 01:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The peer review can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Yuan (surname)/archive1. --maclean25 03:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Awesome article on what could have been a mundane subject. Plaudits to everyone who worked on this!Borisblue 06:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and remember to claim Camildo's bounty here when it gets passed: Wikipedia:Bounty_board#Any_article_with_free_images Borisblue 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but the article looks great. I trust that our contributors with interests in Chinese matters will verify its accuracy. I also hope you will be looking at the 32 Chinese family names ranked higher by population - neither Wang (surname), the most popular according to List of common Chinese surnames, not Li (surname) (another family name that is sometimes said to be the most popular too) is anywhere near as good. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Kudos to you for your work! ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|<sup><font color="green">Dialogue?</font></sup>]] 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Superb article on a topic that mustn't have been the easiest to write upon. Ambi 23:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A model article. Support. --Michael Snow 00:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. A few quibbles, somewhat technical:
    • There's a problem with excess wikilinkage, especially in "Spread of the surname". Plenty of repeated links for no apparant reason.
    • A bit of a footnote bonanza. A lot, if not most, of notes state uncomplicated ("state the obvious" is a recommendation for prose, not footnotes), and as far as I can tell, completely uncontroversial facts. One of the notes in the first paragraph is used only to explain an off-topic statement of transcription systems. This is not an appropriate or proper use of footnotes as far as I can tell. Some other examples of notes that could really be done without are 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18. Also, is there any chance that ancient primary sources such as those of Sima Qian be replaced with just one modern work on Chinese history? I'm personally skeptical to using very old history material first hand in an encyclopedia unless the works themselves are discussed.
    • No proper reference section.
    • I don't see any more need for a "Prominent personages"-list in this article than I do of any other arbitrary list of famous people loosely associated to an article.
    Peter Isotalo 02:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Ive de-linked the "Spread of the surname" accordingly.
      • The footnotes look fine to me. The second footnote, since you've mentioned it, could indeed be incorporated into the lead section text itself, but that would create unnecessary clutter, especially in the lead section where we can least afford it. I support the way the information is moved off as an aside. Footnotes 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18 are all references. I don't see why you would want to delete references.
      • references are under "Notes and references". If this is a problem, notes and references can be separated.
      • I think the "Prominent personages" section is very relevant. A surname is greatly characterized by the people holding that surname. Presenting the famous people who held this surname is practical, interesting, and informative.
      --Jiang 05:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I accept your point about wikilinkage. The edits which Jiang has made are appropriate.
      • It's true that there are relatively more footnotes than other featured articles, but I think it's good academic practice to include that number of footnotes for an article of this length. More importantly, specific footnotes is better than a reference section in this case, because there are very few general sources which would be appropriate in a reference section. The most important sources for this article are the Standard Histories, especially Ouyang Xiu's Xin Tang shu (which gives a family tree from around 1046 BC to the 9th century); and also Hou Han shu, Sanguo zhi and Jin shu (which cover the early Yuan clans of Ru'nan and Chen). Placing them in a reference section without quoting direct page numbers as you can do in footnotes would not be very useful. ****There is no way to replace them with a modern work because there is no authoritative modern work. I dare say this is the most comprehensive and reliable resource on the surname you will find anywhere. The only other important sources are localised family genealogies, sometimes with material as early as the Song Dynasty. If they were put in a reference section, it would almost be completely meaningless since they are generally not easily accessible to the public. Thorough referencing in footnotes would help those conducting genealogical research. As far as I know, a section of notes and references is accepted Wikipedia practice.
      • Footnotes are supplementary to the article in that they support the assertions which are made. For example, the article states "descendants of Yuan Taotu are mentioned by name in the Zuo Zhuan as holding high office in the state of Chen", then reference is given from the Zuo zhuan to support that fact. This supports the goal of verifiability. They are not common knowledge nor does the article "state the obvious". Footnotes 6, 8, 18 are relative obscure facts. Footnotes 11, 13, 14, 18 all point to sources for further reading or research.
      • What Jiang says about the introduction is right. Transliteration issues are just technical details which would only serve to confuse a reader if placed so early in the article.
      • I also agree with Jiang about the prominent personages section. Many of the figures in there, like Yuan Taotu, Yuan An, Yuan Shao, Yuan Huan and Yuan Chonghuan were instrumental in establishing, expanding the surname and increasing its profile. They were also leaders of their clans and proud bearers of the surname - certainly not "loosely connected". --Yeu Ninje 11:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The point about the transcription comment is that it's not the least bit relevant to the article. If the article was actually about transcription of Chinese, it would be, but it's about a surname, so it's really just off-topic trivia. The same really goes for note 3 as well. There's really a rather annoying abundance of transcription- and pronunciationcruft in most China- and Japan-related article these days and it doesn't seem to be there to please anyone but those who already know it.
        • Footnotes are not references; they're notes that specify details of references (sources). Removing a few footnotes does not mean the source itself has to be removed. (That's the whole point of having a separate section.) And while it is certainly nice to be academic, Wikipedia is not the appriopriate place for it. We're writing encyclopedic articles for a very general audience, not academic treatise for experts. Any note which refers to a source merely for "further reading" is inappropriate and unless the source is actually used to reference any of the prose, it belongs in a "Further reading"-section. A motivated researcher can take the hint without needing to force it on every single reader.
        • Pure lists of famous people in articles are always trivia. If there's a need to refer to people named Yuan, it should be done in prose, not in separate list-sections. (Nor in lists disguised as prose.) These things also have a tendency to attract yet more trivia and are very hard to delimit. / Peter Isotalo 14:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
          • The focus of the entire sentence in question is over the different spellings rendered in the Latin alphabet of the name. It is not about the name in Chinese. Since these spellings are derived from the listed transcription systems, they are every bit relevant. Multiple spellings exist for different dialects due to the existence of different systems of Romanization. It is important to specify which one we are using because space does not permit that we list every rending of the name in the Latin alphabet. Most people (as in most people familiar with the Chinese language) do not know all these romanization systems. They usually only know Hanyu Pinyin at a proficient level.
          • the FA criteria specifically calls for inline references. There is no policy against footnotes. In fact, the "notes and references" header used here is prescribed by Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Footnote_notation.
          • I don't see how the list is trivia. Yeu Ninje already stated that these people were instrumental in establishing, expanding the surname and increasing its profile. Lists are not banned from Wikipedia. You will see much more trivial lists elsewhere. If the list is trivia, then the whole article is trivia. After all, these Yuans "just share the same last name". --Jiang 19:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Please note that the Surname/Clan name in Chinese Culture is held in more importance than in western cultures. The section is definitely relevant IMO Borisblue 16:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Difference between perception of family names between Chinese and Western European culture has absolutely no relevance to my objection. The list is trivia because it's arbitrary and most of the Yuans aren't even related to one another. They just share the same last name. --Peter Isotalo 16:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not true to say that most on the list aren't related to each other. Yuan An, Yuan Shao, Yuan Shu, Yuan Huan, Yuan Hong and Yuan Shansong come from two major Yuan clans very close to one another and all are documented descendants of Yuan Taotu, who is the first on the list. Yuan Chonghuan is one of the most famous descendants of Yuan An, and I specifically make a point about clans claiming descent from Yuan An in the article. As for some of the later figures, in theory at least, all of the late imperial and modern Yuan are also descendants of Yuan Taotu and so are linked because of that. Including them could also be indicative of the extent of modern day distribution and continuing strength of the surname. Yeu Ninje 20:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
            • That's just a substandard of explaining it to readers, Yeu. If you want to make clear that the name is still common, do so in prose, like with any other fact. And since I now noticed that half of the list is of people that are already mentioned at least once in the article already, I'm removing the list outright. I urge you to consider a more creative solution to keeping the names than simply reverting me. / Peter Isotalo 02:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Peter, I don't want to get into an edit war with you. I've given my reasons and received support from others. A consensus has not been reached about the removal of the "prominent personages" section, so I'm reverting it. Please do not remove it unless you have more support. Yeu Ninje 02:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
                • You're being very insistant about keeping duplicate links. Considering incomplete lists are frowned upon in all other types of FACs, I don't find your motivations less arbitrary than the selection of names. And, again, half of the names are already linked in the text. Why not just make an extra list right below the lead in case someone would miss the second one? / Peter Isotalo 13:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • The list is not meant to be a list of all people surnamed Yuan who ever existed, it is a list of "prominent personages" with that surname. Given that criteria, it is relatively complete, mentioning what I and others consider to be the best known holders of the surname. In that sense, it is not arbitrary at all. Also, I've already stated the importance of these figures to the history of the surname as well as a reflection of the current strength of the surname. It is true that some of the names have been linked in the main text, but these are very scattered. I think it's useful to collect them together and present them at the end. Yeu Ninje 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is not helpful to denigrate reliable footnotes either here or elsewhere; this singular fixation with deleting footnotes and sources endangers Wikipedia's goal of presenting to users some semblence of reliability. I am in complete accord with Yeu Ninje's position that the "prominent personages" must stay in the article. Yeu Ninje has explained his/her position well and now has the consensus behind his/her model and comprehensive article as it stands. Congratulations are again in order for Yeu Ninje; maintain your resolve and this article will most certainly become featured. Saravask 08:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I have some reservations given what I think is the relevance of the article itself (what about an article about ``Smith``?), the topic itself is so well covered that i decided to support it.--Anagnorisis 20:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • support and I would support a similar, well written, sourced and interesting article about the popularity of the surname smith and its origins. Why not? Kit 02:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I can find no fault with this article. Andrew Levine 03:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely minor object: the referenced works are listed somewhat inconsistently, sometimes including a transliteration of the title, sometimes omitting it. In addition, the names of the authors are only given in their transliterated forms, but the titles include both (as well as a translation). It would be helpful if all of the references were in a more standard format. Kirill Lokshin 04:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The transliteration of title helps a person to find the title in a library, since most library databases don't use Chinese text. A transliteration is not provided for internet sources since there doesn't exist the purpose of helping to locating it (i.e. you just have to click on the link). The translation of the title makes the title meaningful to someone who doesn't understand Chinese. Chinese text is not included for the author since it wouldn't be that much use and isn't generally the practice in sinology bibliographies. In that sense, the references are standardised. Yeu Ninje 04:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    I stand corrected, then. Support. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Melaen 17:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland[edit]

Partial self-nom. Many editors have helped to prove that we can have a good NPOV article on a controversial subject. Has been through a Peer Review. Former FAC objections have been addressed, I hope - they were fairly minor, and I was supprised that the article had so few (2!) votes then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. But, of course, I have also worked heavily on the article, and would be pissed off to deal with any objections that might be raised. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, it's definitely one of he best descriptions of the topic I've seen on the internet - and I did read a lot. Halibutt 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; a very well-written and thorough article. A few questions/suggestions, though:
  1. The two templates at the top, when combined with the TOC, form a continuous set of boxes across the screen, which looks somewhat strange; it may be better to space them out vertically, possibly by using {{TOCright}}.
  2. Some of the section headings don't follow the MoS in that they have leading articles and non-standard capitalisation.
  3. Most of the articles in the "See also" section are linked in the text; is this section necessary?
The issues are minor enough that they're not worth objecting over, but I think resolving them may improve the article further. Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a marvelous, important and thorough article. I agree with Kirill Lokshin that I don't believe the See Also section is really needed. I have seen the same section questioned on a number of articles here. Great job! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 18:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done. --Lysy (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Balcer 19:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is written in a wonderful style, is easy to read, seem to be comprehensive and is very interesting. I have found the term "Kahal" which should be explained in the text. I have however a quite strong objection. I have the feeling the article has a weak non NPOV. The lead and the last section (1989–present) are in my opinion a bit too positive with respect to the anti-semiticism in Poland. In the lead: " immediately prior to World War II it had a vibrant Jewish community" I wonder whether "vibrant" is the correctly chosen term: is this really NPOV? Is the expression "the increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire" really NPOV? From the lead one gains the impression that, if the Jews in Poland were victims of anti-semiticism, that was due to foreigners and not to the Poles themselves. I wonder whether this is not a trend towards minimizing the Polish participation to anti-semiticism and the holocaust. I think if the Poles did not participate actively to the holocaust that should be said explicitly. On the other hand if they did one should mention to which extent. This impression of NPOV is destroyed later on in the article but it should be mirrored in the lead. The last section ignores to discuss the anti-semitic movements in Poland in the 1990s. I have made a bit of google with the keyword antisemitism poland and found the following article on : Nonetheless, the existence of xenophobic or ultra-nationalistic sentiments remains evident, to a lesser or greater degree, among large sections of Polish society. The parliamentary elections of 2001, in which a number of far right candidates were elected, show that ultra-nationalist and populist rhetoric—used particularly by candidates of the ultra-conservative Liga Polskich Rodzin and the protest party Samoobrona—is still able to attract support. The fact that Poland’s economic situation has visibly worsened recently almost certainly contributed to this electoral outcome, as did the ongoing cultural and political effects of the Polish bid to become a member of the European Union. While many mainstream political leaders willingly express support for initiatives that promote tolerance and that combat xenophobia, those on the far right continue to use xenophobic discourse in pursuit of their parties’ political goals.Furthermore, despite a certain amount of ‘good will’ among more liberal political circles, actual manifestations of prejudice are often downplayed, passed over in silence or even denied. At the same time antisemitic and xenophobic attitudes are demonstrably present to some degree among the young generation of Poles, and to a very high and visible degree among football fans and ultra-nationalist skinheads. Verbal and physical attacks on immigrants and members of 'visible minorities', as well as numerous cases of the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues, are of course the most spectacular evidence of these problems in Poland. I therefore think it would be a good idea to add a paragraph about antisemiticism in the 1990s in Poland. Vb
    • Thank you for your comments and providing the sourced quote - you do make a good point about the anti-Semitic propaganda of some elements of modern Polish society. And you make another good point that it should be stressed that Poles did not participate in the Holocaust (with a few, tragic exceptions) - instead, they were its victims. Be bold and suggest/edit in exact changes to the lead and other paragraphs that would satisfy you, I have already made some changes. Oh, Kahal is linked to its own article on the first occurence of this term. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know a lot about 1990s anti-Semitism, but that should be covered, perhaps some of the other editors could help, I will do some digging as well. As far as the participation in the Holocaust, it was more complicated to assign blame in Poland than elsewhere since the Poles were targeted by the Nazis, there was little direct cooperation with the Germans despite growing anti-Semitism in 1930s -- at the same time, there were some horrible pogroms like Jedwabne, and also acts of heroism. It is difficult to figure out how to make this much clearer in the article, since these interactions were at a much smaller level than the wholesale participation of countries like Romania, or even countries with many collaborators, like Lithuania. I don't find "vibrant" or "increasingly anti-Semitic" POV -- do you have any specific objections to them? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I have added a para about anti-semitic right-wing propaganda in modern Poland. I would polish it more (no pun intended), but need to go offline now. Let me know if you think it needs further expantion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to see just a word of explanation after Kahal and the newly introduced Sejm (like "Oświęcim (the site of the Auschwitz camp)") because clicking on the link is a strong flow break. Maybe changing "(called "Żydokomuna", or the belief in a Jewish-Communist conspiracy)" into "(this conspiracy is alled "Żydokomuna", or the belief in a Jewish-Communist conspiracy)" would be clearer but I am not sure. I simply think the new paragraph should be a bit copyedited but that its content is good and raise my objection with respect to the 1989–present section. I think this paragraph and others exemplifying the participation of the Polish people in anti-semitism should be mirrored in the lead. A sentence such as "Poles did not participate in the Holocaust (with a few, tragic exceptions)" could appear in the lead but also the section "Rising Anti-Semitism" could be summarized in the lead. I think this must be done because the lead as it is now provides the reader the impression of non NPOV, a trend to embellish the relationship between the Poles and the Jews. To the question why I object to the use of "vibrant". I have the feeling (but I am no native English speaker) this adjective provides the impression of a positive atmosphere (a happy Jewish community playing klezmer music in the street in a Chagall's painting) which contrast with the information in the section "Rising Anti-Semitism". My objection to "the increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire" is because I think one cannot say of a state (except Nazi Germany) that it is anti-Semitic. One can say that it has strong anti-Semitic political or popular movements but usually no state is explicitly anti-Semitic. The same objection is for the wording "the state-sponsored "anti-Zionist" anti-Semitic campaign". Since everybody knows the communist government was some kind of Russian puppet, this sentence seems to advocate for an intrisically non anti-Semitic Polish society. It sounds like the responsible ones for the antisemitism were not the Poles but the Russians. I think a good way to counterbalance this overall impression is to introduce some contra balancing arguments in the lead. Vb 08:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have found another source at the US gov which could help you describing current concern about antisemitism in Poland. Vb 12:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I tried to address the issues with the introduction, Sejm, and Kahal. I left in the state-sponsored anti-Zionist campagin, because it was exactly that (you may want to read the article). The "increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire" also makes sense, semi-official attacks on Jews (pogroms) grew rapidly throughout the Empire, as did official anti-Semitism, it really does work as a description. I would also defend "vibrant" -- the community may have been poor and somewhat persecuted, but culture and learning florished in the pre-War years. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the changes you performed. However I think what is still missing is a sentence in the lead about the current concerns (you can find such sentences at both [2][3]). Those concerns are not very strong but they should be cited in order to improve the NPOV of the lead. I still believe "anti-Semitic Russian Empire" is not correct. Another way to describe the situation should be found. As far as I know only Nazi Germany can be qualified as "anti-Semitic". On the other hand I agree with you on the wording "state-sponsored anti-Zionist campaign" and with "vibrant": my point was not that these words were not correct but that they should be counterbalanced (this is what you did). The claims about Liga Polskich Rodzin and Samoobrona in the last section should be supported by references because they will lead to edit conflict as soon as the article get featured. However I still wonder whether the situation from 1918 to 1945 is well described. I quote from : The first wave of antisemitic pogroms in independent Poland took place soon after independence had been regained in 1918. Antisemitism became particularly visible after 1935 when the extreme right and radical Catholic circles began depicting Jews as a foreign element and a threat to the Polish state and nation. Right-wing parties and militant groups pressed the government to impose anti-Jewish measures, including economic restrictions, such as the 1936 laws limiting ritual slaughter. As a result of pressure to introduce the numerus clausus law, after 1937 universities were allowed to create separate places for "national" and for Jewish students, and in 1938 the parliament voted in legislation regulating the number of new attorneys, which affected Jewish applicants. The same year a law was passed that aimed to deprive Jewish emigrants of Polish citizenship. Orchestrated by the extra-parliamentary nationalist opposition and supported by a large section of the Catholic Church, pogroms and boycotts of Jewish shops became frequent. (...) Although some Poles did help Jews to survive the Holocaust, most remained passive in the face of Nazi terror. Poland was the only country in Europe where the death penalty was imposed for assisting a person of Jewish origin. Some groups and individuals of Polish nationality were openly hostile to the Jews. Polish police (so-called policja granatowa) as well as some civilians collaborated with the Nazis by denouncing Jews who escaped the ghettos. A number of Poles acted as blackmailers (szmalcownicy) demanding that Jews pay ransoms, and threatening both Jews who were in hiding and gentiles who were assisting Jews. Among the anti-Jewish pogroms and other incidents initiated by fractions of the Polish population that occurred during the Nazi occupation the most violent and tragic took place during the summer of 1941 after the Nazis had entered the eastern territories that were annexed by the Soviet Union in September 1939. Some Poles, who opposed Communist rule and, inspired by the Polish nationalist and Nazi propaganda, associated Jews with the Soviet persecutors, felt encouraged by the presence of the Nazis and took part—often voluntarily—in pogrom-type killings of Jews. Several such cases have been documented, the most well-known, recently made public, being the Jedwabne pogrom of 10 July 1941, in which at least several hundred Jewish inhabitants of a town were murdered by a group of their Polish neighbours. Of course the Poles were victims of the Nazi and of course they collaborated to a less extent than some others but depicting them as ...with a few tragic exceptions, the non-Jewish Poles themselves did not participate in the destruction of the Jewish community, and some Poles protected their Jewish neighbors is maybe a bit of embellishing, isn't it? Vb 16:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I wonder whether ...with a few tragic exceptions, such as the Jedwabne pogrom, most of the non-Jewish Poles did not participate in the destruction of the Jewish community, and a few Poles protected their Jewish neighbors would not be better, more NPOV Vb 16:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Just a quick note. In the above quote, the sentence: Although some Poles did help Jews to survive the Holocaust, most remained passive in the face of Nazi terror. is misleading, as it implies that the only people who were not passive in the face of Nazi terror were those who were actively engaged in helping Jews. What about the millions who opposed Nazi Germany by participating in or supporting the huge Polish Underground, fought in the Home Army, or went to great lengths to join units of the Polish Army formed outside of Poland?Balcer 17:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I would invite you to compare the State Department warning about antisemitism in Poland with their information on : France, United Kingdom, and Germany, to give quick examples. This will put the problem of antisemitism in Poland in a proper perspective. In particular, desecration of Jewish cemeteries is a crime occuring all over Europe. In short, I would be really careful to avoid giving the impression that anti-semitism in Poland is (or was) somehow unique and exceptional. I would especially dispute the claim that it is somehow "rising". What is the quantitative evidence for that? Balcer 16:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You are fully right. I have already had a look. The warning of the State Department are not really NPOV. But they are an officially recognized POV which can be cited. I agree with you that one should not overestimate this testimony. However I know pretty well the situation in both France and Germany and the informations there are all exact. In both countries there is a real concern with respect to anti-semitism. Usually this antisemitism is interpreted as a respons of Muslim minorities to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict though the case of a CDU politician in Germany sounds more like an intrisic anti-Semitic case. I must admit this is a reason why I am surprised that the situation in Poland with respect to antisemitism is so positive. However since nobody's perfect depicting a to perfect situation often leads to the opposite result because one doubt about too perfect pictures and gains the feeling of a biased article -- what is not the case of this article: I insist. My only point is that the lead could have a better NPOV. Vb 17:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Vb, you may want to read the Talk:History of the Jews in Poland page, and especially Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#1918-1939 where there is a really detailed back-and-forth about prewar anti-Semitism, and in which many of these points are debated. I generally started from the same angle that you are coming from, but as I have done more reading on the Holocaust, I have moderated my views quite a bit, as the official cooperation by Poles (outside of the pogroms) was much lower than elsewhere in Europe. Perhaps I am being too moderate about WWII, but we do discuss Jedwabne in great detail, and the general story is one of the destruction of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis (with Lithuanian and Ukranian help), rather than at the hands of the Poles. Still, I think your suggestion makes sense, let me try it out. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Urgh. I had a look at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. You are crazy men! I am really impressed by such a level of discussion and research. However, I think after such a discussion this maybe a good idea to have the help of a pair of fresh eyes. I might suggest a change in the lead : of the largest in the world, though anti-Semitism was a growing problem --> of the largest in the world, though anti-Semitic legal restrictions were a growing problem for the community. Because I have the feeling the word anti-Semitism might be a bit weak in this case since this antisemitism was supported by the state. Vb 17:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I think now my objection is raised with respect to the section 1989–present. I nevertheless wonder wether one should not find better references than ADL for supporting the claim. This page is so non NPOV that it sounds a bit ridiculous. I have found another source about Polish antisemitism which sounds much more authoritative Poland warms to other nations on BBC News. However, though, the lead section has been improved. I still disagree with the use of "anti-Semitic Russian Empire". Anti-Semitic should be removed or reworded. This qualification is not acceptable for a state except for some like Nazi Germany. As said above I still believe "though anti-Semitism was a growing problem" is too weak and should be replaced by something mirroring the fact that the government supported this movement such as "though anti-Semitic legal restrictions were a growing problem for the community". I also believe a word should be said in the lead in order to qualify more precisely what is meant by "the situation of Polish Jews has normalized". Does it mean "comparable with neighbour countries", "comparable with other jewish communities in Europe", "as it was when the community was vibrant"? The lead should be more precise about it. The above cited BBC article says that 46% of Poles declare disliking Jews. Is that really a normalized situation? Vb 13:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • On the ADL side, their methodology seems sound, and it is a much more detailed survey, with more information, than the BBC quote -- what is your objection, exactly? I also think that at this stage we are trying to cram a bit too much nuance into the introduction, but I will try to address the problem with the 1919-1939 section in the intro according to your thoughts. As far as Russian state anti-Semitism, until Nazi Germany, the persecutions in Russia were the worst in several hundred years (since the Cossack Uprisings), with thousands of Jews killed in increasingly bad (and increasingly state-supported) pogroms. The secret police created the Protocols, there were discriminatory laws (see May Laws) and Jews were restricted in where they could live and what they could do -- that certainly qualifies as anti-Semitic, and, in fact, was a key reason for the founding of Zionism. As far as "normalized," it makes perfect sense to me in contrast with the March 1968 events and other information described previously, it is neither glowing nor condemning, it just indicates that the back-and-forth precariousness of Jewish life in Poland has calmed down. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with your modification of the lead with respect to the governmental anti-Semitism. I also agree with your arguments for the wording "ant-Semitic Russian Empire". I also agree with the reference to ADL. I however suggest you the following change: "After the fall of the communist regime in Poland in 1989, the situation of Polish Jews has normalized." --> "After the fall of the communist regime in Poland in 1989, though some concerns have been raised recently with respect to anti-semitism, the situation of Polish Jews has normalized and is comparable to their situation in other European countries." Vb 17:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • though some concerns have been raised recently with respect to anti-semitism - please provide a source for this. As indicated on the article's talk page, the anti-semitic rethoric of Polish populist political parties has subsidied in the recent years; and besides, are some quotes important enough to merit a mention in the lead? I am not aware of any discrimnation against Jews in the modern Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I still think 46% of the population declaring disliking the jews [4] is not a normalized situation. My suggested wording was maybe not the best but the present word "normalized" doesn't describe the present situation well. I think this sentence should be reworded to mirror the present situation. Normalized with respect to what? Vb 13:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Many countries, unfortunately, dislike various minorities and/or other coutnries. As long as this does not translate into any harassment and/or discriminatory laws, I don't see why this would be worthy of mentioning in the lead. Btw, do you know of any similar surveys in another countries? Comparison may prove very interesting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
            • An extensive discussion of this survey (in Polish) is here. For comparison between Poland and other coutries in Europe, see this survey conducted by ADL in 2005. It appears to show that levels of anti-Semitism in Poland are not that divergent from the European norm.

Yes, I know. From ADL:

In responding "probably true" to the statement "Jews have too much power in international final markets," the 2005 survey found: Austria - 33%, down from 36% in 2004 Belgium - 33%, down from 36% Denmark - 21% up from 18% France - 24%, down from 29% Germany - 24%, down from 27% Italy - 32%, up from 31% The Netherlands - 19% no change Spain - 54%, up from 53% Switzerland - 30%, down from 38% The United Kingdom - 16% down from 18% Hungary - 55% Poland - 43%

Poles' mind about that issue is not that different (there are even countries 2 countries in this list where the situation is worse) but it is however more than two times the scores of Denmark, UK, and the Netherlands, and 10% more than Belgium and Austria which are known for their strong far-right parties (Vlaams Belang and FPÖ). I would not call that normalized. Of course there are no pogrom or appartheid laws, but I wouldn't describe this as normalized. You must really rewrite this sentence in a way which make clear what normalized means Vb 16:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Before you assign too much significance to these numbers, keep in mind that the methodology of the survey (explained here) gives a margin of error of +/- 4.5%, based on using a random sample of 500 people in each country.
The average score on this question in 32% (add all numbers, divide by 12). Poland scores 43% +/- 4.5%. So, is the situation in Poland so much worse than the average (i.e. not normal)? Balcer 16:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't give too much importance to these numbers but on the WP article Antisemitism one find : "Still, according to recent (June 7, 2005) results of research by B'nai Briths Anti-Defamation League, Poland remains among the European countries (with others being Italy, Spain and Germany) with the largest percentages of people holding anti-Semitic views." This should be somehow mirrored in the lead even if one can stay very vague. My suggestion above was not referring to those exact numbers. Vb 16:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I would have absolutely no problem with a statement: The level of anti-semitism in Poland today is comparable to that in Italy, Spain and Germany or something to that effect. Any objections? Balcer 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes. That would raise my objection. Vb 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? That is what the statement you yourself quoted implies, does it not? Balcer 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I think it is OK. It makes the lead more NPOV and for me that's enough. By the way I have found a new reference [5] comparing the number of violent antisemitism incident by countries and according to those numbers Poland does very well. If the editors want to use this ref could counterbalance the ADL ref in the (1989-present) section. Vb 17:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to that very interesting graph. This is indeed one interesting feature of antisemitism in Poland: while it is unfortunately quite prevalent on a verbal level, so to speak, it very rarely translates into violent antisemitic incidents. On the other hand, the number of Jews in Poland is of course quite low, so there is little opportunity for such incidents to occur. I am glad we are edging towards some kind of an agreement on how to address the issue. I agree with you, though maybe for slightly different reasons, that the current formulation in the lead ("normalized" etc.) is somewhat unclear, and should be made more specific. I wonder what the other editors think about this. Balcer 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Now I think the article has reached the required NPOV level. Vb 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the "see also" section needs to go -- many of those links are in the article elsewhere anyway. I'm also not sure about the distinction between a "main article" and a "for more details" link under a header -- at "The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: 1572–1795", for example, I'd think the links should be switched, and I'm not really sure the History of Poland (1572-1795) link needs to be there. Support Tuf-Kat 08:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as per Vb above. Excellent work. Saravask 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

We appear to have achieved 100% consensus on a controversal topic being made an FA, which is very exciting. When does the process conclude? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Another very large (60 kB) history FA which isn't even a top-level article. A somewhat more terse summary would be nice. / Peter Isotalo 02:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I acknowledge tremendous amount of work done to this article during the past several months. However, it still contains questionable paragraphs which prevent me from recommending it as featured article. One objectionable paragraph is in the Interwar Period 1918-1939 section. It reads This was accompanied by physical violence: between May 1936 and January 1937, 118 Jews were killed, 1350 were wounded, and 137 Jewish stores were bombed in anti-Jewish violence in Poland. Western press continued to report about tragic situation of Jews in Poland, e.g. reporting that in Białystok alone in 1936 there were 248 assaults on Jews, including 21 mass riots or pogroms (New York Times, Feb 7, 1937). I have a copy of this article and have found one or two books referencing the article. However, the quoted numbers, especially those killed, are not supported by most historians writing on this subject. I don't think the New York Times should be used here as a primary source especially since there are no other collaborating references supporting these numbers. --Ttyre 04:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • By all means, if you have access to new sources, please add the appopriate and referenced info to the article. What other objectionable paragraphs in addition to the one cited have you found?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The New York Times was not the source for all of the stats on violent anti-Semitism. Hagen, a historian writing in a peer reviewed journal, specifically gives an account of at least 350 Jews killed in antisemtic violence between 1935 and 1939. He cites Bauer, p. 18, Marcus, pp. 241 ff.; Heller, chap. 4; Mendelsohn, The Jews of East Central Europe p. 74; Jerzy Tomaszewski, "The Role of Jews in Polish Commerce, 1918-1939," in Gutman et al., pp. 141-57; Simon Segal, The New Poland andthe Jews (New York, 1938), pp. 85 ff.; Raymond L. Buell, Poland: Key to Europe, 3ded. (New York, 1939), pp. 288-319; Jolanta Zyndul, "Cele ackji antyzydowskiej wPolsce w latach, 1935-1937," Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego w Polsce 161 (1992): 53-63. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support. As Vb noted, he considers the article a tad too pro-Polish (sorry for the shortcut, I hope all of us will know what I mean). I initially wanted to oppose as of yet, mostly because I saw the article as still a tad too anti-Polish (see my disclaimer above), especially in regard to unsubstantiated claims of government-led anti-Semitism in pre-war Poland. However, after reading Vb's comment I realized that perhaps it's not that bad. Sure, it still needs a lot of work, especially with the sources, but... no article is ever finished, and this article is really, really close. Halibutt 07:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez[edit]

This is a "self nomination".
This article in question has undergone a 1st peer review accessible here. The article also underwent a 2nd peer review that is accessible here. Both reviews are now closed for comment, pending results from the present FAC. All comments and concerns in the first peer review were quickly and comprehensively acted upon.
As per my best judgment, the article hews to each FAC criterion. To all supporters and objectors, please remember to follow Wikipedia policy and list specific and falsifiable examples and rationale as to why this article is or is not FA calibre, so that comments may be speedily acted upon. In the case of objectors, as stated above:

"Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored".

Thank you in advance for all comments, especially if they be objections. The valid and detailed objections will be utilized to improve this article in preparation for an impending 2nd FAC. Saravask 06:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Saravask's accomplishments on the rough terrain of such a controversial subject, along with other exceedingly difficult and complex topics in contemporary Latin American politics, are surprisingly impressive. On such a topic, it's an uphill battle just managing to keep inaccurate or off-topic information out of the article, let alone produce something ready for FAC. Before Saravask became an editor, I never expected an article on such a contentious current political topic, where the pressure to avoid reversion wars and page protections usually trump efforts to reach FAC standards, to reach the level of quality in both content and perhaps more remarkably style that has been achieved on the Chavez article. 172 | Talk 07:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this article cannot undergo FAC and peer review at the same time - this creates instability as comments come from everywhere. Which is the one which will continue?
This FAC will proceed. The brief 2nd peer review is hereby closed. Saravask 09:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support Astonishingly in-depth, well written, and the layout is good. I don't like it being justified, as the text becomes strangely spaced, particularly near the top, between the ToC and the picture to its right. The first time a year is mentioned, it should be wikified. For each of the sections that states 'For more details, read', the summaries could be a lot shorter, to reduce length (the 'Putative coup of 2004' and the 'Recall vote of 2004' sections are about the right length). Reference 57 is in a different format than the others. Fix those little quibbles and I'll strongly support. Proto t c 14:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have just removed the text justification. I have also converted reference 57 into the standard ref/cite footnote format. I will look to see how the sections you mentioned can be further shortened (they had already undergone a round of extensive shortenings before). As for your comment about wikification of years upon their first appearance, that practice is not endorsed by the Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):
"If the date doesn't contain a day and a month, then date preferences won't work, and square brackets won't respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there's no need to link it."
"What should not be linked:
  • Plain English words.
  • Years, decades or centuries, unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic."
Thus, years need only be wikified when they appear with day and month, a practice which was followed in this article. Otherwise, thank you for the kind and detailed comments. Saravask 16:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Quite right. FAs in particular have lately been subject to a trend away from the linking of dates without specific purpose, which was never the intention when the date articles were created. Chick Bowen 19:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Support after my little quibbles were well dealt with, although an article being non-Western should not be the sole reason to support (as below). Fantastic article. Proto t c 09:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Excellent, non-western article Bwithh 20:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I offer you the warmest appreciations for your vote, Bwithh, but there is one problem. Could you offer one or more concrete reasons for your decision based on the contents of the article? It need not be extravagently detailed — maybe a sentence or two. It could deal with perceptions of layout, prose, images, or other areas. Thank you.Saravask 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Looking through other Featured Article candidacies, I now see that I was wrong to demand more detail from supporters (as opposed to the case with objectors). For example, see the Margaret Thatcher FAC, the Tamil language FAC, and the Order of Canada FAC (all three were successful and are now FAs). Bwithh's support appears valid according to established FAC precedents and norms. Apologies to all, Saravask 21:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Last time I checked, Venezuela was in the West anyway. --Jibbajabba 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support (almost similar to weak objection). I find that the article is very informative in some areas but doesn't cover others well enough. It concentrates on the political life of Chavez. That by itself is not bad. However there is little we get to know about Chavez prior to him becoming president. My support would be stronger if either: 1) the article was more balanced between his life in general and his politics; this is more information about his early life, family, life in the military, etc. i.e. more about the man himself. 2) Change the name of the article. If the article was titled something like "Politics of Hugo Chavez" or "The Presidency of Hugo Chavez" or something else along these lines. On a separate note, any article should be able to stand on its own content to deserve being a FA -and not appeal to it being perhaps the first or second "something" (I do not remember what the claim was) article to be nominated. Still, a good article (much better than the Spanish one) , but not sure of it deserving yet being a FA. --Anagnorisis 22:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Further comment. Just as there are these two articles: Early life of Hugo Chávez and Life of Hugo Chávez (1975 – 1992) which expand in the areas that I find lacking (assuming the article is about the life of the man -as the title suggests), it may make sense renaming the article as in reality it is about the political life of Chavez. If the article was renamed to show that it is mostly about his political life, my support would change from weak to full support. --Anagnorisis 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anagnorisis is a respected contributor to the Hugo Chavez article. I respect his judgment on these things, and we work together well (see the archived Talk pages, for example).

Yes, the article is sadly tilted towards his political activities, which is unfortunate. However, I point people to the Margaret Thatcher article (which has FA status even though it is about 80% to 90% concerned with her political career). Or the Brian Close (which is also FA, even though it is almost exclusively concerned with his sporting career). Is this focus to be lamented? Yes and no. Yes because humans have many facets, which in ideal circumstances we would deign to give precisely equal treatment. And yet no, because we write about these figures because of their accomplishments or noteriety in this or that field (Chavez's field happens to be politics, Thatcher's politics as well, and Close's in sports (cricket)). That is to say, most people do not do a web search on, look up Chavez in Wikipedia, or by a book about Chavez in order to discover the tantalizing tidbits of his love life or learn of romantic intrigue in his bedchamber. Nor do they do so in an attempt to learn further about Chavez's baseball career. They do so to discover the details and origins of his political activities, which is the facet of his life that has the most profound impact on both Venezuelan society and the world. This is not true of Chavez's baseball career. We at Wikipedia must serve the motivating interests of the article's readers, and place that goal in front of the unrealistic ideal of equal treatment of political and personal lives. This is the reality evidenced in all FAs I have examined.

It is unfortunate that the Chavez article follows along the line established by the Thatcher and Close articles, but this is not sufficient justification for preventing FA status for this article. Both precedent (in terms of similar articles that have been granted FA status), image (in terms of why people are interested in the Chavez article), and reality (we do not have equal access to all aspects of Chavez's life) preclude equal treatment of all facets in the lives of Thatcher, Close, and Chavez. Saravask 22:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak Support. Comprehensively written, balanced and informative. However,the article is nearly three times the preferable size (over 80 kb). Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Support. Congratulations to Saravask on a great article and thanks to him for putting in the effort here to give it a nice final polish. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Many one-paragraph sections and subsections. Sections should contain at least two large paragraphs or three to four small ones (not that this article suffers from small paragraphs).

:::I kindly direct your attention to the Mahatma Gandhi article (which has featured article status). One paragraph sections in that FA article include "Mahatma Gandhi#Vegetarianism", "Mahatma Gandhi#Celibacy", "Mahatma Gandhi#Silence", among many others. And referring to the FA criteria, one-section paragraphs are NOT mentioned as a disqualifying criterion. If you wish to persist in this particular objection, please give me a concrete quote from a Wikipedia guideline that clearly precludes FAs from having one-paragraph sections. Saravask 23:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It falls under "Well-written" in WP:WIAFA. Not surprisingly, not every aspect of what makes something well-written is entirely enumerated; indeed; this would be impossible. It also falls under having "a proper system of heirarchical headings" - you do agree that there could be such a thing as an overly detailed collection of headings? My belief is that one-paragraph sections are an excellent indicator that you have an overly detailed collection of headings. Another way of looking at this is that the quality of the prose suffers if the headings themselves bear the brunt of the organizational burden: the article starts to resemble a Powerpoint presentation. Finally, the success or failure of a single FAC from nine months ago is fairly irrelevant here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bunchofgrapes on the one-paragraph sections. I do not accept your WP:POINT about the Mahatma Gandhi articles justifying using one-paragraph sections other feature articles. A paragraph explains one idea. A section discusses one theme. If there is only one idea in the theme, then it is not a good theme to discuss. However, "Coup of 1992" definately has more than one idea and deserves expansion. One-paragraph subsections are less serious but still should be avoided. They are far more easily avoided because they should be part of the central section theme. Are the subsections really new themes? or are they simply separate ideas of the main section theme? --maclean25 07:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Notes list should be numbered, if for no other reason than to remain useful in hardcopy versions. Struck. Some of the note links are a little garbled now, but I trust it'll get worked out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, please provide evidence (a direct quote from a Wikipedia policy/guideline page) that mandates the usage of numbered (as opposed to alphabetized) footnotes. On the other had, here is a direct quote from the Wikipedia:Cite sources policy page:

"=====Technical issues=====
Citations using numbered footnotes are controversial in Wikipedia for several reasons: (emphasis added)
# The current MediaWiki software has limited footnote support. In particular, automatic numbering of footnotes conflicts with use of embedded HTML links in single square brackets, and the same footnote cannot be used multiple times with automatic numbering. In contrast, the software is currently quite sufficient to support the parenthetical author-date format (Harvard style) suggested above. # Many of today's style guides forbid or deprecate footnotes and reference endnotes when used simply to cite sources (Concordia Libraries). The APA style does not use footnotes to cite sources. The MLA style manual has deprecated reference footnotes and reference endnotes for decades in favor of in-line bibliographic references. # Footnotes are normally simply numbered numerically. Thus, determining who said what typically requires a reader to continually jump back and forth between the main body and the footnote/endnote to see if there is something of value. When footnotes are simply providing a much more detailed argument, this is often not a problem, but if the footnotes are the primary citation method, this can be critical (since it is sometimes important to keep track of who claims what)." Again, if you cannot furnish a direct quote from a Wikipedia policy page that mandates numbered footnotes in featured articles, then this criticism will be necessarily ignored. Saravask 23:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are already using numbered note links in the text, so most of those rationales do not apply. It is very reasonable to suggest that those numbers should correspond with a numbered list of Notes. Our best work should be usable in hard-copy form. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Too many fair-use images, most of which offer only different-angle views of the subject. From WP:FU, "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have cut down the number fo fair use images to exactly one. Its usage rationale is abundantly explained. Regards, Saravask 00:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Most of the images in Template:Bolivarian Missions Infobox have a fair-use rationale; WP:FU says fair-use images "should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes)" (emphasis in original).
I have quickly switched the template to one that uses no images whatsoever. I appreciate the advice. Saravask 00:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Image:Logo-VeneDeTodos Fondo Blan.jpg is still in the template; still fair-use. Thanks for addressing these issues; I'll strike my image objections now under the assumption you'll take care of that one. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for responding quickly. Saravask 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the authors have done a great job coordinating this and the daughter articles to produce a comprehensive and engaging biography. The aricle without notes in only 49kb which is not too big.--nixie 01:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am currently in the middle of matching the footnote numbering to inline cite numbering, as suggested by Bunchofgrapes. Observers can expect it to be completed within several hours. Thanks for the input. I have also removed or commented out many of the sub-headings disliked by Bunchofgrapes. Unless I hear otherwise, I will be removing more of them. Saravask 01:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

::I am currently using the Canberra article as a model for the numbering, since is uses the {{note_label|reference|number|a}} format for duplicate referals to the same resource. I just discovered that the footnote numbering does not match the inline cite number (this was the desire of Bunchesofgrapes, so that hard copies will allow readers to link inline numbering in the body to the numbering in the footnotes. That is to say, the Canberra article does not meet Bunchesofgrapes criterion. Therefore, I will need to just go for straight duplication, hopefully minimizing the information listed to reduce space. Saravask 02:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, unless you found a broken note in Canberra, all the inline numbers correspond to the correct numbered reference in the list.--nixie 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I see. The problem is that my display shows the footnotes near the end of the article, and so when I click on an inline cite number, the window cannot advance far enough down to center on the same numbered footnote. Thanks. So I'll try to introduce that system again. Saravask 03:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, see below. Object. Fantastic article, but... I'll be back with more as I can find the time, but I'd be interested to hear first what other people think of a problem I see straight away, with the "main articles" referred to, such as Presidency of Hugo Chávez. They're not merely linked from Hugo Chávez, but explicitly referred to as the places to go for more detail, so I do think they're pertinent to FA status for this one. I don't mean they need to be perfect, or FA quality, on their own, but IMO they have to be reasonably complete and independent articles (as opposed to being "subpages"). They're of very varying quality, and the longest, Presidency of Hugo Chávez, gives the impression of being a raw dump from an earlier version of Hugo Chávez, and can't stand on its own by any means. It has 30 note superscripts in the text but no notes at the foot of the page, no reference section or external links, nothing—the text just stops, just as at the beginning, it just starts (it's hardly fair, or communicative, to use for instance a word like Puntofijismo in the first sentence, with neither explanation nor wikilink). No Lead section, no pointer back to the Hugo Chávez article; a reader coming on Presidency of Hugo Chávez has no way of knowing that it's subordinated to a "hub" article, thus does not know where to look for the 30 footnotes, etc. P.S., returning to Hugo Chávez: the footnote section needs to be in the same order as the note numbers in the text, not arranged alphabetically. I see just now that you respond to this above, and hope that it's become clear that the quotes from MoS aren't relevant (since your notes are numbered). If there are problems remaining in this area, I may be able to help with the footnotery, but not in the next few days, I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 02:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Your concerns are appreciated. The contents of the Presidency of Hugo Chávez have been deleted and the link to it from the main article (Hugo Chavez) has been removed, since the are merely a collection of information from the other daughter articles. Take a look at the other daughter articles, and I believe you will find that the only "problem" articles remaining are the Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez (slight reorganization needed) and the Media representation of Hugo Chávez (which simply needs headings. I will take care of both of these by tomorrow. Also, the matching of the note numberings is still in progress. Cheers. Saravask 02:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I just finished with the footnote numbering. Please check it out and reevaluate your statements as necessary. Saravask 03:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tested all the footnotes to see if each links to a matching number correct counterpart. All of them are in the correct format and are no longer garbled. When one clicks on an inline cite, it takes them to the appropriate matching number footnote. Saravask 04:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I tend to think that due to both, Saravask's response to the feedback given here, and to his own good judgement, he will make the changes to the article that will prompt me to change my opinion and give it full support for FA status. Keep up the good work Saravask. --Anagnorisis 05:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment All the daughter articles have been thoroughly refurbished, and are in their present form presentable as articles attached to an FA main article. Please investigate them and revise your votes/comments accordingly. Regards, Saravask 06:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would expand a bit the section on Foreign policy. It is a bit short. And for Chavez his foreign policy is becoming a great part of his recent efforts. The daughter article has some good info that may not hurt having it also in the main one. Some of the anecdotes are telling of Chavez and could add flavor to illustrating his style (like his comments about Bush and Condy, and about Katrina). By the way, I noticed that the comments about Condolezza were not described in detail. Was that on purpose? If not, and you do not have the details about what he said about her, let me know and I will pass them to you. On another topic, I have read the comments about the notes, and though I do not know for sure what to suggest, they look a bit .... like too much. I think they may be better placed also at the bottom; afterall some of the other links may interest the readers more than the notes. I would follow the order of other featured articles: References (with 'See also' between References and the next section, and not before 'References'), External links and then Notes (just checked today's FA for an example). Not so sure of what I am saying last making sense, but maybe worth checking. --Anagnorisis 08:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Will do, Anagnorisis. I'm working on adding rebuilding the "Foreign policy" section right now. And yes, please give details about the Condie remarks (I've never heard of them before in my life). As for the location of the footnotes, when anyone clicks on the inline citation numbers, the browser is supposed to move down and center on the corresponding footnote. This doesn't work if the footnotes are at the very bottom. That's why I had to move them back up. Sorry. Thanks. Regards, Saravask 08:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I actually did move the "Notes" section down to the bottom, because what you said makes sense. In addition, since the notes are now numbered, we do not need to rely on the browser hypertext alignment to match footnotes with inline cites. I expanded the foreign policy section by two- or three-fold. I did a web search of the "vulgar sexual innuendo" that Chavez aimed at Condoleeza Rice. I found two sources, which I put in. I could not find a direct quote, however. I will see about transferring the material about his response to Hurricane Katrina. As there is now only one objection (whose sole remaining concern I've just addressed), it seems that less changes will be made, and I can address Anagnorisis's concerns more fully. Saravask 11:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It is done. All single paragraph sections have either been built up, merged with other topics. or eliminated. I would wish that this finishes Bunchesofgrapes last point of objection. In addition, all daughter articles have been refurbished and are now presentable, as requested by Bishonen, meeting the requirements for finishing her objection. Regards, Saravask 09:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the prompt fixes to the daughters and the footnotes, I'll be striking out those concerns above and changing my vote to Support. I disagree with your expressions of regret above about the article being so focused on Chávez' political life, and even more with the suggestion that it needs to be renamed on that account: a biographical article should focus on the aspect that makes the subject deserve a biographical article in the first place. This is also practice. I congratulate you on the job building up/merging the sections, it's just what I was about to suggest. Only there is no keeping up with you, bah! ;-) Bishonen | talk 09:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It's so fascinating. Anagnorisis and I were talking about this issue off this talk page, and we both came to agree that the article should absolutely include more personal information. I'm sorry if I came off above as saying that there should absolutely not be more personal material here (I think there should be). I was just asking him whether I could include the anecdotes from Chavez interviews about Chavez's closeness to his grandmother, his continued passion for baseball, etc. But the majority of this material comes out of his mouth, and I was wondering whether it would be encyclopedic to include such stories as hard facts. Is it real feeling or propaganda? Are there more reliable sources out there than Chavez himself? All of the biographies and books on him deal almost exclusively with his politics, to the point that they barely mention his children or even when they were born! This is a big problem. Saravask 10:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Marvelous and exhaustive! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 14:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic. I'm not sure I've ever seen that many references. Unfortunately it reduces readability somewhat, but eh, who cares—an article this well researched deserves to be featured! --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Saravask, I found good "sources" for the speech where Chavez made fun of Condoleezza Rice suggesting she needed a man and that him (Chavez) was willing to give "it" to her. It was on January 23, 2005. He joked a lot about all kind of things addressed at her; many of a sexual nature Here is the link to where you can find the speech (it is from the Ministry of Information itself!): You have to download the Word.doc file at the bottom. In case you do not speak Spanish, for a translation of the relevant parts you can go here: By the way, you are making progress fast making the article a very good one. You are very close to getting my full support fot it being FA. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 21:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

More comments. Saravask, I hope you do not mind making comment after comment. Here is another suggestion: perhaps mention the terms 'Chavismo' or 'Chavista' in the Bolivarianism section. It may be interesting to mention that while Chavez talks a lot about Bolivarianism, most of the country (both supporters and opponents) talk about being (or not) Chavista and about supporting (or not) Chavismo. People locally identify the idiology and policies more with Chavez than with Bolivar. Thus the names used. But up to you. A side note that it is not relevant to this discussion, but thinking about Chavez .... I would wonder what he would say regarding Manuel Piar, a great General of the independence war (and the only mestizo general at the time) who was ordered shot by Bolivar because he tried to get a movement going against Bolivar's all-white leadership. Piar wanted more for the mestizos (just like Chavez) and criticized the upper classes (just like Chavez). Somehow, Chavez reading of Bolivar's thinking is very selective. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Good advice. I just added the material about "chavismo" vs. "Bolivarianism". Of course, as you said, I cannot add the material about Bolivar's racism. Thanks. Saravask 01:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment — As suggested by nixie, I put in several instances of the note_label and ref_label footnote templates in order to avoid listing duplicates of the same reference source. Also, I will be importing some images from the Wikipedia Commons. These new images will not be fair use; instead they will be ones where the copyright owner allows usage for any purpose (Agencia Brasil photos). If there are concerns about this, please let me know. Thank you. Saravask 01:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just added the quotes and material offered by Anagnorisis about Chavez's sexist/sexual innuendo towards Rice. I also merged the "early life" and "life between 1975 and 1992" sections, as suggested by Petaholmes. Saravask 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Full support. I am changing my views on this article. From a weak objection, I am moving now to full support. Changes have been made that have greatly improved the article. I believe now that it is deserving of being FA. One more comment though: I do not like two pictures so alike. If we are to have two different pictures, they should be different. i.e. showing two different traits of his persona. Perhaps one would have him dressed informally surrounded by the people -showing him as one more among his people; and the other one dressed formally with some other president, or at the UN, or something that would show him as a 'wordly' leader. Good job Saravask! BTW, did you get the additional info that I sent you? --Anagnorisis 04:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, yes. Thank you for the emailed information. I added select pieces of the remark, and I just removed the new Wikipedia Commons picture. I'll find another one. Regards, Saravask 04:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. That was wrong of me to state on the Hugo Chavez talk page that this FAC was part of an attempt to get the first article treating a Latin American individual an FA status. That was just a side comment, and was never my motivating intention. Indeed, I'm not even Latino/Hispanic and have never been to Latin America or Venezuela; rather, I'm Asian instead. I agree with Anagnorisis above when he stated that this article should stand and fall on its own merits, and not rely on the potential novelty of its being the first FA article to be in this or that category. Saravask 05:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This may be nitpicky to the highest degree, but isn't there a better photo of Chavez to put on the lead? He's clapping, for crying out loud! I mean, surely as president there would exist official government photos (you know, the stuff they hang on government buildings) that are public domain? Borisblue 08:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I used Google's image search multiple times to try and find such images — I haven't found any. A long while ago, I uploaded the image Image:Chavezbyv.jpg, showing Chavez speaking at the UN in September. After you posted your comment, I switched the lead image to the Image:Chavezbyv.jpg image. The site I found it at stated that they allow free use so long as they are given credit. Yet just now, I found an exact duplicate of this picture at the official website of the 2005 UN World Summit — thus I now unfortunately have reason to doubt that "Biografias y Vidas" (where I originally got the image from) really are the ones who took that image (and thus reason to doubt that they hold the copyright). The UN's image use policy explicitly states that republication of their images is NOT allowed, so I had no choice but to switch back to the fair use image (the one with Chavez in the red shirt). If anyone can help get a better image than this, please be my guest. Regards, Saravask 09:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

--Anagnorisis 16:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This one looks good. Venuzuelan govt photos ARE pd, right? Borisblue 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. That is exactly the same -and even from the same link- as one of those above. --Anagnorisis 17:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the new image, Borisblue. Regards, Saravask 22:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Borisblue, I just looked up the Venezuelan government webpage. A direct quote: "© Copyright 2004 C.N.T.I. Todos los derechos reservados." No free use has been granted, and thus the image you provided is most certainly not PD. In addition, the image you provided does not have nearly the level the resolution we need from a lead image (I tried increasing the size, but only got an extremely ugly and pixelated portrait). I have no choice but to restore the old image. Now that I think about it, I don't see why you are so concerned about his informal dress &mdash unlike most other heads of state, this IS how he dresses most of the time (in a distinctive red shirt), while he is carrying out his presidential duties. His red shirt is EMBLEMATIC of Chavez, just like Che Guevara's beret and chiffon scarf tied ascot-style is emblematic of him, or Napoleon's (or, later, Karensky's) pertly tucked arm is emblematic of him. Chavez in his informal red shirt is the most defining, characteristic, and representative image available on him, and tells us the most about his style of governance and his behavior. He wears a red shirt to on his talk show, at rallies, at conferences, etc., etc., etc. Chavez in a suit is a much rarer sight. I am thus changing the lead back to the old version. Regards, Saravask 22:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Too many pics now. And a few of them do not add anything to what the others show already. One is a pic of the back of Chavez! I do not see the point of that one. The one at the bottom is of poor quality and similar to others shown. I do not see anything wrong with showing a pic of Chavez looking like a stateman; afterall he is a president and conducts a lot of business in suit and tie. His red shirt thing is for his TV program on Sundays and for when he goes visit los barrios. But he never meets ambassadors or other heads of state or foreign bussinesmen with the red shirt. So many pics that are all in the same style make the article look as if being one promoting his cult. The intention of a pic is to convey some flavor, color or information the words cannot. Article should be fine with few pics which are all very different.--Anagnorisis 01:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing with the images is giving me a big headache. So many people are saying different things. Just now, someone started adding fair use images again, right after I had to delete them because of an objection to the FAC (there were too many fair use images to begin with). I trust your judgment, since you are Venezeulan and I am not. Could you please handle the images and change/delete whatever images you feel necessary? I only know about his life, and I suppose not so much about how he dresses (I've only seen a few episodes of Alo, Presidente! for example). Most of the images are from the Wikipedia Commons, meaning that there are no restrictions on their use. I would think that most of those should be kept, as they show Chavez shmoozing with other heads of state. I also think that there should be at least one picture of Chavez interacting with a crowd, speaking at a lecture, etc., since that is a large part of his presidency. But then again, maybe you know more about these things. Regards, Saravask 02:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we should just have a vote on the image issues (including which picture should be the lead image). Let me know what you think. Saravask 02:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment as long as the images are free, I'm not fussy. I could see the arguments for a more formal depiction in the lead, I suppose. I don't think there are too many pictures - it's a long article; they break it up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I still feel, if at all possible the picture in the lead should be the official government photo. He IS a leader of a country after all. Borisblue 04:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I suspect then, with Bunchofgrapes together, that my desire for the red-shirt picture is out of the question, and that we need a more formal picture. Anagnorisis stated that we should use the UN image, since he stated that that site says somewhere that, as long as one does not use images for advertising, using their images is fine. So I switched out the lead image to use the UN image. But we cannot use this image permanently, since this image is not PD. So I ask people to put below free images (with verifiable documentation that they are free) below, and people will vote for them accordingly. Saravask 06:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I say, take out both yellow shirt pics and replace them with the red one you had before on top. Anyway, the article is fine. The pictures as long as you don't get them 'really' wrong, should not make it or break it. --Anagnorisis 07:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed both red-shirted pictures (one of which was fair use) yellow-shirted pictures, as suggested by Anagnorisis. Still, I think we should have a vote, since I wouldn't exactly say that the UN picture qualifies as free use (since it cannot be used in advertizing). Is this correct? Saravask 07:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think a vote is the best way of resolving this, please see Don't vote on everything. It's time to cut this Gordian knot. Saravask, my suggestion is that you use your best judgment as informed by the arguments that have been made here. Then see if anybody reverts you. Bishonen | talk 07:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Aye aye. Agree. --Anagnorisis 08:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I really hope you guys like this one. It took me hours to find, but I did find "the one". Let me know what you think. Saravask 12:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Good one. Go ahead. --Anagnorisis 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I have to re-object as it stands now - the new, fair-use, image is in Template:ChavezInputs. As per (way) above, fair-use images should never be used in templates. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Heh, I was just going to get off my lazy *ss and stick the template contents into the article, but it looks like Saravask got there first. :-) Looks good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I inserted the contents of template:ChavezInputs and placed them directly (together with the call to the image) into the Hugo Chavez article itself. I also blanked the contents of template:ChavezInputs. There are no image calls in any templates now. Saravask 16:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Eh... Not too spry right now myself. But I was wondering if an administrator could help speedy delete the ChavezInputs template since it is not being used anywhere else (it is an "orphan" template). Perhaps because it was edited by others, it cannot be, though. Thanks anyway. Saravask 17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

News: The foreign policy section could be updated with what is now happening with Mexico. After a week with diplomats exchanging calls trying to difuse the situation created by Chavez calling Fox, Mexico's president, a "puppy of capitalism," Chavez again disrespected Fox yesterday in his Alo Presidente program saying among other things that "Fox was bleeding from his injuries." Today Mexico has demanded an apology by midnight or it will recall ambassadors (first step towards breaking diplomatic relations). This is gonna be a tough one. Way to go Hugo. Show how smart you are insulting them all. --Anagnorisis 16:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment.I just put in a paragraph on it in the "Foreign policy of Hugo Chavez" article, and will wait until major consequences actually ensue before making the minor updates necessary to the main article. Hope this helps. Also, this page should be used only to talk about the FAC and people's support/objection to it. It should not be used to talk about article updates. Comments on article updating should be pasted onto the Hugo Chaevz talk page. But still, thanks. Regards, Saravask 17:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • After all, this is already (if not itself the longest) among the longest peer reviews at least I have seen. It is physically impossible to make this review any longer. And this comment I'm making now certainly does not appear to be helping the situation ... Saravask 17:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, lets get on with it. What else is needed to move this along? --Anagnorisis 17:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. This article has come so far. The only thing that makes me nervous is that this FA will require constant, constant vigilance, both from vandals and because Chavez is in the news every day. But those are no reasons not to show off the best of what Wikipedia can be. DanKeshet 17:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. With so many days past and having changed views a couple of times, I wanted to make sure my support now is clear. --Anagnorisis 03:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Since this FAC opened the page has had well over 500 edits. Considering the subject is still a president of a country, and in international news, it probably isn't the most stable article out there. The article is not balanced well between Hugo the President and Hugo the Man. There are two section headings without any text or explanation for their existence. Sections are supposed to discuss themes. If the section acts as a collection of sub-themes that combine for one major theme (like the impact of the Chávez presidency as a major theme and various policies being sub-themes that combine to illustrate the impact) then summarize what the reader will learn after reading the following subsections as an intro under the major heading so the reader knows what what to look out for (ie. evidence of the conclusion summarized in the intro). That is to say, keep the subsections and all that but give the reader a hint about what the common theme will be (expand the title of the section into a couple of sentences). Regardless, I support this for as FA because it is an excellent and comprehensive article. --maclean25 08:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, maclean25. I really do appreciate this advice. I just added one such summary/overview paragraph for the "Presidency ..." section, and am planning to add another muy pronto. I have enjoyed reading through all voters' and commentors' suggestions and feedback. It was a true pleasure. Again, my regards. Saravask 10:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I just gave Anagnorisis a comment on his talk page about my purchase of a Chavez biography. I expect that this book also will be heavily biased towards Chavez's political life, but what personal details about his adultery, coup plotting motivations, personal tastes and habits, etc. that I can glean from it, we (the main contributors) behind this article will add within a few days. Thanks again, maclean25. Again, you are absolutely correct. Regards, Saravask 11:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I know it, and I suspect it now. As soon as I say this publicly, there will be a flurry of edits to prove me wrong and make us (main contributors) look absolutely ridiculous. But here it is: when we are not contributing and editing to address comments in the FAC, the article really is remarkably stable. There have been no POV-based edit wars or daily acts of mass vandalism. Usually, only one or two vandalisms a week have occurred over the past two months, and among those, most are simply "stupid edits" where a few words are added or an image is changed. The most heated discussion and argumentation has occurred over such outrageously controversial issues as superscripting of ordinal numbers and whether the TOC should be left-floated. For such a controversial (and non-standard) subject, this is truly rather interesting. And just as another notable fact, this article is, as of 17 Nov 2005, the 65th most edited article with 2618 edits (two more than Albert Einstein). Saravask 11:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Oops, amid all the discussion I totally forgot to support Borisblue 18:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is one of the very best articles I have ever read in my time on Wikipedia. It concerns me somewhat that parts of the article may have a slight pro-Chavez slant, but certainly not strong enough to object. Ambi 23:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind complements and the advice about pro-Chavez slant. If you could just point out the problem sections, we could fix them immediately. I'm sure that Anagnorisis (who is sternly anti-Chavez and has contributed regularly to this article) wouldn't mind giving those sections another read-through in order to correct slant. Thanks again. Saravask 00:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. A new record for amount of footnotes if I'm not mistaken, and completely over the top. Prose, not footnotes, should be used to establish the uncontroversial, or (painfully) obvious. Notes should only be used to explain rather obscure or very controversial (real world-controversial, not Wikipedia-controversial) statements. Here are some examples of over-usage of notes just from the lead paragraphs (a full list would include at least half the notes):
    • 1. A source confirming that he is the 53rd president. This is about as useful as footnoting that his name is Chávez and that he is, indeed, the president of Colombia (rather than Burma or St. Vincent and the Grenadines).
What appears at cursory first glance "uncontroversial" or "(painfully) obvious" for a Swede — who comes from a land where one head of state always calmly succeeds another, with no coups or dictators — who is unfamiliar with Venezuela's bizarre and tumultuous political history is most certainly controversial among those more familiar with Venezuelan political history. Venezuela has had many, many dictators, coup plotters, and tyrants seize control from democratically-elected leaders. At times, Venezuela has had two sitting presidents in office simultaneously, while at other times revolution and war meant that de facto presidents were not to be found. Often, "puppet" presidents have served at that behest of de facto dictators, who held real power ...
There is right now by no means universal agreement even on how many presidents Venezuela has had! Official and many academic sources (such as the one the footnote in question links to) say that Chavez's second term is the 53rd. Other non-official sources and lists state that he is 61st. Thus there is heated disagreement about what number president Chavez is (which refutes your point), and a footnote is most definitely needed. An example of such controversy I have linked here (in Spanish) or here (in English). If you take the time to read these, you will see how different Venezuelan history is from Swedish history.
Just one reason why the ordering is subject to dispute: some lists claim that Pedro Carmona was a president of Venezuela, while others (including official sources) deny that his two-day rule as president counts. In addition, some lists count consecutive terms by the same president as different terms, while others count them as different (following the American system of presidential ordering). The first system gives 53, while the second gives (counting Carmona and other skipped presidents) 61. If this is not controversy that merits a footnote, I do not know what else would be ... Saravask 03:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 2. This is supposed to be a summary of the article content. Why would it need a separate note at all? Hardly controversial and not even remotely obscure.
"Hardly controverisal" ... right. Footnote two establishes why the first paragraph is phrased as it is. Wouldn't you say that different people have different dictionary definitions of a political figure of such polemical import as Chavez? Why were the terms "democratic socialist" and "anti-imperialism" chosen and not other aspects of Chavez's rule? It is because of the material in the footnote that those decisions were made. The footnote also concretely links Chavez to these philosophies,and establish them as keystone and guiding ideologies that underlie Chavez's domestic politics, his international diplomacy, etc. Again, I really do appreciate your comments, and anticipate your responses. Regards, Saravask 03:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 5, 6, 7. That's three' notes for one snippet of a sub-clause. Not even a full sentence. All seem to explain merely the extremely uncontroversial "...and survived the 2004 recall referendum..."
You apparently are not familiar with the extremely bitter dispute surrounding the referendum. Anti-Chavez organization such as Sumate, some international media outlets, and others continue to dispute the outcome of that referendum — to the extent that anti_Chavez activists actually convinced the Carter Center (who vetted and approved the recall referendum initially) to do yet *another* audit of the election. The results confirmed the Carter Center's initial findings. Yet to this day allegations of mass electoral fruad during those elections (most notably that the Carter Center what somehow "duped" by incredibly slick machinations on the part of Venezuela's national electoral authorities) continue to be levelled. Based on this dispute, we can say then that the results of the 2004 referendum is most certainly a disputed fact that demands a footnote to settle the matter. Just because there may be no one in Sweden calling fruad on this event does not imply that there are not millions of Venezuelans who do dispute this, including Sumate. Saravask 04:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 8, 9, 10. Same as above.
Again, same deal as above, with the 2004 elections. Your relative ignorance of Venezuelan political discourse (as exhibited above) do not necessarily translate into objective and valid objections. Regards, Saravask 04:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 12. A note that establishes what high school he went to; pedantic, to say the least.
Right. Let me point out that the footnote is not exclusively dedicated to establishing which high school he went to, but rather establishes authoritative sourcing for the material in the preceding several few sentences. Thus, I did not label each single fact with its own footnote — I only listed on footnote for a group of several sentences when most or all the material therein originated from that source. "Pedantic"? Try "well-sourced" and "referenced". Regards, Saravask 04:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Several footnotes also cross-reference to several statements in an extremely confusing manner. 11 points to no fewer than five seperate passages. It's a confusing jumble of references and really doesn't serve to make the article more verifiable, but rather less so.
This is precisely the multilinking style used in the Canberra featured article. This present note_label and ref_label usage format was suggested by User:Petaholmes. It seems, due to precedence (usage in many other FAs), to be a perfectly acceptable setup. Regards, Saravask 03:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
And for goodness sake, think about article size! 88 kB is not summary style, which is one of the requirements of the FA criteria, and is over the top for any biography, even one of a major politican. Even excluding the huge note section it's at 68 kB. This is, to say the least, daunting even to the most patient of readers.
Peter Isotalo 02:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
This is, needless to say, a vague claim. Unless you can provide a concrete quote from WP:WIAFA delimiting some putative "maximum" size that an FA can be, your point here is absolutely inactionable. WP:WIAFA only mentions that an FA must be of "appropriate length" — it does not state explicitly that 88kb disqualifies this article from reception of FA status. In addition, "appropriate length" is most certainly different depending on the topic treated. For example, a treatment of shoe polish probably need not be as long as 90 kb, while a topic as massive as Hugo Chavez (with a plethora of daughter articles linked before appropriate summarizations of subtopics) will most definitely need to be considerably longer in order to meet another FA criterion: that it be "comprehensive", which "means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details". Saravask 03:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, let me sumarize the above response: unless you can kindly point out details in the article that constitutes extensive tangential material that contains few or no necessary "major facts or details" (the presence of which would concretely establish this article as "excessive" in length), your comment is patently inactionable. That is to say, please point to the material that you believe to be superfluous, and furnish the appropriate sourced explanation for why you label it so. Then you will possess some semblence of a concrete argument to underlie your allegation that this article size is "huge" and "over the top". Regards, Saravask 04:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm tempted to make a dangerous blanket claim: the more sourcing footnotes, the better. They are footnotes. You don't have to read them. But if you are trying to verify an article's information for accuracy and sourcing, the more the better. One of the biggest complaints against Wikipedia is "how can you trust it?" This carefully-sourced article is a model of how you can. In short, I think objecting due to "too many footnotes" is downright harmful to Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think your objection due to length isn't entirely without merit. I and many others thought it didn't harm this article, but it's a reasonable point of view to take. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. The subject of article size has been a point of raucous (but also amicable) debate between User:Anagnorisis and I. Anagnorisis has, after many debates and good arguments put forth on his part, rightfully deleted vast amounts of tangential material and material that is better left for one of the daughter articles to explain. I myself have been active in summarization. For example, the lead was once five very large paragraphs — yet now it has been reduced to around 250 words. Similar well-considered and debated shortenings have occurred throughtout the articles. It is not as if the article's contents were sloppily thrown together overnight, without any regards to flow or historical narrative. I can assure everyone that the presence of each and every paragraph and topic has been scrupulously evaluated, and it was determined that all of them furnish important materials. In addition, see nixie/Petaholmes's comments (way above) about the article's size. The actual body of the text (not including footnotes) more like 60-65 kilobytes, a figure which could hardly be labelled as freakishly large among comparable FAs. My regards, Saravask 03:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. One final note on the article's "huge" size: when the references and notes sections are removed, the article is 63 kilobytes long. For comparison with current featured articles:
    • Noam Chomsky — currently 83 kilobytes long (with very few references).
    • Tony Blair — currently 63 kilobytes long (again, with very few references).
    • Mahatma Gandhi — currently 84 kilobytes long. Again, this article has very few references. Thus the actual text (main body, excluding references, footnotes, etc) is almost 20 kilobytes longer than the Hugo Chavez article's non-reference main text as is stands now.
I'm not going to accept one type of transgression just because there are (a few) examples of others available. The solution is obviously to try to fix those articles as well, not to accept even more articles to get bloated. As for Saravask's counter-objections, I don't find them satisfying in the least. They're at best nitpicky and at worst harshly polemic and uncivil. And I can't agree with Bunchofgrape's comments about "more footnotes is better" and that trying to keep the amount of footnotes and references down would be harmful. The more references you have, especially the bewildering type of multiple cross-referencing used in this case, the harder it is to dig up the information you actually want. Redundant referencing is not a good thing in an encyclopedia. We're supposed to be writing summaries, not academic papers. The footnotes break up the text quite seriously, and if you claim that they really should be ignored for the most part, then I question the motivation for keeping them in the first place.
And, please, please, please stop trying to haggle and juggle bytes when discussing article size. There's really only one figure that's really relevant here, and that's the total byte count. There's no point in trying to subtract one section or another, especially when the result still is a whopping 60 kB+. It's just a huge text by any standard. Try printing it out for a sense of scale.
Peter Isotalo 12:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. Silence has *finally* come on board in order to make some slight refinements and tweaks on the current article as preparatory work. Please, if anyone has any gentle input to offer for his efforts, it would be greatly appreciated. My warmest regards, Saravask 12:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Another small request. We were having a discussion about a confusing issue concerning Chavez's birth. I was suggesting that he was certainly born in Sabaneta (which is what the official biographies state) and that he continuously dwelt in or near there. However, please read through the following discussion:
"Chávez was born in Sabaneta, Barinas... he was later sent to live with his paternal grandmother, Rosa Inés Chávez, in nearby Sabaneta."
  • If he was born in Sabaneta, why did he later have to move to "nearby Sabaneta"? The information that seems to be missing is: Where did he live between his two periods in Sabaneta? It also mentions a third time that he went to a school "in Sabaneta" a few sentences later, as though this information is contrary to what we'd expect...
    • Yes. It is rather strange, but still true. Chavez was indeed born in the town of Sabaneta (probably in a clinic/hospital). But his parents were schoolteachers who lived out of town, in the country near a large river. But since Chavez's parents had so many other children, Chavez was selected to be sent away to his grandmother, who actually did live within Sabaneta town limits. So Chavez, throughout his childhood, has always lived close to or near Sabaneta. The distinction is only whether or not he lives within the actual town. Its kind of like when people from one of Phoenix's or Detroit's suburbs claim when asked that they live in those cities, even though they actually (officialy speaking) live outside the city limits. Cheers. Saravask 06:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, though we should probably explain that briefly (which would be easier if we knew what the name of the specific name of the outside-of-Sabanata area Chavez grew up in, assuming such a name exists).

It seems then that we have a strange problem in how to explain this, in that none of the sources state what this "outside-of-Sabaneta" area is called. I'd appreciate help from others good in crafting sentences that juggle around such strange issues, since neither of us can figure it out. Regards, Saravask 12:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I just saw another very good point regarding this process and its possible impact on future user contributions. Enjoy. Regards, Saravask 12:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "One good and valid point that Silence raises is that as an article is seen as FA material and/or that only a handful are heavily involved with it, others become shy, intimidated perhaps, and withdraw from making edits. I am not saying this happened here (I am not saying it didn't happen either), but that people should not shy away from saying what they think just because they think they are not experts in the topic (afterall, who is?). Cheers. --Anagnorisis 23:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)"
    • I must say that I am in complete agreement. I have noticed that since we've started editing, the number of non-primary editors has more and more declined as the article has (IMHO) steadily improved. Please, everyone is absolutely welcome to come and contribute what they need to. Anagnorisis is, once again, a source of impeccable logic and tenacious calm. Truly, cheers to that. Saravask 12:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. High-quality, well-researched article that meets every requirement for FAC. How long it is or how many kb it has is irrelevant if it is a better article longer than shorter (and I've seen no evidence that it isn't); it's already heavily summarized and expanded-on in distinct articles. Thoroughness is a good thing, not a bad thing. Plenty of successful Featured Articles have been as long or longer, like History of Poland (1945–1989); what matters most is what would serve the specific article and its subject matter best, not trying to enforce an arbitrary size limit on every article in existence regardless of the article's content. -Silence 16:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Support Great article. - FrancisTyers 16:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Planetary habitability[edit]

Self-nom. A good, comprehensive overview of a burgeoning topic. Suitable pics, nice mix of primary and secondary sources. It's been extensively gone over, including a peer review. Note on references: primary sources use the ref/note system while secondary sources simply link externally. The latter are reproduced at the bottom under a short description to provide a browsable list to those who might want to cherry-pick a ref section. Marskell 11:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Primary and secondary are split but use the same ref/note system (per below), listed alphabetically. Marskell 13:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Please implement a single citation system so the numbered notes in text have a corresponding note. Also include a complete description of the secondary sources so there is a record of who wrote it and what it was so that if/when the item move there is a record of what was used.--nixie 11:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. Note, it's impossible to have Ref 1 = Note 1 system, unless I want to have footnotes mixed with references! Marskell 13:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • They are still very confusing. It is not necessary to separate primary and secondary sources. On the footnotes, they don't seem like the would interupt the text terribly if they were merged into the article- alternatively use a different system to identify them, like the one used in Shrimp farm.--nixie 23:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The footnotes are asides--no need to talk about "Sagan, for instance, has argued..." in the body, unless the body is asking for it. How is Shrimp Farm less confusing? Or, more precisely, what is confusing now about this article's citations now? Marskell 23:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It's very simple, the numbers in the text should correspond to a numbered reference. --nixie 23:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support looks good... one last minor thing, is there anyway you could work the "See Also" links into the prose somewhere? It's not necessary but it would be nice.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 19:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    please number your notes/references at the bottom.
    Can you clarify the licencing on Image:Habzonethinkquest.gif seems to claim no-commercial then GFDL in the same line. It is my understanding this is impossible.
    • 1) Done as noted below. 2) I edited the sentence on the pic so it seemed less contradictory. I specifically informed them about GFDL and they specifically agreed; I just thought it fair to point out they'd like it used for educational or non-profit. Marskell 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Objections struck; all have been addressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Footnote numbering. One way or another, it needs to be possible to tell in a hardcopy what note or reference corresponds to which footnote indicator in the text. Perhaps the article would be better off using Harvard referencing for citations. Good enough now.
    • Numbers. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says "Very large numbers may be divided up by commas every three places, starting from the decimal separator in both directions. (Note that this is different from SI/ISO 31-0 notation where a thin space is used every three places.)" If for some reason this is totally unacceptable, and it needs to be a space separator, it needs to use &nbsp; to prevent line breaking.
    • Need an &nbsp; before the {{ref|x}}'s to prevent line wrapping.
    • I'm worried about the licensing on Image:BarnardsStarPlanet.jpg, which claims the copyright holder has released all rights. Where is that stated? says "for personal use only" and I couldn't find information there about who was the creator or copyright holder of the images.
    • A few one-sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph sections. They should be merged or expanded to give each paragraph a few sentences and each section a few paragraphs.
    • The last sentence in the lead, "This article is a discursive description of what conditions are presently considered essential in this regard and is not intended as a probability analysis of life emerging off of the planet Earth" strikes me as a little too self-referential; I hate seeing the phrase "This article" in an article. I could go either way on this one, though. I'm also not sure what the justification for not including information about probablity analyses of this sort in this article are; wouldn't brief coverage give more comprehensiveness to the topic?
    • (Comment only, not a full objection) I find much of the language more complicated than it needs to be. Example: "The HZ is a theoretical shell surrounding a star throughout which any planets present would have surficial liquid water." A simpler style of writing would make the article more accessible.
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • "It needs to be possible to tell in a hardcopy what note or reference corresponds to which footnote indicator in the text." Then we need to change the programming to allow for footnotes to be seperate from references. If there is a way to have, in one section, 1, 4, 7 and in another section, 2, 5, 8, and in another section, 3, 6, 9, let me know. I haven't seen a way to do this--obviously footnotes can't be mixed with references. No, it's not necessary to seperate primary and secondary but there is absolutely nothing out of keeping in doing so and it makes sense here. The primary are the bedrock for the article, and the secondary are largely replacable.
        • I can only repeat that it needs to be done in a manner that lets you figure out which note or reference is being referred to, without clicking the link. Several different methods of accomplishing that have now been pointed out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't understand point about numbers. What is wrong?
        • Sorry I wasn't clear. Example: "This corresponds to temperatures of a little more than 7 000 K down to a little more than 4 000 K...", should be "This corresponds to temperatures of a little more than 7,000 K down to a little more than 4,000 K...". I'd have just made the change but I wanted to make sure you weren't going to feel I was stepping on your toes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • One sentence paragraphs have been eliminated.
      • The Barnard's Star pic is from a wallpaper site. If this is unacceptable I will remove it.
        • Seems very questionable to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • We don't go over probabilities because it's done to death. A note is provided on this point. Marskell 23:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Bunchofgrapes about the language being far to complicated. I've begun copyediting to make it read more like an article in an encyclopedia and less like one in a scientific journal. -Satori (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and does anyone have a comment on the actual content? Marskell 23:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I won't oppose, but here's a few thoughts:
  • As the article is about planetary habitability, I seem to remember there are various classification schemes on this. Some of them are probably from fiction and somesuch, but would still be relevant here. If not gone into in depth, they should at least be mentioned and linked to. I remembered one included 'M-class' for a planet that can support life. (See Memory Alpha). I don't know if there is a real classification scheme, but even some of the more famed fictional ones should be mentioned in a section (if they're not elsewhere on Wikipedia). Struck, but there needs to be some mention of this (if only a link to another article), as Marskell discussed on my talk page.
  • Saturn's Titan, meanwhile, has retained a thick atmosphere and has an outside chance of harbouring life. Why? Struck.
  • Finally, a larger planet is likely to have a concomitantly large iron core, Determining the habitability of red dwarf stars would help decide whether life in the universe is ubiquitous or vanishingly rare Plain English, please (putative, concomitantly, and grammar in the latter case). It's an encylopaedia, not a textbook! Struck.
  • Reword the paragraph that repeats the stock phrase 'there is reason to' not just once, but twice. Also too many 'however's. Struck.
  • Introduction needs to be a little longer (but not massively, just another paragraph). Struck.

There were a few other minor quibbles, but I'll just fix those myself. Like I said, no oppose vote, as I think the article is very good, but when the above are fixed, I will gladly All objections dealt with, so Support. Proto t c 11:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Proto. I'll get around to that business later today. To address previous concerns:
  • The Footnotes and References have been separated. References are now numbered. Primary and secondary remain apart but there should be no confusion now about which note refers to which link.
  • Dropped red dwarf pic per Bunchofgrapes concerns; replaced with GNU. Marskell 11:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The contents of the ESA Web Portal are intended for the personal and non-commercial use of its users. ESA grants permission to users to visit the site, and to download and copy information, images, documents and materials from the website for users' personal non-commercial use. ESA does not grant the right to resell or redistribute any information, documents, images or material from its website or to compile or create derivative works from material on its website. Use of material on the website is subject to the terms and conditions outlined below.
All material published on the ESA Web Portal is protected by copyright and owned or controlled by ESA or the party credited as the provider of the content, software or other material.
Users may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the content, software, material or services, in whole or in part, without obtaining prior written authorisation. In order to obtain authorisation to display or use any content of the ESA Web Portal, please make a request for authorization by clicking on 'Contact us'.

The image page doesn't have any source URL, image authorship information, or pointer to a release that would indicate that the image is GFDL. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Shall I post the e-mail permission I recieved? Marskell 16:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the more information in the image description describing where the image came from, who created it, and why we believe it to be GFDL, the better. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I find it very hard to beleive the ESA which has refused previous requests to allow images under the GFDL would simply allow you to reproduce it on wikipedia AS A GFDL IMAGE, they may just be giving a 1 site Wikipedia ONLY approval. Per the ESA Website: ESA does not grant the right to resell or redistribute any information, documents, images or material from its website or to compile or create derivative works from material on its website. This quote in particular is 100% against the ideal of both the CC license AND the GFDL license. I would definately have to see some sort of evidence that this meant MORE than just a Wikipedia only use.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 02:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Cautious support. This is a thoroughly researched article and it is good to see you have addressed the footnote ref concerns. It is important to resolve the ESA image issue, but overall this is a minor concern. Well done! Brisvegas 08:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Re pics. First, just to be clear about HabZoneThinkQuest, there was explicit approval granted after I mentioned GFDL; see its talk where I have reproduced the e-mails. On the ESA pic, I have done the same with talk. I stated "once uploaded others would be able to use it elsewhere" and received "No problem with using the image" and a comment to the effect that ESA has allowed Wikipedia approval previously. There was no "only for wiki" caveat, but "used elsewhere" may not be interpreted as off-site so I have rm'ed the pic from the page for the time being. When I uploaded, I sent another e-mail specifically mentioning GFDL so I will await a more explicit reply. Marskell 09:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Our policy regarding image permissions is currently wacky. We allow fair-use images - even when our rationalization for fair-use is Wikipedia-specific. We also allow - even as featured pictures - images which are under copyright in Europe as long as they're not in the US. But as soon as someone has explicit permission to use an image - and even if that permission extends to educational use in general - you can kiss it goodbye. ESA can't grant us permission to use images under GFDL, this has already been established. But they're perfectly willing to allow us to use their images. So, what you can do - under our wacky rules - is to write them again and ask them if they'd consider the use of the image in the article to be fair-use. They'll think the question is weird but it's one they can legally answer in the affirmative. Then you put that rationalization in the image description page and you're good to go. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The perfect article doesn't have any fair-use pictures; all its images are GFDL, Public Domain, or otherwise unrestricted-with-attribution. So, for Featured Articles, we try to aim for as few fair-use images as possible... even if we got fair-use "permission" for the image, I'd still object, as it is a non-essential image for this article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The perfect article on a recent book will have a fair-use image of the book-cover. We ought to stand up for fair-use, as Jimbo said a few months ago. Our fair-use claims depend partially on Wikipedia being an educational non-profit resource, the same issues as the use of this picture has. This is a picture which makes the article better and which will in no case land Wikipedia in any legal trouble. I will concede, though, that unlike most ESA images this one can be essentially recreated under a free license. That's the best option, then. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The perfect article on a recent book will have a fair-use image of the book-cover. No, the perfect article would talk the publisher into releasing a photo of the cover into the public domain. (I know that would never happen... but there's no such thing as the perfect article either.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Why would you object to fair-use permission if that permission is explicit? Do we expect press releases? The image in question isn't essential, but it nicely breaks up the end of a longish article.
I'd also suggest the perfect article is something of a vanishing point. A very fine article which covers it's topic shouldn't be unduly faulted for having one of four images fair use. Marskell 16:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course, there's no such thing as the perfect article. And I support articles for FACs with fair-use images all the time. It's a question of how important the picture is and how difficult it would be to obtain a free image that conveys the same information. In this case, my judgement is that the image in question fails the tests.
It's more than just the legal questions too; for me, none of this is from a fear of being sued. It's about the idea of Wikipedia as a free (not free-as-in-beer, but free-as-in-speech) encyclopedia, reusable and extensible for any pupose in the world, no "educational" restrictions holding it back. A Featured Article "should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet." Our very best work doesn't have a fair-use picture stuck in just to "break up the end of a longish article". If it has a picture that makes the information in the article a little less free than Wikipedia strives for, then it needs a really solid reason to have it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't take issue with the ideology. I agree with the ideology. Free reuse, whenever possible, is very important. What I'm annoyed at is the double standards. We have thousands of images that are only in the public domain in the US and are protected by copyright in Europe or elsewhere. This greatly limits the possible reuse of Wikipedia - you couldn't publish it in the UK, for example. I hardly hear anyone worrying about this. But when we are offered images that can be reused by any educational resource anywhere in the world we must, by an edict from Jimbo, say no. It's not that I think we should encourage such images - I think we should use free images whenever possible. But for images which we have no realistic chance of obtaining a free substitute for I think we should consider accepting an educational license. Just like we use fair-use images (again, under US-specific laws) when we have no other option. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I hear you; those are good points, especially regarding the US-centricism of the image "rules", which is deeply unfortunate. Doesn't affect my thought on the image in question, though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, we basically agree then. I'll stop the screeds :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
We do, actually, retain the short cuts for tags that are desired but, [according to Jimbo], only as bait to catch no good images. It is understandable: wiki could survive a hypothetical free speech lawsuit, but copyright issues are often more didactic and could cause trouble. But I really have no understanding about how fair use has been accepted but apparently no attempt has been made (since the CC tags became a no-no) to come up with a clear "education-only" tag. Surely, this isn't legally impossible (?). Marskell 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The intro has now been expanded and the article self-reference moved to the first footnote. This answers one of Proto's points and one of Bunchofgrapes'. This is the last substantial demand put forward, near as I can tell. There's been some concern about overly technical language but the page has been copyedited by five-odd people the last few days, and the verbose verbiage has been pruned :). Marskell 16:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. Up-to-date, methodical and engaging. It would be easy to stuff it full with gratuitous eye-candy astronomical images but diagrams are more informative. It does occur to me that maybe a recent Titan image would not be entirely gratuitous. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I missed the peer review. Why no mention of geological activity? What with the plate tectonics, internal heat engine, convective churning and such. I doubt geologically dead worlds (like pluto or the Earth's moon) can support life. Is the whole 'too much radiation preventing DNA formation' covered in the "Spectral class" section? A section of specific examples answering why Mars and Venus have no life would be interesting. Please see Kelvin for the correct notation (ie. no degrees). The "Geochemistry" section should probably go a little into what makes a nice cozy atmosphere, how planets get that atmosphere and why they don't lose it (ie. water stopping hydrogen from floating away). --maclean25 05:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Much of this is actually covered under Mass: Earth being large enough to retain an atmosphere and remain internally dynamic etc. Mars, it is noted, appears geologically dead. Too much radiation (and not enough) is mentioned in Spectral class and again under the Red Dwarf section. If there's anything that requires filling out please be bold--there's an enormous amount that can be discussed on the topic really (no mention, as you imply, about the Venus run--away greenhouse), but I'd been getting a little concerned the page was getting too far past 30k. Thx for the note on Kelvin. Marskell 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as a layperson reader. Readable article on a topic that may be difficult to write in a manner readable by the average person. Ambi 23:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Commment. A section on habitable planets in (science) fiction would be nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But only so long as it isn't a "list of science fiction stories that contain habitable planets" ;-) --Carnildo 00:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Proto raised a similar point and I suggested in talk with him a Habitable Planets in Fiction page. It could be linked from See also and the first note here. I'm no pro in this regard though it's on my to-do list. I don't think not having it here detracts from the sci-fact presented but it could be an interesting article of its own. Marskell 08:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

University of Michigan[edit]

This article has gone through major cleanups and many improvements (including peer review) by several people, including myself and a number of U-M students and alumni. The question becomes: is the article ready for FA? Pentawing 23:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Object:
    1. There is no indication as to why Image:Jfkatmichiganunion.jpg is in the public domain.
    2. The image Image:Michigan BlockM.jpg has no presentation in the article other than 'University of Michigan "Block M"'. What does that mean?
    --Carnildo 00:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It is unlikely that Image:Jfkatmichiganunion.jpg is in the public domain. The uploader cited only as a source. That photo is found there under the Bentley Image Bank collection from the Bentley Historical Library. Its description page there states: "This image may be protected by copyright law. Contact the Bentley Historical Library for permission to reproduce, display or transmit this image" and sources it as: "(Daybook, image #58)". While it's not impossible that this was a photo by an employee of the US Government, nothing there says that. Anyone find out any more? —Morven 00:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed the Kennedy image (supposedly the Peace Corps has a copy, but I can't find it anywhere). As for the block M logo, I noted where it is most commonly used in the image's caption. Pentawing 04:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment a map of the location of the university with respect to the city would help. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Done, though it is quite crude. If someone believes he/she can do it better, go ahead (but please upload the map to Wikimedia Commons). Pentawing 18:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Three reasons why that map has to go. 1. Terms of that site does not mention derivatives are allowed & commercial use is prohibited. 2. The format is .jpg. It should be .png (ideally .svg) 3. Only blank maps should go into commons. Else the purpose of commons: is defeated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I believe that I have now taken care of that problem. Pentawing 23:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to support unless anythnig pops up from other editors that I have missed. I feel we need an article to set a precedent for how all other college/university pages shuold be made, and see this as being a balanced page with equal time for history, academics, student life, athletics and alum. Great work UM team! Harro5 20:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Comprehensive, well-sourced, and VERY well-written. Seems that everything in Ann Arbor that Pentawing touches turns to FA gold. Excellent work. PacknCanes | talk 12:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I mention a disclaimer that mine is not an unbiased vote in this case. I tried to reduce the peacock language, but perhaps it still reads a bit too much like a brochure. Criticisms of the U are absent in the lead, and relatively minimal elsewhere. Nevertheless it is an excellent, well researched article. It does a good job of substantiating why the U is highly regarded, which is important. - Taxman Talk 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although it would be nice if the lead section didn't repeat the U-M abbreviation so many times. Ambi 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Done (hopefully). Pentawing 04:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Imperial Japanese Navy[edit]

An overview of the development of Japan's Navy, and somehow a case study of one of Japan's most central effort at modernization. Essentially self-nom. PHG 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support PHG
  • Object, for a number of reasons:
  1. Qualitative judgements (for example, "the best naval fighter plane of the era" or "of high caliber as compared to their contemporaries around the world") must be directly cited. Inline citations for other items couldn't hurt, either.
  • Done. Added several in-line quotes, including the two specified ones above. PHG
  • I meant citation rather than direct quotes (and the quotes you added don't include page numbers, making them somewhat useless. In addition, there are a variety of statements in the article that also need better referencing. The more essential ones that I noticed (listed by section):
  • Medieval origins
  • "At the peak of Wakō activity, circa 1350, fleets of 300 to 500 ships at a time, transporting several hundred horsemen and several thousand soldiers, would raid the costs of China (Nagazumi)"
  • Done. Source: Nagazumi Red Seal Ships, p21 PHG
  • Warring States period (15th-16th century)
  • "Around that time, Japan seems to have developed the first ironclad warships in history"
  • Facts, rather than qualitative comment. Please check Ironclad article. PHG
  • And that article has no references either ;-) It can't be turtles all the way down, unfortunately—at some point that claim has to be tied to a specific source. It certainly doesn't qualify as common knowledge. Kirill Lokshin 13:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The references I have are in Japanese ([6], [7]). There are also a few Western sources ([8] "Iron clad ships, however, were not new to Japan and Hideyoshi; Oda Nobunaga, in fact, had many iron clad ships in his fleet."). In Western sources, these ships are described in CR Boxer "The Christian Century in Japan 1549-1650", p122, quoting the account of the Italian Jesuit Organtino in 1578. The first Western ironclads date to 1859 with the French Gloire ("Steam, Steel and Shellfire") PHG
  • You should just note those references in the article, then. I wasn't suggesting a comparison with Western ironclads, incidentally, but rather with the more well-known Turtle ships; the two develop during the same period, so a source is needed if we're to claim Japan got there first. Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Influence of the French "Jeune Ecole" (1880s)
  • "the 1887 Kotaka, considered as the first ever effective design of a destroyer"
  • Done. Source: Evans, Kaigun, p17 PHG
  • "the Yoshino, built in Elswick, the fastest cruiser in the world at the time of her launch in 1892"
  • Done. Source: Evans Kaigun, p17 PHG
  • Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905)
  • "One of these battleships, Mikasa, the most advanced ship of her time"
  • Done. Source: Evans Kaigun, p60-61 PHG
  • "the Mikasa led the combined Japanese fleet into what has been called "the most decisive naval battle in history""
  • Done. The quote if from Corbett Maritime Operations in the Russo-Japanese War, 2:333 PHG
  • Towards an autonomous national Navy
  • "Following a strategy of "Copy, improve, innovate", foreign ships of various designs were usually analysed in depth, their specifications often improved on"
  • Done. Source: Howe, p284 PHG
  • "The Japanese Navy was the first in the world to use in combat a wireless communication system, used during the Battle of Tsushima"
  • Done. Source: Evans, Kaigun, p84 PHG
  • World War I
  • "After the conflict, the Japanese Navy received seven German submarines as spoils of war, which were brought to Japan and analysed, contributing greatly to the development of the Japanese submarine industry"
  • Done. Evans Kaigun p212 PHG
  • Interwar years
  • "The Imperial Japanese Navy was faced, before and during World War II, with considerable challenges, probably more so than any other navy in the world"
  • Done. Source: Lyon World War II warships p34 PHG
  • "A consistent weakness of Japanese warship development was the tendency to incorporate too much armament, and too much engine power, in comparison to ship size (a side-effect of the Washington treaty), leading to shortcomings in stability, protection and structural strength"
  • Done. Source: Lyon World War II warships p35 PHG
  • World War II
  • "Consequently, at the beginning of World War II, Japan probably had the most sophisticated Navy in the world"
  • Done. Source: Howe, p286 PHG
  • "she should also have been able to protect her long shipping lines against enemy submarines, which she never managed to do"
  • Done. Source: Lyon World War II warships p39 PHG
  • Submarines
  • "Other submarines undertook trans-oceanic missions to German-occupied Europe, such as I-30, I-8, I-34, I-29 and I-52, in one case flying a Japanese seaplane over France in a propaganda coup"
  • Done. Source: Japanese submarines (潜水艦大作戦, p70) PHG
  • The small number of references is somewhat unusual as well, but isn't necessarily a problem if everything in the article can be tied to them. Kirill Lokshin 20:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Added six more book references connected to the article content (10 book references overall) PHG
  • Great! You might want to look at putting the references in a standard format; as things are, they seem to have mis-ordered author/title combinations, etc. Aside from that, my only concern is the citation for the ironclads at the top. Kirill Lokshin 13:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. The "See also" section is rather long; some of the items should be mentioned within the text, or not at all.
  • Done. Eliminated redundant "See also" links. PHG
  • I still think the links are excessive, even split into sections; but it's possible this is merely a matter of taste. Kirill Lokshin 20:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Transfered Weapons and Admiral into the IJN banner. PHG
  1. A number of sections in the first half of the article are only a paragraph long (the worst is "Boxer Rebellion"). These should be either expanded or merged with neighboring sections; alternately, you can drop the headings a few levels. At the very least, a heading-2 section needs to be more than two sentences.
  • Done. Integrated "Boxer Rebellion" as a later development of the Sino-Japanese war.
  • Some more merging here would be helpful. It's not really necessary to have a separate heading for every incident (e.g. "Invasion of Korea", "Invasion of the Ryukyu", etc.) Kirill Lokshin 20:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Done PHG
  1. The images should be more balanced between the right and left margins. As it is, only one image is on the left.
This is a good article, but some more work is needed before it's ready. Kirill Lokshin 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Support now that the changes have all been made. Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it is looking better though. I did some work on the first few sections. Mostly wording to try and make some of the more awkward sentences less so. It does have promise. With a bit more work it should reach FA.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

PS THIS is what has become of the once, mighty Japanese Navy! :>

  • Thanks for this amazing video!! PHG
  • Object for quite a lot of reasons:
  • Too many minute sections and sub-sections, especially relating to history. I recommend writing in broader strokes, every century doesn't need its own sub-section and "World War II" doesn't need separate sub-sections on various types of weaponry (especially not "Fuel").
  • Done. Moved "Fuel" to sub-article PHG
  • Only four sub-sections to go, then. WW II is still divided into four ship classes, which is definetly over-indulgent. You also have the three-sentence "Boxer Rebellion", many quite tiny paragraphs (this is subjective, I know) and some very odd structure going on in "Medieval origins". I'm hesitant to even use the term "medieval" outside of European history, and I'm very skeptical to letting it run right up to 1840, even if Japan was pretty feudal. / Peter Isotalo 00:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed "Medieval origins" to simply "Origins". I think this sections has a better flow as well (thanks for the improvements). Dropped "Boxer rebellion" heading as well. PHG
  • Plenty of one-sentence paragraphs that need merging.
  • Done, at least mostly done with I thinkPHG
  • Too much kanji, romaji and macrons. Not that many people can read or understand it and most probably just see annoying white boxes or question marks. In-prose usage of it should be limited to names of the navy and the likes. In general, just don't use macrons in prose at all. And, yes, I can read and write Japanese fairly well, so I'm not complaining just because I can't understand it. Is there really a point in linking to Japanese Wikipedia articles, by the way?
  • Done. Unlinked the Japanese Wikipedia articles. Removed macrons. PHG
  • The amount of pics should be cut to about half. There's simply not enough text to make them fit properly right now.
  • Done. Removed a few images where there was an issue with insufficient text space. PHG
  • I don't know if the article is supposed to cover the modern navy or not, but if it is, there's not enough info. If it's not supposed to be included, try to make the reasons for this a bit more obvious in the lead.
  • Done, added a comment in the intro: the Imperial Japanese Navy was dissolved at the end of World War II. PHG
Peter Isotalo 19:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'd like to see a longer lead that gives a bit more detail. The links section at the bottom of the article is a bit too much, major actions are all listed in the text and on the template, the same is true of admirals- why is there a separate list of them at the end of the article? Also the lists of weaponry etc could probably be confortably added to the Imperial Navy template.--nixie 02:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • All done. Thanks for the suggestions PHG
One more thing, the in text citations are kind of jarring, I think innote or footnotes would work better.--nixie 11:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Right. I re-incorparated most of the inline quotes into the text, but kept the references. Thanks. PHG
  • Comment Title does not match article content. Article is much broader in scope, and includes extensive coverage of naval forces not responsible to the Emperor or Empire. What would you say to "Naval history of Japan"? Fg2 12:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. 4/5th of the article is actually devoted to Imperial Japanese Navy (formally created at the time of the Meiji restauration). The remaining1/5th, at the beginning of the article, is the "Origins" part, reduced to the minimum, and the "Bakumatsu Navy", which actually provided the first step in the modernization of Japan's Navy. This is roughly consistent with the treatment of the Imperial Japanese Navy in books such as "Kaigun". A whole "Naval history of Japan" would have to devote much more space to Medieval evolutions in particular. PHG
  • Support. Article is plenty long and detailed, with lots of pictures and involved history of the naval forces. I agree with Fg2 that it needs to be pared down to the Imperial Japanese Navy proper, i.e. just Meiji and beyond, since nothing in the Sengoku period was the official Navy of the nation. However, overall, a quality article; while there is some information that does not necessarily belong, it is valid information, and relevant to the historical background of Japan's naval technology and organization. LordAmeth 15:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I somewhat disagree about the scope. The section is clearly labeled "Origins", establishing that it's a pre-history. A suggestion for a compromise would be a (reasonable) shortening of "Origins". / Peter Isotalo 15:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a pre-history ... of the entire naval history of Japan! The entire "Origins" section needs to be reduced to a sentence or two if this article is truly to be about the "Imperial Japanese Navy" instead of something broader. Personally, I think this would be a waste--please see my comment below. CES 16:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Fg2 and LordAmeth, the article seems to be in between "Naval history of Japan" and "Imperial Japanese Navy", closer to the former than the latter. Honestly, if I didn't know what the title was, I would've thought it was a complete naval history of Japan--and I think this is a good thing; the breadth is nearly the same as Military history of Japan and the depth puts that article to shame. It goes without saying that the scope is much larger than the corresponding article at the Japanese Wikipedia. Personally I think this article would be better served if it were expanded into a complete "Naval history of Japan" (really, I think this article is about 90% of the way there--just expand a bit on the "Origins" and Self-Defence Forces section and you've got it), but if you want the article to be limited to the Imperial Japanese Navy, the "Origins" section needs to be pared down closer to what we have in the Imperial Japanese Army article. But I think that would be a waste. I recommend turning this into a full-fledged Naval history of Japan. CES 16:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think indeed there is indeed room for a Naval history of Japan article, so I created it, to be expended further, especially in the Medieval area. In the meantime, I reduce the "Origins" in the Imperial Japanese Navy article, to an amount of information which I believe is present in most books on the Imperial Japanese Navy. PHG
  • The article links to Yokosuka, which redirects to Yokosuka, Kanagawa; do you prefer that or U.S. Fleet Activities Yokosuka? Fg2 01:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed a lot of spelling. Note 1 has a title that looks like it should be Port Arthur but I didn't change it; it's worth checking. OED hyphenates "battle-cruiser" and MW writes it as two words; you might make a choice. Fg2 02:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Black pepper[edit]

A comprehensive article, detailing history of the condiment most of us consume everyday. Since it has been made a good article major improvements have been done by User:Bunchofgrapes. --BorgQueen 20:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick note to any copyeditors out there: British English spellings, please. I'm American, so I'm sure most of my new text has a lot of errors in that area, but I found the article with British spelling and I intend to keep it that way. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Canadian spellings also, as they are the same as British. Anyway, on to the main topic. I feel as though you have included too many images in this article, and would request that you remove at least one. Otherwise the article is very informative, well-written, NPOV, and spicy! Support! --Hollow Wilerding 22:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I removed one image. --BorgQueen 22:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Let's cook up a meal on the Wiki! --HappyCamper 22:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-flavoured article. Wim van Dorst 23:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Object. (This is Bunchofgrapes, the main editor for the article recently: sorry if this objection is poor form of any sort, but it's well-intentioned and I hope to address my objections soon.) The article isn't comprehensive yet. Specifically: Not having China in there made me uncomfortable; now that that's done, I guess I'll strike my objection and consider my other two points as being more along the lines of comments. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • More on pepper's history outside of Europe. Especially China, whose history of pepper usage may go back to the first few centuries CE. Right now there's a European bias. Done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The question of pepper's popularity, both historical and current. Historically, why were people willing to go to such lengths and pay such prices to bring these little hot dried seeds thousands and thousand of miles, even during the most shut-in days of Europe's dark ages? How and why did pepper wind up as our "default" spice today? There are no good answers to these questions, but I still believe the article needs to deal with them a little.
    • Maybe: The transformation of pepper's role in cuisine over the years. In both Roman and Medieval times, it wasn't really ever just sprinkled on food, but was usually cooked into some variety of pepper sauce or another, with a base of possibly garum or liquamen, verjus (what!? we don't have a verjus article?) or vinegar. In some ways, it was treated more like we treat mustard seeds today.
Hopefully I will get these in there while this FAC is still active. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please keep in mind that an article can never be perfect. Your objection more sounds like your own ambition as an editor than a factor truly disqualifies the current article from the featured article status. I admire your perfectionism and I hope you (and some others) will be able to fix those things soon but even if they can't be done it does not mean this article isn't comprehensive enough to become a featured article. --BorgQueen 00:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
...Oh and I made a redirect for verjus to verjuice. Thanks to my trusty Larousse Gastronomique. --BorgQueen 00:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Brisvegas 05:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - it's featured-quality already, even without the additions Bunchofgrapes proposes above. — Haeleth Talk 11:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Appears pretty comprehensive, but has very little information about pepper in Northern European spice trade. I think if you mention Southern Europe and Asia, Northern Europe (for example Germany) needs to be mentioned too. - Mgm|(talk) 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have just expanded the end of the European history section, which now discusses more clearly Portugal losing almost all their Indian Ocean possessions to the Dutch and English (and the Malabar coast to specificaly the Dutch). I think I already covered pepper being in England, and I thought it was clear that the pepper trade, though it filtered through chokepoints including Italy, spread all across Europe. Perhaps that should be made more explicit? As for specifically dealing with the pepper trade in Germany, I'm not sure there's much to be said about it that couldn't be said about France or Denmark or Switzerland etc. I haven't come across anything that led me to think they were anything but consumers of a secondary market. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to support. Nice expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nice job all round. Lisiate 02:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hot, Spicy, Support, after all the work I do in miltary history, it is always fun to find a such an informative article about something we use everyday and hardly give a second thought. Besides, Wiki needs more good condiment articles:> Did you know in the French Napoleonic armies, the phrase To Grind Peppercorns (Piler du Poivre) was slang for sentry or any dull, unpleasant duty...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support That was really good! (I just read the other votes, and did notice that, for quite a while, until I hit the China section, I was concerned about the "other half" of the world, what was going on there pepper. The China section resolved that for me (because I was already otherwise supporting!); still, as I see that China was a late addition, perhaps in future, a more global balance could be woven throughout. But that is NOT any sort of objection.) --Tsavage 19:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic article which is informative, well-researched, and a pleasure to read. It would be great to take care of the red links if possible! InvictaHOG 01:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. Congratulations. Saravask 09:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Head... swelling... must... relieve... pressure... I mean, thanks, everyone, for saying such nice things about the page! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Was going to object on a few minor things, but then I thought I'd just fix them and vote Support. Proto t c 12:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A fascinating article! Good work! ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|<sup><font color="green">Dialogue?</font></sup>]] 17:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 23:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory[edit]

Self Nomination This Canberra suburb article failed to reach consensus last time it was nominated. I believe all of the original objections have been adressed and the article has been noticably improved recently with help from WikiProject Canberra. See the previous nomination. --Martyman-(talk) 10:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Minor object. It's very much improved, and is so nearly there. However, I still think it could do with a slight copyedit - most specifically in the history and notable places sections, as well as the education paragraph under "suburb amenities". There's a few capitalisation issues, quite a few sentences that could be worded better, and a few too many sentences that start with "In [year]...". It's certainly not bad, but I like to remember the "brilliant prose" origins of this page. Ambi 10:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Firstly, the copyedit fixed a lot of the issues; I've gone through it and fixed a few spelling errors and things - though there's still a few punctuation issues, and on a more thorough reading, I've found a few other small problems. Secondly, the chronology in the history section seems to be a bit jerky in the second half; things like the Commonwealth Forestry School section don't seem to fit too well with the rest of the section, and make the section a bit hard to follow. There are also a few cases of odd wording, though (i.e. The other land grant was to William Klensendorlffe. as the opening sentence of a paragraph). Thirdly, some of the paragraphs under "notable places" could do with some tightening up, and the second mention of the Forestry School seems a little repetitive. Fourthly, what does Many are in section 64 Yarralumla mean? Fifthly, I'd like to see Cyberjunkie, Petaholmes or Michaelgabrielsen give the prose a second look over, just to see if there's anything we've both missed. Ambi 13:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Support. There's a few lingering prose issues, but not substantial enough to continue to object to this great article being featured. Ambi 04:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    How long do articles stay up on FAC? I'll try to read through it properly and see if I can make any suggestions sometime this week, but I'm extremely busy and can't promise I'll get around to it. From a brief glance, the content looks great but there are a few formatting issues: notable places, for one, looks a bit messy. Also, (and this is ridiculously minor) is there any particular reason why the US, UK and China are mentioned in the lead as having missions in Yarralumla over other countries? Good luck with it, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    Normally at least five days, can be a lot longer if there's some debate going on and the article's getting edited in response to people's objections. 24px CTOAGN (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The best suburb article I've seen so far! Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 02:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but I still have some concerns. As Ambi has mentioned, there are a few prose issues that should be taken care of. It would be good to have another person go over the article - I'm hoping Nichalp might spot this. The main problem with the writing in some places is short sentences that interupt the flow. I think this is particularly so in the History section. The History section itself could do with a reworking. The first half reads like real estate history, detailing owner after owner without much context. That's a problem with the entire section in fact - a lot is said, but context is lacking: why is what being said important? how is it relevant? Elaborating would help, but that would probably require more research. There also seems to be some chronological inconsistencies. Aside from the History section, there appears to be an overlap between the Amenities and Notable places sections. IIRC, a playground is mentioned in Notable places instead of amenities. Other than that, great work!--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object – I echo what Cyberjunkie has to say. The text does need a copyedit and short paragraphs merged. There are a lot of odd sentences, and poetic phrases such as "This stigma began to fade.." coupled with one or two typos. The table on the embassies is not needed, it should be moved a a new page and linked from this page. I feel that $ in the infobox should be conveted to AU$. Those bus route timings and all are not needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This stigma began to fade, was one of mine :P. I didn't know how else to put what was trying to be said: that the suburb got snazzy and people liked it all of a sudden, instead of deriding it as "working class".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 22:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The table of embassies emphasises the most notable thing about the suburb to foreign readers. I have moved the table to the bottom of the section to stop it interupting the flow of the text. I have changed the currency symbol. I don't see why mentioning the suburbs only public trasnport in detail should be objectionable. How does it detract from the article? --Martyman-(talk) 23:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I second Martyman's objection to the objection. Just as we would mention what railway line it was on if there were one, we should mention buses - it's of interest to many. While I disagreed with the table at first, there has been some good points made, and basically everyone in the Canberra WikiProject agrees that it's useful - particularly in showing notability to international readers. Ambi 23:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The table looks much better at the bottom.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 23:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • For the record, Petaholmes just fixed Nichalp's grammar and prose objection, and the others are all quite strongly disputed by the rest of the Canberra editors. Ambi 07:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm opposed to the bus timings. That reads like a tourist guide. Secondly, that table is not primary matter. Its more of a ancilliary list and I strongly feel it should be in a separate article. Just like can't have a list of UN missions in NYC on the New York page. Also, there's no category to the page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • So you are objecting to one sentence on bus timings and a table which everyone else thinks should stay in the article? We already have a Diplomatic missions in Canberra page, if there where pages created for individual suburbs, I would vote to delete them. This is not New York, this is a suburb of 3000 people with around 20% of its area dedicated to embassies. If 20% of New York was embassies I would expect them to be covered in great detail. The embassies located in the suburb should definately be listed, and doing so in prose would not work. I think the table is the neaatest way to do this. I have re-added the category, which got lost during recent edits.--Martyman-(talk) 21:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd have to say that as the transport problems arose with waterfall gully, im in favour of the bus times staying. It doesn't make it touristy, it simply makes the article more relevant to the actual suburb (which it is, a suburb - and offers suburb-relevant transport information). In regards to the diplomatic missions, that's a very important part of the suburb and definetely worth noting. Cheers, - Flag of Australia.svg >>michaelg | talk 11:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
          1. ...offers suburb-relevant transport information..., that's the function of a tourist guide, not an encyclopedia. 2. =Notable places= should mention the notable places, not a list of all embassies in the area. I still strongly recommend that the table be moved to a separate article. The topic is on the suburb, and the list is secondary information. I've opposed all such lists in the past, be it schools, colleges etc. I'm sorry, but I cannot support this unless both are removed. (If you do remove it, please let me know so that I can change my vote.) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
          Lots of things in this encylopedia could be considered 'touristy' but simply listing the accurate transport information for a suburb is not. In a city article, public transport, roads, etc are all detailed. In the context of an individual suburb, the information must also be relevant. Leaving out relevant information that could otherwise give the reader more knowledge does not make sense. This goes for the embassies objection aswell. I don't live in Yarralumla, but I've been there and the embassies are well worth mentioning. Cheers, - Flag of Australia.svg >>michaelg | talk 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't think this is worth worrying about any longer; FAC does not give users a veto over article content, and every single other user who has commented on this topic, both here and elsewhere, has supported the inclusion of this content. It is thus unactionable; to remove it would be to go against the consensus of everyone else. Ambi 00:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
            That's incorrect. My objection is certainly very actionable. I'm not sure why you assume that everyone has given their explicit support for the inclusion of the table. Its possible that may not have an opinion on it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
            Doesn't the fact that there is only the real options of support and object mean that a support is a 100% while an object is nothing? I don't mean to be rude at all, much less discount your opinion, but I fail to see how the inclusion of a table (which has relative and informative content) distracts from the overall quality of the article. As you have said yourself, your objection is actionable. Wouldn't the action to be whether community consenus is for or against the table? Would any other wikipedians please voice their opinion on it? Cheers, - Flag of Australia.svg >>michaelg | talk 14:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I'd prefer to keep the table. 24px CTOAGN (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But what does "gazetted" mean in the lead? PedanticallySpeaking 17:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Created as an an official suburb. Ambi 23:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have wikilinked to term now to avoid confusion. --Martyman-(talk) 00:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I can see why the table of embassies is where it is, but it breaks up the section by being there. If you move it to the bottom of the section or convince me that it needs to be where it is I'll support the nomination. Other really minor points that I won't object over:
    • The history section could do with a couple of subheadings as it's quite long.
    • It'd look better on some people's displays if the images just used the 'thumb' settings instead of having pixel sizes set. I use a laptop cranked up to its highest resolution, so images always look a little too small on my system when the image width is specified. People on low-res displays with largish screens are probably having the opposite problem. Just using the 'thumb' tag sets the image width to whatever the user has specified in their preferences, so it's more likely to suit everyone.
    • I think the References section should be renamed Notes and references in line with WP:CITE, unless some of the texts in Further reading were used to create the article, in which case they need to be in the references section. 24px CTOAGN (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I have re-ordered the notable places section to stop the embassies table breaking the flow of the text. I am intending to try breaking up the history section with sub-headings some time today. I hate the default size of thumbnails they are way too small for any reasonable screen resolution. This means only poeple who have taken the time to register would see proper sized images. I have tried to pick sizes that will not cause formatting problems at any resolution and will look acceptable accross a wide range. I have renamed the references section, the further reading is just suggested books, not actually used in the writing of the article. --Martyman-(talk) 00:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Hadn't thought about the default resolution - good point. I've noticed one other thing - the map at the top would be more helpful if it had a scale on it. I'll support the article either way though - it's great. 24px CTOAGN (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I have added a scale to the infobox map. --Martyman-(talk) 09:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to be difficult, but I'm not sure that some of the edits during this FAC have helped this article. I don't think the trimming of the notable places section was necessary, and it removed some interesting content, as well as forcing the piling up of images in big blocks (which looks fairly ugly). Ambi 02:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC) With Petaholmes latest copyedits and some of the changes made this afternoon, this has become very fine article of the standard of Waterfall Gully, and I can no longer fault it one bit. Ambi 07:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support (with the disclaimer that I have helped with the format of the article), revisions to the structure of the article- which seemed to be the most common objection (section x overlaps with section y) have been the only significant change during this FAC - no content has been lost, just moved. I think Martyman has done a great job making this article comprehensive and interesting.--nixie 02:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I too disclose that I have made a few very recent copyedits (mainly sp., punc., and minor style changes) to this article, but have not otherwise been involved in bringing it up to its current level. There is some repetition of information, and other minutae which could readily be omitted without harming it (eg the composition of the local shops, bus timings); but I don't think that these are sufficient to detract from what is a comprehensive, well-researched and referenced treatment.--cjllw | TALK 06:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Appears comprehenisive in terms of European settlement, has good photos, charts, and maps and is referenced. I wouldn't know, but was there no indigenous settlement in the vicinity of what is now Yarralumla? If there was, could that be given slight mention in the lead and elsewhere (other than the name's origin)? Otherwise, great article. Saravask 02:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I know there is no Indigenous Australian information specific to Yarralumla. It is a rather small area after all. If anyone comes across any they are welcome to add it to the article. --Martyman-(talk) 04:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618)[edit]

It has been some time since my last self-nom, but here it is: yet another mostly forgotten event dealing with the history of Central/Eastern Europe that determined the fate of this continent few hundred years ago. We have maps, more pictures then you can shake a stick at, and quite a lot of intriguing details. Your comments, as always, much appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - Great article about a fascinating conflict. Balcer 05:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I agree, another great article on a complex and very important war. Interesting it ended in 1618, just as the Thirty Years War was commencing in central and western Europe. But the long-term implications from this war, were argueably much greater. Once again you impress me, Prokonsul, with your intellect and energy--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object: the article needs to be thoroughly copyedited for grammatical mistakes (I've tried my hand at the first few sections). A few questions:
  1. Dmitri's name is spelled a dozen different ways throught the article. Is this due to spelling mistakes, multiple possibilities for transliteration, or something else?
  2. There seems to be some confusion regarding the use "Muscovy" versus "Muscovite" as an adjective; I was under the impression that only the latter is correct, but the article predominantly employs the former.
Once the copyediting is done, I will have no problems supporting. Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Support after the latest round of changes. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
*Ditto. --Lysy (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The English is not very good; I corrected a good many typos, and the whole thing has a non-native speaker ring to it. I would fix more, but I don't know much about the subject and wouldn't want to screw up any info by changing some wording. But in terms of content and facts, it seems good. Everyking 08:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say go ahead and try to fix more. If you break anything there will be always someone watching over to bring it back :-) --Lysy (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Majority of English mistakes and non-native speaker is beacouse I am not a native speaker - so unfortunatly I cannot address this objection. I did however unified the spelling to Dmitriy/Dmitriads, as Dmitriy is the current name of the relevant articles, as well as changed Muscovy (noun) to Muscovite (adj) where appopriate. I do hope that a native speaker will take care of the remainin copyedit, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. There are a lot of red links, especially in the warbox and in #The Second Dymitriad (1607-1609). Could you create brief articles for those battles and for some of the other figures who have links but no articles? NatusRoma 21:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have been doing this for a past year or so :) While I'd love to see all of those red links being developed into articles, I simply don't have enough data to do so. I will try creating stubs for the remaining Polish nobles. But if we object to FAing articles with red links, then should we would not be able to FA almost anything. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • And a great job you've done, make no mistake! However, there are more than 50 red links in this article, while War of the League of Cambrai, a recently featured article about two thirds of the size of this one, has three. Even a stub would be sufficient. NatusRoma 00:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Minus few more by now. However, with maybe <5 exceptions, the remaining 40 is about about people from Russian history and small places in Russia, on which few if any English or Polish sources exists. I am afraid I cannot fix most of the red links. Eastern European history is not as covered as that of the Western Europe, I am afraid, so there are more red links in the relevant articles. However, I think that this should not stop us from featuring relevant articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The copyright on most of the images is clear, but when were Image:Lissner.jpg and Image:Odsiecz Smolenska.jpg created? --Carnildo 06:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • In the case of Lissner's painting, it doesn't matter, because he lived in the Russian Empire and Stalin's Soviet Union. If the work was published before 1917, than it is PD-old. If it was published after 1917, then the sovietPD template should be applied. --Ghirlandajo 09:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • In the case of Kossack's painting, the painter died in the 19th century. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. The article should be stripped of conspicuously non-English names. I don't understand why Lisowczycy should be preferred to the Lisowski gang, szlachta - to Polish nobility, and unpronouncable Rokosz of Zebrzydowski - to Polish Civil War (1606-1608). All these foreign words do not improve the text. I would also vote for the article to be moved to Polish-Russian War (1605-1618) or, still better, to Polish invasion of Russia, on the par with the Mongol invasion of Russia and Napoleon's invasion of Russia. --Ghirlandajo 09:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • to be moved to Polish-Russian War (1605-1618) or, still better, to Polish invasion of Russia
    • As for the move, this is not the right place for it. The title has been discussed on the article's pages and preference has been given to Polish-Muscovite War. It is the most correct and descriptive name, and I see no point why we should move it to a dumbed down name like Polish-Russian War, or a misleading one like Polish invasion (there were very few Poles involved in the war until 1609). Second, Wikipedia should not invent new names: if there is no English names, we should use the local name (as per Wikipedia:Naming guidelines), hence Lisowczycy should remain Lisowczycy (and they were not a gang, but a mercenary outfit, if you want a more descriptive name). Szlachta is used in English publications, but if you think that boyarss should be moved to Russian nobility, then I'll reconsider. Rokosz is less known, I'll do some research on the usage (or lack of it) of term in English publications. However unless the term Polish Civil War (1606-1608) is used instead, I don't think it would be a better name (although a redirect certainly would be in order). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • We also have Fronde, not French Civil War (1648-1653). Hence I see no problem with using Rokosz of Zebrzydowski. The fact that it is hard to pronounce is not an issue on Wikipedia. Balcer 19:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't agree we could not find a way to English Lisowczycy. In Russian publications, they are styled "Lisowski's bandits". Your analogy of szlachta and boyarstvo is completely wrong. The Russian equivalent of Szlachta is dvoryane. You can see that we don't use the name every now and then. --Ghirlandajo 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • This being English Wiki, not Russian, if there is no English name, we use the local one. As Lisowczycy were Polish mercenaries, not Muscovite, the name we use is the Polish one. As for szlachta and dvoryane, I think you are just proving my point :) It has its article, so it should be linked, not a redirect (unless you want to move them to Russian nobility, and boyars to Russian artistocracy?). Granted, the first time term 'szlachta' is used, it should be explained it means 'Polish nobility - and so it is. Problem sovled. The term 'boyar', on the other hand, is not explained in the article - thank you for making me notice that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is at that time it was still Muscovy, perhaps a more fitting change to the name should be Polish intervention in Muscovy Civil War ?--Molobo 12:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In the 17th century, there was no civil war, and there was no Muscovy either. The term Muscovy was never that popular in English. Shakespeare speaks of Russia, Chaucer speaks of Russia, Sir John Mandeville speaks of Russia, Roger of Hoveden and other ancient Anglo-Norman chroniclers speak about Russia. Only Poles and their sovereigns speak about Muscovy, because they reserved the title of "rex Russiae" for themselves. Prince Wladyslaw used it, for instance, in 1612. --Ghirlandajo 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, dumbing down is again our policies. By the same token, we should refer to Ottoman Empire as Turkey, Holy Roman Empire as Germany, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as Poland, and United States of America as America. Muscovy is not the same as Russia - follow the links to find out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Phillips & Axelrod Encyclopedia of Wars has it under "Russo-Polish War" (with some portions under "Time of Troubles"). Kirill Lokshin 12:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The Polish-Russian War article is not yet ready for FA. A lot has to be changed in it, like names, for example. I can't understand either why there's a Polish name next to every Russian name or last name. Is it necessary or was this article copied from a textbook? E.g., Battle of Klushino sounds like Battle of Klyushkin (Russian speakers will understand the pun). And why Polish names are given in Polish spelling with all the stresses and apostrophies and whatever-those-things-are-called on top of the letters. Some people are not even sure how to pronounce it, let alone how to write it. And some of them don't have Polish language support, so all they see is little cubes instead of certain letters. This had to be changed. KNewman 12:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Presumably because this is as much a Polish topic as a Russian one, and Polish sources would refer to the Polish names? I don't think trying to fight against using multiple names or full Unicode spelling would be a productive use of anyone's time; remember Danzig? Kirill Lokshin 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The predominance of Polish terms is because majority of this article was written by me using Polish sources. This is why I did ask you and other Russian-speaking users for help with adding Russian (and English, if they exist) names for Russian-related places/people, as you would be more familiar with them, and I thank you for your help. I do think it would be useful to retain Polish names for Russian them (in parenthesis or such), especially if their corresponding articles have no Polish names (or wiki interlink), simply beacuse it makes it easier for me and other Polish editors to check my sources. I don't however insist on this, but definetly all Poland-related names should retain their correct spelling and direct links to their articles, not some redirects - after the last update, Wiki is quite capable of supporting Polish unicode on all computers around the world.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Really nice work. Minor objections are noted, but Piotrus is always quick to quickly address them. 172 | Talk 08:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support after my objections have been addressed. Well done. --Lysy (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Despite some problems with a few extremely long and exuberantly detailed sentences, this article appears comprehensive, NPOV, encyclopedic, well organized, and extremely informative. It was a pleasure to read. There are certain minor issues: there are some mispellings and typos (I corrected some of them), and some sentences are hard to follow. The red links should be stubbed out, and perhaps a slight illumination of the text with inline cites may not hurt. Notwithstanding these, the article has my overwhelming support. Cheers. Saravask 06:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like a good, solid article.--Kross | Talk 23:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


Self-nom. OK, for a while now, I've been trying to throw good information after bad in an effort to make SF coverage less, well, fannish. This is why I hacked on Three Laws of Robotics until it made FA, and lately, I've been trying the same thing at Cyberpunk. My fellow editors and I have tried to break down the writings of lit-crit professors and role-playing gamers, two of the most abstruse subcultures H. sapiens has yet to generate. I'm pretty proud of the result. The article has gone through two previous FACs, the first in April and the second in September. The first time it failed, deservedly; the second, it got a pretty favourable reception. I believe we managed to address several of the objections which the commentators hadn't struck out (summarized on talk), and there've been a few improvements besides. As always, I look forward to reading your comments. Anville 22:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Some comments:
  • This is really close; the lead is great.
  • Quite a few weasel terms in there, particularly the pernicious "some" (people, critics, readers, etc.). Also, though less problematically, there is overuse of "often", particularly in the Style section.
  • The Film and Television section still seems like a fairly random list with a jumpy chronology and little indication of what import the various entities mentioned have. I also think the detailed and rather snarky commentary on the box office results and critical response to the various Matrices is a veer off-topic. This section needs the most work, IMO.
  • Likewise, the Games section jumps around chronologically (and appears to ignore anything pre-1990; seems like some early text-adventure games (A Mind Forever Voyaging) may deserve mention), and includes a digression about Steve Jackson games.
  • I can't help but think that at least some history from the Literature section needs to come before the Style section, as it is describing the style of writing, which we know nothing about at this juncture; conversely, there is some philosophical/analytical stuff in the Literature section (the Brin quote) that seems like it would be better elsewhere.
  • The aside about "aggrandizing the genre" is too clever by half (maybe three quarters), stopping the article in its tracks while really adding nothing to the reader's understanding.
  • I think the sub-genres need their own sub-section.

Jgm 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. It was close enough last time, it should pass this time. Some notes: merge small paras into larger ones, try to reformat lead into 3 paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for a couple minor reasons. 1) We have way too many "fair use" images on here, get a few more gfdl/cc-by-sa's on there. 2) way too many see also's... you have some after sections (which is ok) and then an entire see also section. More of these links should be worked into the text somehow. And whats with the Futher Reading section, is it or is it not linked into the text? if so its notes, if not its merely external links. Getting better but theres still stuff in need of work.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 02:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I really enjoyed this article. I see no issue with the images since it is hard to come by non-commercial material on the subject, and the rationale provided for each fair use image was adequate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - This was enjoyable enough, quite peppy to read, informative -- I mean, I think it is a good, solid encyclopedia article for someone looking up cyberpunk. I don't think I have the literary qualifications to cast a vote, mainly because I haven't read widely enough in the genre to get a feel for whether the article is...representative. All of the high profile stuff I could think of offhand is there and in seemingly useful context, Gibson, Blade Runner, Max Headroom, Snow Crash, "steampunk", film noir/Chandler, RPGs, etc, etc. I disqualify myself from voting because I feel perhaps there's something missing, maybe in the synthesis area, but I'm not at all sure what it is, and I suspect that's due to my not knowing the territory well enough. My one specific criticism: the Matrix paragraph, which obviously deviates from the proceedings, and reads more like a mildly veiled fan trilogy critique (reference to the original Matrix, with passing mention of the others, is likely sufficient)... --Tsavage 18:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, well-written and comprehensive. And I got a nice ego-boost by finding out that a book I read as a twelve year old had "prose..too dense for novice or casual readers". There are also a few cyberpunk comics, Hard Boiled & Transmetropolitan for example, but I wouldn't say their inclusion is vital in what is a fairly long page anyway. Leithp (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, What he said. Let's crank up the Billy Idol, and jack in:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A lot of effort has gone into this one, and it shows. Ambi 00:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I liked the article, but would make a few suggestions. 1) Cut out the discussion of Matrix sequels. It's out of place and not needed (and I didn't like the sequels at all!) 2) Better incorporate the Max Headroom information. It's currently a one-sentence paragraph. Subcategories for live action and anime might help break up the long text 3) The section on Operation Sundevil is odd. Either give more information or cut it all together. What were the real reasons for the raid? It needs some attention. 4) Consider making a list of topics related to cyberpunk and then linking that in the see also. All in all, though, great work! InvictaHOG 17:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoe polish[edit]

I've worked hard on this article, at first as an exercise to improve my editing, but then to see just how good I could make an article on such a prosaic subject. Thanks to a very helpful peer review, I think it's finally become a very good article, and I humbly submit it to become a featured article. Proto t c 13:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose Mild object It lacks appropriate reference. A bit more pix are preferred. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC) It looks much nicer now...but the article seems to be pretty short in structure. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Support -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your thoughts, Jerry. Please give more detail. What do you mean by 'lacks appropriate reference'? What 'pix' would you like to see a bit more of? Proto t c 15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • See other FAs, and you'll find that most of them do contain a detailed list of reference. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, thank you. Inline citation is now done as per many other FAs (but not all, interestingly). I am also waiting for a pic to be uploaded by another Wikipedia user. Proto t c 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • That's because they use {{inote}}s =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Further pics have been added (one kindly provided by Nichalp) Proto t c 09:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please expand on what you mean by 'short in structure'. The Featured Article guidelines do state that length of the article is of secondary importance to quality. Proto t c 15:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. References are fine, IMO (though by convention they should be above external links, not below). However, the lead section is too short (should be one to three paragraphs, not two sentences). I also think the "using shoe polish" and "alternate uses" sections are too short and should be combined. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Again, thanks! Amended as per Johnleemk's comments also. Proto t c 16:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Looking good, but I think the lead appears a bit incomplete. It should be a summary of the article in full, and it has been proposed that a print Wikipedia include as articles only the lead section. Therefore, a lead ought to encompass all the important aspects of the article's topic without going overboard. It might be relevant to mention its number one producer (Kiwi). Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I've rewritten the introduction, summarising the rest of the article. It's now three cogent paragraphs. At least, I hope they're cogent. Thanks (yet again) for the advice. Proto t c 16:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Good work on a relatively insignificant topic. Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But it needs references to printed sources instead of being entirely web-based. PedanticallySpeaking 17:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement, for featured articles or otherwise, that printed sources be cited for an article. It's always nice, but not essential. —Morven 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I've found the ISBN for the print version of one of the references. Hope that helps this concern. Proto t c 12:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose – 1) Too many subheadings. Please reduce them to top level headings. 2) Merge the trivia section with the rest of the article 3) =Manufacture= section needs to be written into prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Nichalp! 1) Done. 2) Done. 3) Done. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I've copyedited now so that I can support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • see one comment below. Oppose, based mostly on awkward structure and lack of comprehensive details. There is some good research here but it needs to go deeper. Did nothing happen to the shoe polish industry between 1950 and 2005 (maybe retitle section to 'Origin')? More detailed analysis can help the awkwardly titled section "Appearance / other products" (perhaps merge this with the Chemistry section as they both describe qualitative/quantitative details of the product):Why are they packaged in those small flat round tins (so it can fit in my pocket)? Smell? Feel? Probably shouldn't taste it. Are all the shoe polishes (Kiwi, Shinola, etc.) the same? No market niches? Deeper research can make those two-sentence paragraphs more clear and descriptive. Why the one paragraph sub-section at "Using shoe polish"? The " seen as racist." remark is a value-judgement stab at a past practise - reference, elaborate or omit it. Reference the "Shoe polish sandwiches" thing, I hear a lot of stories about people getting high/wasted off a lot of things, so I'm a little doubtful. The article says burning shoe polish produces COx and NOx. However, burning anything produces this. How does this make shoe polish special? Does the article mean there are no harsh or toxic polluntants? Are there no carcinogens in it? Can not the trivia be merged into the body? If it can't is it really that necessary? --maclean25 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi Maclean, thanks for your thoughts. I think I've dealt with all the issues you raised, please take a second look. I've expanded on the appearance of the can, and branding. Remark omitted. The only one I haven't dealt with is the shoe polish sandwiches. I know it happened, but am having difficulty finding a verification online or in books. It is omitted for now, but if I can find a reference I'll put it back in. The burning thing means there are no harsh or toxic pollutants, so shoe polish can be disposed of safely through incineration. I have tried to make this clearer. Trivia merged as per your and others comments. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not a perfect article but it is one of the better ones out there. I support it for FA status but would still like to see further work done to make it more comprehensive. There are numerous good suggestions in this FAC debate for further points/topics that could be addressed. --maclean25 05:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:Kiwi shoe polish.jpg is tagged as "fair use". For such a common object, there's no reason to use fair-use images of it.
    2. The image Image:Jeanbartpolish.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but is not discussed in the article. It does not qualify for "fair use".
    3. The image Image:KiwiExpress.jpg has the same problem as Image:Kiwi shoe polish.jpg did.
    --Carnildo 21:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not have a digital camera. The Kiwi shoe polish image was taken from a website which stated all images were not subject to copyright (see the image for attribution informaiton. I am not expert with fair use tags, but I think this would be sufficient. Please advise if I have misunderstood. The Jean Bart image is fair use. Images of historical characters were often used in association with shoe polish advertisements in the early 20th century. This is now discussed in the article, better qualifying the picture as fair use. Again, please advise if this is incorrect. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything on that states that the images are not copyrighted, and they seem to be using "free" to mean "zero cost" rather than "not copyrighted". Also, Wikipedia has additional rules for the use of fair-use images beyond that of copyright law; see Wikipedia:Fair use for details, but in general, any time it's possible for a Wikipedian to create an image that's under a free license, a non-free image shouldn't be used. --Carnildo 20:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • A GFDL image has been taken and added to the photo, replacing the questionable image. Proto t c 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: (But I have to confess I'm eager to have my objections dealt with and turn this into a support— I really like this article. I just gave it a copyedit for things like &mdash;s and &nbsp;s.)
    • Images, per Carnildo.
    • Overly-short sections. Sections should be at least two big paragraphs or three or four short ones long. Struck
    • Agree with others that the article would be much-improved by finding a home in the main writing for the items currently under "Trivia." Struck.
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • See above, done, done. Proto t c 11:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • A GFDL image has been taken and added to the photo, replacing the questionable image.Proto t c 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I think you should remove the fair-use Image:KiwiExpress.jpg; at this point the article gets little additional benefit from this additional non-free image. If that's done, or it is replaced with a free image, you'll have my support.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC) I removed it myself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Provided that the image use and copyright problems are fixed, please consider my vote a
  • Support. Excellent work. The succinct three paragraph introduction (when it is so common to have overblown or single sentence introductions), the crisp, easy to read, and encyclopedic tone, and the extensive referencing all factor into my conditional support. Again, please correct the image use problems somehow. If these image problems are not fixed (as per Carnildo), my input should be considered as just a comment instead. Good luck. Saravask 18:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    I think (with the advice of Bunchofgrapes) that we've got it down to just one image of dubious copyright, which is the tin of Kiwi shoe polish. I am trying to loan a camera so I can take a photo. Thank you for your other comments also. Proto t c 09:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • A GFDL image has been taken and added to the photo, replacing the questionable image. Proto t c 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Non-relevent wikilinking, especially of dates. As a random example, animals and children are not relevent wikilinks for an article about shoe polish. Article is too vague about what types of shoes shoe polish is used for. —jiy (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for your thoughts, jiy. Shoe polish is used on leather shoes. I have clarified that in the introduction. I have also removed the extraneous wikilinks. Proto t c 09:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Supportjiy (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Object It's coming along, but in order to represent Wikipedia's very best work it still needs some more copyediting. The information in the article is scattered and overlapping in places. As one example (but not the only one), the Ingredients section talks about applicators and sponges when that should be in the Uses section, while the Uses section talks about toxicity when that would be more approriate in the Ingredients/Chemistry section. I'm of the opinion that entire article needs to be restructured and information be consolidated under appropriate headings. I've been working on this article a bit myself but it still needs more work. As a side note, the "burial place" reference is 404.—jiy (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, the article is well done for a pretty dull subject and the changes made during this FAC have made a big difference. I have made some additional images if you need them Image:Kiwi polish black.jpg and Image:Kiwi with brush.jpg. One question, the article doesn't mention the liquid wax shoe polishes in the squeezy bottle made by Kiwi and other companies is there a reason for leaving them out?--nixie 11:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Those images are loads better than mine, so I will use them! Thanks. I will also put in a mention of the squeezy bottles (think they're the ones with the sponge applicator at the top). Proto t c 11:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Dull subject? Nonsense, shoe polish is almost by definition shiny! I really like this article; all my objections above have been handled. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support this great over-view of shoe polish. A few too many commas at points but otherwise no complaints. Marskell 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I like this article very much and support it. One niggling criticism, however. It might be appropriate to include a short section—or at least a link at the end of the article—on shoe polishing, i.e., the actual act of using shoe polish to polish shoes. It is of course arguable that such a section would not be about the material of shoe polish, but I think it's a very closely related subject. As I've said, though, I think it would be very good to at least include a link to somewhere else on the internet or perhaps a link to a related article on shoe polishing, if it exists. Hydriotaphia
  • Comment. User jiy (who offered an Object vote above) is in violation of Wikipedia's FAC objector guidelines by not reevaluating his object vote in a timely fashion. I believe Proto has addressed his/her concerns, yet he/she has not removed the objection nor has he explained why his vote is still an object. I left him a message in an attempt to remind him of the guidelines. Regards, Saravask 23:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Support. Great read. Wim van Dorst 23:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Support. Object. If it says in the "usage" section that "shoe polish is not a cleaning product," why is the article in Category:Cleaning products Neutralitytalk 23:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Easily fixed - removed from category. Was this the only reason for your objection? Proto t c 11:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, thanks for responding. Support. Neutralitytalk 20:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although it would be nice if the market section were expanded. Ambi 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I loved it! InvictaHOG 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


Partial self-nomination. This is an article we've worked on at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week, and the topic certainly merits a featured-standard article. We've been working hard on this article and feel it has improved significantly. It has had a peer review which can be read here. --WS 11:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - the history section skips the middle ages without explanation. Also, from the definition in the lead section I don't see why non-human animals cannot get pneumonia. Unless the disease is, by definition, restricted to Homo sapiens, we need something on that. --Oldak Quill 23:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! Not to be flippant, but not much happened from antiquity to the 19th century in the diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia. I expanded the section to reflect the mastery of the clinical exam prior to the modern era. As for pneumonia, it can certainly happen in any animal with lungs, as far as I understand it. Although I've thought about it before, we've never had to address it in any of the medical articles. We'll have to put our heads together and figure out a good solution to this one! InvictaHOG 11:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If someone writes an article about pneumonia in animals, a link could be added at the top of the article. I don't think it is necessary to talk about animals in this article, but maybe a short mention of it as long as there is no seperate article would be appropriate. --WS 15:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I too think that a disambiguation link should be included when the manifestations of pneumonia in animals are documented. In the meantime, I've added a line to the first paragraph discussing animal vs. human pneumonia. Let me know if this helps. Thanks again for the comments! InvictaHOG 18:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Only one issue: the rapid-fire one-paragraph subsections in the "Types of pneumonia" section. Looks like a powerpoint presentation; I'd suggest just combining sections and introducing the types in prose rather than with subheaders. Other than that, I think this article is good to go; very nice. (Though I must say I hate seeing the phrase "this article" in an article, which was recently introduced in the header. I can't think of a great way out of it here, though.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! It's funny, we'd actually fixed up those types of pneumonia sections but it was reverted in copyediting. I agree and I put it back the way it was! InvictaHOG 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's those well-intentioned edits that get you every time. Support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, I have a few concerns. (1) The lead doesn't really do the content of the article justice, it should be more of a summary of the whole article, the self referential sentence added to the lead also needs to be reworked. To get around it a section on pneumonia in non-humans could probably knocked togther pretty easily. (2) It is not immediately apparent why causes, types and pathophysiology are in separate sections- as the causes section just seems to summarise the subsequent types and pathophysiology sections. (3) The prognosis section is rather choppy, the short paragraphs should probably be merged since they all address the same point- also are there statistics for mortailty from ohter parts of the world available?--nixie 13:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I made a few changes with more planned later. There are no statistics for most of the world for adult pneumonia. The WHO stats for childhood pneumonia are included. The rates of death are higher, however, and I've incorporated that into the prognosis section along with reasons. The "causes" section attempts to outline the microorganisms responsible for pneumonia and make sense of later classification. I've changed the header to reflect this and will go through the whole article later looking for redundency. The "types" section introduces several quite different concepts leading up to the clinical categorization. I'm not sure about the overlap between that and the micro section aside from the obvious inclusion of the microbiology classification. As for the pathophysiology, I originally felt it was important to separate the identification of organisms from the overall way that they cause disease. However, I'm open to merging the sections and will take a closer look at doing that. As for the animals, I'm not too pleased with this set-up. I will look into creating a new page for this section so that it can be referenced at the top as discussed on the MCOW page. I don't think that just providing a paragraph within this article does the subject justice! There's absolutely no way that I can see to generalize across species when presenting pneumonia... InvictaHOG 14:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The changes that you've made have already cleared up a lot of the duplication of information. About my suggestion for animals- don't get me wrong, I think this article should be about humans, but it should include a couple of sentences in summary style that could mention that most common aminals get pneumonia and the causes are similar to those of human pneumonia and provide a link to an article on pneumonia in other animals, not essential now, but it'd be a good addition to the article at some point in the future, the Merk veterinary manual is probably a good place to start. Support as is.--nixie 23:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have begun a non-human pneumonia page and placed a link to it at the top of the pneumonia page. InvictaHOG 00:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Hello, I just thought I'd comment on the issue of veterinary lung infections. It's a very understandable view, but IMHO, impossible to action. There is such an enormous diversity of etiologic agents, pathophysiologic mechanisms, treatments and epidemiologic data simply for pneumonia in humans alone—witness the extent of supporting articles—that trying to write about the pneumonias of every other lung-equipped animal, in this one article, is IMHO difficult as well as undesirable. I agree with the other doctors here that the quality of the article would suffer if we tried. Veterinary pneumonias deserve (a) separate article(s), the form, detail and extent of which should be left to editors expert in this area. Very kind regards encephalon 14:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (COI: I contributed considerably to this article in the past).

Hello. Looks very nice. Will make a good feature article. I added three sentences in the prevention section about screening pregnant women for Group B Strep and Chlamydia to prevent pneumonia in infants, and suction of infants with mec-fluid to prevent aspiration pneumonia.--FloNight 01:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the contributions! They fit nicely. I'm planning to create a neonatal pneumonia page and expand the Meconium aspiration page, hopefully you can help! InvictaHOG 02:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My dad is currently in hospital with Pneumonia. Support - this told me a lot about it! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Music of Maryland[edit]

I've been working on this for awhile now, hoping to get an idea of where the U.S. state "music ofs" could go. I think it turned out pretty well, better than I had thought since Maryland has not really had any significant local scenes (i.e. there's never been a "Baltimore sound"). Still, I was able to find a bit of info on local music history, folk, classical and popular music. I know some more pictures would be nice -- I've been trying to find a photo of the Peabody or something like that, but haven't found anything usable yet. Tuf-Kat 05:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Please try to make all the red links blue, and more pictures would indeed be nice, as you said. That said, this is a meticulously researched article and definitely an example for the other US state music articles to follow. Well done! Brisvegas 10:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I'd like to see more pictures as well, but as it stands, it's quite nice. Anville 16:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Several sections read like a list turned into prose. There ought to be citations to printed works and not merely those on-line. PedanticallySpeaking 17:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is one citation to a printed work, but this seems like an unfair objection anyway. There's nothing wrong with the references used, and I don't see why the format they come in should matter. I will see if I can work on the list-cum-prose problem. Tuf-Kat 19:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Did some copyediting. Is that the kind of changes you were looking for? Are there any other sections I should look at? Tuf-Kat 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but with a few comments. The very first sentence is a little abrupt. I think that the lead can afford a gentler beginning to an overview. That said, I wasn't able to write it. I'm a little unclear what is going on with this article's division between references and notes. Lastly, I think the article could afford a little more on hip-hop... perhaps an extra line about the huge impact of Tupac. That said, I can support the article as it is. Jkelly 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Lead redone, can't find anything significant about Maryland hip hop, but I expanded a bit on Tupac. I will fix the ref/notes section. Tuf-Kat
  • Object. Support. Objections addressed; thank you! It looks good to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't make heads or tails out of the references/footnotes scheme. At least one footnote (#8 in the text) is broken. If there are 44 footnotes in the text, I expect to see a list of Notes, 1 to 44. Getting there. Still some broken footnotes: non-working links in one or the other direction, or links that jump to a non-corresponding number. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I changed two links at the end of the article. The rest appear to work fine, unless I'm missing something. Tuf-Kat 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The first couple of sentences in the lead are, as mentioned, a mess. "The most famous contribution from the music of Maryland is perhaps Francis Scott Key..." Mr. Key is a contribution from the music? Erk. That's now fixed, but now he lead sentence doesn't contain the article title, Music of Maryland, which I view as a requirement. I admit this is a tough nut to crack.Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • A little too heavy on the red links.
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I've filled in or removed all red links. Tuf-Kat 23:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Lead redone, can't find anything significant about Maryland hip hop, but I expanded a bit on Tupac. I will fix the ref/notes section. Some red links removed or filled, will try and do more. Tuf-Kat
      • Okay, I made all the notes in the text link to a specific reference with a backlink. I don't want to extend the references section for most notes, since they don't need anything more explanatory than a link to the reference. Is this better? I added the title to the lead as well. Tuf-Kat 08:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I have adjusted the notes that the numbered notes in the text correspond with the note and references list (It doesn't make sense to have numbered notes in the text that don't correspond to the list). There are two missing- numbers 6 and 9. The text reads well and covers the subject comprehensively.--nixie 12:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the help. I've fixed the last two notes. Tuf-Kat 16:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

*Object, huge amount of redlinks need to be turned blue or removed. Could also use an additional photo or two to break things up halfway down, it's tough going on the eyes. Only two paragraphs on the modern Maryland music scene. Proto t c 16:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

    • There's two paragraphs on modern popular music. The second paragraph of "folk music" is all about modern Maryland music; the five paragraphs under "music institutions" and "music venues" are also basically about the modern scene. I think this is an appropriate amount of coverage -- Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless and all that, and should not be extensively covering current local music scenes. I've been looking for more pics with little success, but I will try and fill in some red links. Tuf-Kat 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I've filled in or removed all red links. Tuf-Kat 23:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, a mix up in terminology. When I say modern music, I'm thinking hiphop, R&B, punk, rock, pop, metal, and so on and so forth, not folk music that is being produced today, or classical music being produced today. Which is why I didn't consider concert halls for classical music as being 'modern'. Nevertheless, assuming no more information on the 'modern' music scene can't be located, I will strike out my objections, and weakly support. If a few pictures are added to break it up, I'll support with no namby pamby disclaimers. Proto t c 10:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The Relapse[edit]

Selfnom, a comedy from 1696 with a tour of the horrors of 17th-century pre-production. This play had the most traumatic rehearsal time of the entire Restoration period, and still the première was a success. Was that because, or in spite, of one of the actors being drunk? You be the judge. With special thanks to Ganymead and his uncanny knack for knowing the best links for more recent stage history. Too much actorcruft? Or you'd like more, and portraits of the première actors also? So would I, but none exist; footnote 3 4 explains why. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • First Post err I mean Support :)  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 23:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written, well-researched, well-done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. *putting on bad southern accent in imitation of a Shake'n Bake commercial* "It's The Relapse and I helped!" A truly marvelous article! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 06:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support—doesn't strike me as outstandingly thorough, but I think it's quality work. Everyking 08:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: An excellent (and thorough -- just go do some print research on this play and see what you come up with) account of one of the less-studied early 18th century plays. In particular, it has an interesting thesis that's well supported, well researched, and well argued. Geogre 12:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object - all well and good, but where is the link to the orginal text? If it is from 1696 it should be in public domain, right? Project Gutenberg, perhaps? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately the only digital version of The Relapse I know of is this one, in the subscription-only LION database. I'd rather not link to that. I've been looking for a free version ever since I created the external links section in John Vanbrugh; but if one exists, it's beyond my searching skills. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I've just done a search and I haven't been able to find a digital version. If there is one that is free it's buried very deeply. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 04:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Bishonen, if it's public domain, couldn't you just copy it from that database and put it on wikisource? --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a delightful work. On a superficial note, I appreciated the article's analytical tone and perilously eloquent diction — while continuing to remain impersonal (i.e., it could comfortably take its place among the best book reviews published in the The New Yorker). However, there are some minor issues which, coming from one not well-versed in literary/theater criticism, should not be taken too seriously:
    • There are instances of weasel words (e.g., "The play is thought to have been brilliantly ..."; please consult Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms) — I fixed this example and one other; arguments and theses should always be concretly attributed.
      • Thank you, that's great.
    • In addition, given the sexual licentiousness of the piece's plot and the hostile reception among Puritans, I am surprised that there is no modern critique of such works as this among, say conservative evangelicals and other religious fundamentalists.
      • It's simply not well known enough, I think. Also it's a play; in the 17th century, religious fundamentalists hated the stage too much to be all that bothered about individual plays (which is one reason Collier's detailed critique was innovative and got a sympathetic hearing outside the circle of his fellow Puritans). I don't know whether that may still be the case with those of similar convictions today. And also it's so old.
    • I am also surprised that there is no incisive exposition or analysis of the allegorical implications of the names given the character (or perhaps its much too obvious to treat — Fop --> Foppington; in fact is there any deeper meaning than this?), nor is there any section or subsection that is devoted to a more profound thematic analysis (such analysis appears to me to have been quite liberally mixed into the "Stage history" section).
      • Yeah, the names are pretty obvious—"Sir Tunbelly Clumsey" = country squire :-) —the only intrinsically interesting name is Loveless, IMO (think the devilish "Lovelace" in Richardson's Clarissa, a name that some believe was borrowed from here, as it's phonetically exactly the same). But my analysis focuses on Vanbrugh's intentions, esp. in relation to the cast, and "Loveless" was invented by Colley Cibber, which made it the less interesting, I thought. I did think of having a section on critical analysis—please compare The Country Wife, which is mainly my work also, if you're interested (you may not think The Relapse so licentious and scandalous any more, if you do!). In that article I traced historical fluctuations of interpretation, and had material enough for it to be interesting, I think; but The Relapse hasn't generated that kind of academic interest. I do think you're right, though, there should be something. I'll fix it.
    • Additionally, what is meant by "socially diverse" in the introduction? Does this mean a balanced gender ratio among the play's patrons, or socioeconomic class/caste diversity, or political/religious diversity, et cetera. Please elaborate in concrete terms, if at all possible.
      • Heh. :-) I'm very flattered that you looked at Restoration comedy also, because I think that must have been where you saw that phrase. It means socioeconomically diverse. Not that the audience was socioeconomically balanced, not even as much as Shakespeare's audience; I was more trying to imply briefly "don't run away with the idea that they were all courtiers". Restoration comedy is a very boiled-down and concentrated article, there was so much that wanted in—maybe too concise for comprehension sometimes, unfortunately.
    • Next — when it is stated that "its tolerant attitude towards actual and attempted adultery gradually became unacceptable to public opinion", is this a matter of grassroots trend toward intolerance, or is it an elite-enforced set of mores (a la the Taliban) that drove such works underground?
      • It's the good old rise of the bourgeoisie. :-) Restoration comedy expresses an ethos of aristocratic licentiousness, which is driven back, rather than underground, in the 18th century. This ethos was well on its way to being marginalized by the mid 1690s, actually, after the Glorious Revolution: a development illustrated by the absence of moralizing in The Country Wife (1676), versus the ampleness of it in Cibber's Love's Last Shift (1696). I haven't changed the Lead, that you quote from, but I've added a section on this theme, "Sexual ideology", further down, plus a sentence in the "Stage history" section, please see if you think these address your concerns.
    • Instances of rather awkward and/or inappropriate phraseology: "particular outrage" ...
    • Another concern: in the FA on The Brothers Karamazov, there exists a special section devoted to tracking the influence that that work had on later authors and works. I know that Bishonen and others have done a listing of modern renditions, but is there reason to suspect that other playwrights/screenwriters/authors have taken their que from this work?
      • No... not really. I love Vanbrugh, but Dostoyevsky he is not. The Relapse tends to be reckoned as a second-tier Restoration comedy (IMO undeservedly), and is very much not widely read, even though it's a pretty popular stage piece. (Compare the query above yours: there's no free e-text.) 20th-21st century Restoration comedy influence comes mostly from Aphra Behn, William Wycherley, William Congreve, while in the 19th century, these were all held as abominations.
    • Other than these rather minor quibbles, Bishonen is to be lauded for his or her aesthetic and analytic achievment here. Kudos. Saravask 07:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • [Blush.] Thank you very much for taking the time to comment so fully and helpfully, and for the lovely compliments. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yoweri Museveni[edit]

Partial self-nom: mainly copyedits and suggestions. This article on the president of Uganda went through peer review with little comment after a massive expansion by TreveX. Very well referenced and footnoted, with explanations for every fair use images. - BanyanTree 17:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support' Weak Object. Extraordinary article. Minor problem: "Death of an ally" section uses inline links. Is there a reason to not use footnotes as with the rest of the article? I look forward to changing my vote. Jkelly 18:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. I think all the in-line refs that slipped through the first scan have now been caught. - BanyanTree 20:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This a remarkable article, though I have two minor gripes: There are a few one sentence paragraphs. These should either be expanded or merged into neighbouring paragraphs. I'm not sure that I like the smaller font for references. I have never seen references formatted like this; notes yes, but not the references section. Again, this is a truly marvelous and important article! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 22:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I have merged the one-sentence paragraphs. The references section font was set to 80% to reduce the amount of scrolling needed to view them; I have increased their size to improve readability. - BanyanTree 14:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Marvellous article. Ambi 07:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Object, per Michael Snow below. It's a very good article, but he raises a very serious objection, and one which should be able to be solved with some more research. Ambi 02:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A great deal of work has gone into this article. Wizzy 08:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a great article. Carioca 19:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Yeah! I'll sort the inline links thing. We just used it to be quick when writing stuff in. TreveXtalk 19:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Woops. BanyanTree has already sorted it. TreveXtalk 19:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. What's there seems pretty good, but upon reading it's clear that the article overall is heavily skewed toward Museveni's international image. For instance, the only mention of Lord's Resistance Army (itself a featured article) is in the context of diplomatic relations with Sudan. Even when the article tries to deal with matters internal to Uganda, it ends up drifting into reliance on quotes from people like Bob Geldof and the US and Norwegian ambassadors. This sort of thing tells me I'm only getting a heavily filtered perspective from the article, even though the editors undoubtedly have good intentions and are doing their best with the material to hand. --Michael Snow 23:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Here are some initial excuses as I am not sure that I can fix the issue Michael Snow is describing.
  1. There are, as far as I know, no regular editors contributing from Uganda. The one regular Ugandan editor (User:Ezeu) lives in Europe and has already contributed to this article. TreveX was in Uganda for summer and I for almost two years. There is clearly an "outside perspective" editor bias, but this is the best set of editors Wikipedia can manage on this topic.
  2. Quite frankly, the data coming out of Uganda is a muddle. Once you cut out the knee-jerk pro-Obote/Amin/etc material that floods forums and political party websites the two national newspapers are the most accessible. Both the New Vision (semi-government mouthpiece) and the Monitor (independent newspaper that occasionally gets shut down for spurious reasons) are referenced here. I was also pleased to see that TreveX included the work of J. Oloka-Onyango, Museveni's most erudite critic, and Murray Oliver, a Canadian journalist based in Kampala, was linked. Domestic journalism has been recently suppressed, as the article makes clear, and there is quite frankly not a lot of good quality critiques coming out of Uganda. I am actually astonished that TreveX was able to find so many academic critiques through his searching of JSTOR to balance out the materials from Museveni's own fluff pieces. In short, of the materials originating in Uganda much is either incredibly biased or by people whom nobody has ever heard of and who have no credibility from which to launch an argument.
  3. There are obviously a number of things that a Ugandan editor would include, starting with Museveni's infamous hat and the astonishing number of cows for his daughter's dowry and going on to relative merits of different presidents. As for the Lord's Resistance Army, the two national newspapers both often put LRA attacks in northern Uganda under the International section, rather than National, so deep is the psychological division between the north and the flourishing south. My personal take is that it directly affects Museveni not at all. He has never gotten political support from the affected region and doesn't need it, while he does need foreign donor support. I may just be a cynic.
Now that I've rambled on, I'll try to wind down. I acknowledge that there is an "outside perspective" bias, and the Geldof thing did throw me the first time I read it, though it's a notable incident. I think that the editor bias is the least noticeable possible among Wikipedias regular editors. Given the paucity of quotable critiques from Ugandan sources, I think this article does amazingly well in finding a wide variety of sources. TreveX may have some other sources in mind that can help address Michael's comments, but I'm afraid I'm at a bit of a loss. - BanyanTree 07:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there is an outside perspective bias here, but, as BanyanTree points out, that's mostly due to the the lack of material coming out of Uganda. Both BanyanTree and I are members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, so we're both quite sensitive to these issues. The particular section in which this problem is most apparent is the one regarding constitutional term limits. I've tried to balance this out now by including a large quote from the Forum for Democratic Change. The section was already illustrated with a cartoon from Gado, a Kenyan political cartoonist. I second BT's comments above and hope you will reconsider your vote :-) TreveXtalk 17:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
If, as you say, Museveni "has never gotten political support from the affected region and doesn't need it", I think more discussion of this kind of thing would help balance the article in giving internal Ugandan politics equal prominence with international affairs. Right now it's difficult to pick up on the significance of regional issues, such as where Museveni's power base comes from (both as a rebel leader and now as president), how he's consolidated his authority, and the extent to which he does or does not wield power in particular areas. Part of the problem is that the article identifies most everything in terms of personalities or formal organizations (rebel/army groups and political parties); it barely touches on regions or ethnic groups, even though this second set of factors has a great deal of influence on the first set.
One other point: the narrative dealing with Museveni vis-a-vis the Rwandan genocide is a bit disjointed. I improved some of it, but the article still discusses his OAU chairmanship of two years previous as if it would have some bearing on the situation. Why it would matter is not at all clear the way it is currently presented, but I wasn't sure how to fix that. --Michael Snow 05:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, now your words sink into my slowly trundling brain. Much of the content of the article is missed if one doesn't already know that former president Obote was a Luo from Lira and the head of the Uganda People's Congress, so they all end up being conflated in a situation where politics is ethnic and personal, and so on with the other major figures. That definitely should all be explicit within the article. I'll see what I can do. - BanyanTree 14:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's the idea. The Obote-UPC connection is mentioned once already, so I could sort of follow to whom the political parties belong, but the ethnic/regional aspect of it is largely missing. Once that's taken care of, I'll be more satisfied. --Michael Snow 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've tried to make explicit what the regional/ethnic implications of the various events are without turning this into an article on ethnic factionalism in Ugandan politics, but I'm not sure that my edits were subtle enough. Your comment directly above raised some red flags for me as you hadn't caught that Obote was a Langi from the central north, which is the UPC base, so "Obote" is code for one of the "ethnic/regional aspects" you mention. Thanks again for pointing this out as there is a tremendous amount of backstory that is implicit. Tell me what you think. - BanyanTree 01:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Ever so much better, I can support at this point. If someone could still clarify why Museveni's 1991-1992 OAU chairmanship is mentioned in the leadup to the Rwandan genocide, that would be appreciated. --Michael Snow 06:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't figure out a link between the OAU chair and genocide and moved that sentence to a more relevant section. - BanyanTree 13:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: So far as I can tell, it's accurate, complete, and thorough. What Michael says, above, is true, but I file those into the category of "things to be wished for" rather than "deficiencies." After all, some filtration would occur no matter by whom or how the writing was done. Geogre 23:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Table of contents is to big. Try looking at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Tarret 02:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not see the guidelines for TOC length on the layout guide. In the meantime, I have made the subheaders for references list headers so they do not appear in the TOC. All of the sections in the main body of the article are pretty meaty, and I am concerned that getting rid of some may end up weakening structure for the benefit of a couple centimeters. - BanyanTree 05:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It's larger than usual, but it wouldn't be hte largest TOC I've seen on a featured article. →Raul654 01:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Featured articles desperately needs more non-Western articles like this Bwithh 18:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Top-notch work. (It'd be nice to have those question marks filled-in in the bottom NavBox, though). — Matt Crypto 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor oppose, while the article is great there are too many fair use images.
Image:Amin1975.jpg is used to illustrate the person Idi Amin, the image is not discussed in the article, I doubt it meets the requirments for fair use. Image:MuseveniCampaign1996.jpg and Image:MuseveniVictory.jpg (from AP) basially illustrate the same thing- Museveni and supporters, I would suggest removing the AP image and decreasing the size of the first image.--nixie 01:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I replaced the Amin image to a PD currency scan, followed your suggestion for the photos from the 96 and 01 elections, and added a PD photo of displaced children from the north. Hopefully, TreveX won't be too disappointed after all the work he put into writing fair use explanations.  :-| Cheers, BanyanTree 13:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I shouln't even be giving my opinion here, given that I am a Ugandan (hence POVed on the issue). The problem with this article is that it is too godamn neutral – it evokes niether hatred nor love – sucks because it is too damn POV.

Acetic acid[edit]

Acetic acid

team nomination: The Acetic acid article is a team-developement of the Chemicals WikiProject, including efforts of some ten active scientists as well as school teacher level. After internal team peer review, it has also been up for PR for a good month, enhancing it even further. And now the team has reached consensus to propose it for FAC.

  • Support. Wim van Dorst 20:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Support. Much improved since Peer Review. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: just for full disclosure, I'm a member of WP:Chem but only made a couple of minor edits to the article itself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - a very fine article. H Padleckas 22:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Marvelous! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 00:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportVery well done article, great citing Magicmonster 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, the saftely section should probably also mention flamability of both the liquid and vapor and associated storage and handling proceedures (I know we always use glacial acetic acid in the fume hood in my lab)--nixie 02:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I have modified the safety section as requested, however the use of acetic acid in a fume hood is not due to its flammability but rather its pungent vapour. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 09:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support.It is an outstanding article. Carioca 03:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support ~K 03:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support (NB: I was a member of the group editing this article) Walkerma 06:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support (I have also edited this article as part of WP:Chem) Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 09:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - (I'm not one of the Chem crowd, btw): well done, everyone; but shouldn't you have started at formic acid? ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - although it would be nice to see some of the comments below (e.g. overlinking) addressed. Ramallite (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I am a physicist and a layman in chemistry. My comments are therefore only on the style and the pedagogical aspects, not on the comprehensiveness nor on the correctness of the article. I object for the following reasons but don't hesitate to argue if you don't agree (some comments are only suggestions):
    • Some technical words should be explained in the text without having to click on the link like it is very well done for instance for polyethylene terephthalate (e.g. for soft drink bottles). E.g. hygroscopic (in the lead), monoprotic acid.
    • (see image) could be changed into (see Fig. X) which is more encyclopedic.
      • Removed superfluous '(see image)' text. Wim van Dorst 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC).
    • Sometimes overlinked. I think the titles Chemical reactions and Use as solvent should not be linked but the first appearance on the words in the text. Fat blue is strange.
    • The subtitle More reactions involving acetic acid are discussed below. is strange.
    • Providing a picture or a formula for defining acetyl group could help the reader. Maybe expanding a bit the section Biochemistry with some pictures or reaction schema would also help
    • The title "Oxidative fermentation;" followed by the subtitle "Main article: Vinegar" is a bit strange for the layman. Vinegar doesn't seem to be an article about this reaction. Vb 11:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Assessing all the above points, I estimate that all have now been taken care off, as pointed out below as well. Wim van Dorst 20:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC).
  • I still think the section biochemistry could be improved by a picture. Why not the schema of a biomolecule with the acetyl group highlighted. Vb 09:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent overall, but oppose for the reasons given above, and with a special emphasis on the overlinking - for example, the six-line section Solvent links twice to water and twice to solvent; vinegar is linked at least five times in the article as a whole; carbocation is linked twice in eight words. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC) OK, happy to support now. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've had a go at addressing some of these objections - personally, I think it makes sense to link to vinegar in the lead, the history section, and a section entitled "Vinegar", since vinegar essentially is acetic acid, but multiple links in one paragraph are not required. YMMV. Doesn't someone have a bot that finds duplicate links? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll try to sort out some of these, but I should mention that IMHO there is not much room for expansion of the biochemistry section if this is restriced to acetic acid itself: I have already tried! The acetyl group has a wide biochemistry, but I do not feel that this article is the place to discuss it. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 12:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I personally think a picture with a relevant biomolecule with an highlighted acetic acetyl group would be enough. Vb 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object – 1. As Vb says, certain terms are not introduced to the user. A line on E number is necessary. The lead should also be clear and text like "(e.g. for photographic film)" should be delinked from parenthesis. 2. a) MoS for units not followed: a. Please use a non-breaking space between a number and unit: eg: 1.5&nbsp;Mt/a; similarly 1.22&cP, 16.7&°C etc. b) Please use &minus; for anions instead of the hyphen. 3) Text in some places are not encyclopedic: a) ...extremely disgusting odour... b) ...virtually all forms of life... c) many as misleading... d) ...corrosive and has to be handled... --> should be handled e) outstanding industrial chemical... 4) ==Safety paragraph== needs a copyedit. 5) Please mention the degination/what it is: Showa Denko, Monsanto, eg: industrialist Showa...; biotechnological company... etc. 6) Single sentence paragraphs needs to be merged with text. 7) Please remove unnecessary bolding of text. 8) Single paragraph sections needs to be expanded if possible. 9) =Other applications= needs to be converted to prose. 10) See alsos should come at the end of a section. 11) There seems to be an EU tilt to the article. Are the EU standards followed worldwide? 12)® ? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
for (11) there is often an EU slant to chemical safety sections, as the standards are easier to find and are more rigourously defined than those in other jurisdications; I will try to find some balancing standards for other English-speaking countries: (12) see trademark. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 10:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I was a bit cryptic on 12. I meant that (R) should not be used in the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Taking on (2), (6), (7), (10) and (12), I can tell you that all running texts have NBSPs between number and units. And there was one '-' now replaced by 'minus'. The offending ® has been removed. The number of bolds is now limited to the actual names of the compound. The see also has been incorporated in the text, and the chembox reference table. There seem to be two single-sentence paragraphs, but that is because the chemical formulas are made to stand out on a separate line, and the text continuous. Effectively there are no single-sentence paragraphs. Mostly, these points have all been taken care of in the peer review phase. Wim van Dorst 19:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Also handled (1), (3), (5), and (7) again. I estimate the remarks of (4), (8), (9), and (11) differently, viz. texts are good as they are. Wim van Dorst 20:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC).
I've copyedited some of the text and removed unnecessary subheadings. The only thing remaining is the =Other applications= section which needs to be converted to prose, and bold text removed from =references=. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The use of NBSP in tables is imho overdone, but thanks for adding them. I copy-edited the Other applications to show more prose, retaining bulleted lists where useful. PC took care of all overdue boldness in the References. And I took the liberty of re-introducing subheadings in only the Production and the Applications sections. Removing ALL subheadings was a bit too much, I think. Wim van Dorst 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC).
The remaining boldface in the references is in accordance with Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style#Journal_articles and American Chemical Society style. I have added a US Permissible exposure limit to go with the NFPA diamond and the linked NIOSH page: I can't find anything Canadian or Australian for the time being. Physchim62 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, no problem with the subheadings, though I feel something more on vinegar won't hurt. The only thing remaining is having a better caption to the image: "Detail". =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • support --Adam1213 Talk+ 09:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • support --RobertGtalk 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - wonderful. Proto t c 12:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Slightly Biased Support Acetic'Acid 18:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Per 13 November 2005, the Acetic acid article is Featured Article. All people who have contributed to this achievement by giving their support or proposing further improvements here, the sincere thanks of the Chemicals wikiproject team. Wim van Dorst 15:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC).


Partial self-nom and Support. This former featured article had failed to be re-featured for the following reasons:

  • Ugly pictures
  • Bad English
  • Too many lists and short paragraphs
  • Lengthy history section

The reasons can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium/archive2. It has been since reviewed by JoJan, Tony, and Nichalp. Some comments can be found in Wikipedia:Peer review/Belgium. I have put a lot of work into this article to make it comprehensive and well balanced with respect to the Belgian communities. I think some equilibrium has now been reached. I hope you will have fun reading it. Vb 11:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • If I hadn't edited it, my vote might count: it would be a 'yes'. One point:
    • It is a very complicated governmental system, and I hope that it's described as simply as possible; we need to understand this attempt to mollify the squabbling Dutch/French-speaking communities. (I wonder why it's been so much easier for the Swiss? And other European countries have similar communities: 20% of Finns are Swedish-speakers. Would brief comparisons be useful (maybe not)?) Tony 05:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Reply. The Swiss system is not that simple either. It is also much older. The Belgian federal system is only 30 years old and is still evolving. I think comparing with similar federal systems is a very difficult task which should require its own article. The answer to the question why this system is so complicated could be the following: One of the problems is the (legitimate?) frustration felt by the Flemings because the French segment of the population was dominant and arrogant during the first 150 years of the country. The problem is also due to different interpretations of the Belgian splitting. Is it due to some ethnic, cultural, economic or linguistic variety? The answers to this kind of questions is usually different in Flanders, in Wallonia, or in Brussels and leads to distinct interpretations of the Belgian federal structure. Vb 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Also, I guess, the 60/40 split makes both factions powerful players, so long-term assymetry would be untenable. But there's hope: the recent Franco-German love-in, within the EU, bodes well for Belgian harmony. Tony 08:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Support-Its for the most part a very good article and I believe it deserves FA status. My only issue is the Culture section. The writing's flow is broken up with several short paragraphs. Falphin 19:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I would like to support, but I would prefer the first map to be removed. Its too complicated to be there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed but I can't find a good map to replace it. What would you suggest? Falphin 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll try and draw my own map tomorrow, are there any online resources I can base it on? (copyrighted maps will do) =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes it is true one could make a simpler map. I however personally think it is not that easy to make it better. You'll find many historical maps of the region at this time on the site: One of the difficulty you're going to meet is that it is difficult to establish the exact border at an exact time. Those borders were not very stable depending on the alliances and wars with the neighbouring states. It is also difficult to know how to count the 17 provinces. Have a look at the article Seventeen Provinces and its discussion page for details about the controversy. I think what should appear clearly on the map is the following:
          • The internal borders in order to show that there is no border corresponding to the current Belgo-Netherlandish border
          • A clear different color for the bishopric of Liege which does not belong to the 17 provinces
        • About the culture section. I have seen Falphin is taking care of Culture of the Netherlands. I think the Netherlandish culture is also quite difficult to describe in a few paragraphs. In my opinion this is because both cultures are quite rich. It is therefore difficult to merge paragraphs on music and literature or on food and sports or folk festivals. However if you should see a way to improve the flow without reducing the containt of this section please don't hesitate to copyedit. Vb 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to me. Ambi 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak object – 1. The politics section needs a summary 2. 16th and 17th century in the lead should be spelled out. 3. The =Communities and regions= paragraphs on the governments should be sumamrised into prose. 4. Text such as " these figures must be interpreted cautiously,.."; " Nevertheless, in recent years, concern..." need to be copyedited. 5. Text in parenthesis needs to be merged with the text to maintain the flow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I am very sorry Nicholas but I am not able to do the change you request. Not because I don't want to but because I don't feel they are required. 1. I don't see how to summarize this section. 2. I did it to make you a favor even if don't understand why you ask for this or why you didn't do that yourself (that's so easy); 3. I oppose to this change. This poltical system is so complex that it really required such a tabular presentation in the French article, this is even presented as an array. I think the version here reads much easier. 4. I am not fluent enough in English to understand why these sentences could be copyedited in a positive way; 5. I have checked all parentheses in the text and I don't think I am able to improve the formulation. I am not disturbed by the parentheses and any alternative wording I can imagine is worst than the present version. I have seen how you did that for eigenvalues etc... I am not able to do this as well as you can. Vb 21:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      I don't believe its too difficult to summarise the politics. Speak on general instances, not specifics. You'll have to turn that section onto prose and I don't see why you're opposing the change. I see a great scope to summarise the section. I'm sorry but I'll be only free to copyedit the article over the weekend. I'm too busy during the week. I'll try and summarise on Sat/Sun. I know I promised a map, but I can't find the time to make one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The structure of the section politics is in my opinion very standard. This is very similar to South Sfrica or Australia.
    • I know the section "communities and regions" is special. This is also a very specific system which is difficult to understand for strangers. The structure as it is now is due to Tony and I think it has reach an optimum in its concise and precise presentation. I really think this section should not be turned into prose. This would diminish the value of the section. Vb 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the best articles on Wikipedia.Logophile 07:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Suppport, although the positioning of the images in the History section really needs to be changed - they force the entire section beneath the infobox.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I know. I agree with you. Ask =Nichalp «Talk»= why he did it like that. He seems to be dogmatic on this point. And basically I don't mind. Vb 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That's more of a browser bug perhaps? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it could be, as it occurs in at least two different browsers (IE and FF) and with and without text justification. It's happening because the image won't align against the infobox (which would look horrible anyway) and forces itself and the text beneath it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Object Generally a very fine article, but several quibbles. First, the history section is constrained. Some mention of confessional politics needs to be made, given its importance to the development of the country's identity. Second, the importance of language politics is insufficiently covered given the degree to which it informs national (and local) political debates. If these could be amended, or if reasons for their exclusion could be provided, I would change to support since overall the article looks very good. Dottore So 12:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I will be copyediting the article on 2005-11-13 =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

James T. Aubrey, Jr.[edit]

Self nom. Notorious head of CBS and MGM in the 60's and 70's who inspired Jacqueline Susann. Lots of research, many photos. PedanticallySpeaking 15:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT for a cigar-chomping, emotional steamroller, bastard of a bio. Very well told, throughly researched, proof that a first rate bio does'nt require a likable subject. My only minor critiques would be: Perhaps some of the smaller paragraphs and sub-sections could be merged. Also, towards the end, there seemed to be a bit too much Inside baseball vis-a-vis Sho-biz. But I understand the need to include such details in order to comply with the 2.b comprehensiveness requirement. But, again, these are minor flaws. So get off the casting couch, you're picked up for the season!:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow. I blush. Thanks very much. PedanticallySpeaking 18:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah. A definite support for any person or people who could put in this much time and effort on someone I'd never heard of. -Litefantastic 18:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. PedanticallySpeaking 18:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a proper FAC vote without Carnildo opposing it. His definition of fair use seems to be extremely narrow and rigid, the sort of the copyright proprietors would endorse wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, I will respond to his claims. If you read Variety—or any publication—you'll see company logos used all the time to illustrate articles. I can't see that if Peter Bart and Company can do it, we aren't allowed. The Houseman photo is clearly a publicity photo; why it can't be used, I don't understand. I don't understand at all the objection to the illustration of his wife. PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The difference between Wikipedia and Variety is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a free content encyclopedia. As for the illustration of his wife, it's the same problem as using an album cover with a dog on it to illustrate dog: the work in question isn't being discussed. --Carnildo 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Free content has nothing to do with it. It is fair use for Variety or any other publication to use logos. For example, Robert Metz's critical book on CBS, used in the article, has a giant CBS logo on the cover. This is fair use. Just as when Crest toothpaste compares itself to Colgate, its fair use to use the other company's logo or trademark. I believe the fair use doctrine is not very well understood. PedanticallySpeaking 17:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support:I think this is very well written and informative. I too had never heard of him before, and I can't think there can be much more that I need to know about him. A few comments which don't affect my support:
  1. Regarding the image licenses, well the logos could go without spoiling the page.
  2. I'm not sure I agree with Carnildo if explaining what his wife looks like is fair use or not.
  3. A few brief words could get around the Houseman image, as they could with the logo problems if you felt so inclined, but I expect that would probably be digression.
  4. Have you actually used all the works in the Bibliography as references, or do they include further reading? - perhaps that should be clearer

Apart from these minor quibbles it's a great page. Giano | talk 10:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote. Yes, every work cited was used in compiling the article. I could perhaps mark the most significant articles with an asterisk or something. PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - agree that the images as listed above are a problem. Also in reply to User:Giano the issue of "explaining what his wife looks like" is stretching the point. It doesn't depict "what his wife looks like", rather it depicts what his wife looks like in make-up and costume, as a fictional character, in a film that is not related at all to the article. What she actually looks like as herself is still a mystery. Therefore I can't see any possible way of justifying fair use for it. The article itself is very good. Rossrs 13:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Support. Rossrs 21:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
(Comment - I'm not going to be available to comment further on this article and I feel bad that I've objected without being here to see the end result - I thought it would be dealt with more quickly. My only issue is with the images. The text is up to Pedantically Speaking's usual high standard. Assuming that the image issue is dealt with, please consider my vote a Support. thanks Rossrs 10:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

So are we going to delete every photograph of actors in costume? Again, I don't understand how images can sink an FAC. After objections to photographs the candidacy of another article was defeated--even after I removed every single photograph. I really don't understand. PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not what I'm saying at all, and you've taken only one phrase out of my entire comment. The main point is not that she is in costume, but that the film and therefore the screen shot are not related to the article. If an article is to be the "best of Wikipedia" it can't have problems with copyright. To me it looks as though the image was chosen because it was the only one that could be found, but it's not really a good "likeness" of her. I understand your frustration regarding images, but I could understand it better if we were 6 months back in time because in this time you've dealt with the issue successfully. The image description pages for the images you've used in this artice do not have the required copyright info, nor do they have a fair use rationale. You know from past experience that this is required, so I'm perplexed why you are taking offence now. If you feel you can justify the use of the images, you need to address this on the image pages,(Our Friends in the North is a current example of images being well tagged and described) and generally speaking, I would not object to an image that had a reasonable justification, even if I thought it was a bit doubtful. Rossrs 21:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • She may be in costume, but it gives us a pretty good clue what she looks like. I suspect it's OK to use it. Giano | talk 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It may be fair. It's a matter of opinion and I think at best it would be a "weak fair" rather than a "strong fair", but see also my comment above. Rossrs 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I say you give it to them, Pedantic. If you take down the images, everyone's happy. It's a bit of a compromise, yes, but the rest of your and everyone else's hard work gets to stay. - 21:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
One phrase? The entire comment is about how unrepresentative that image is. And I thought by using the promo fair use tag, that was sufficient justification for why the pictures were fair use. If it is not, then why do we have these various fair use tags if an extended explanation is necessary on all pictures? PedanticallySpeaking 18:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The fair use tag is to categorize the image and nothing more. Wikipedia:Image description page details what is required to substantiate the use of an image. The reason for the rationale is that the use of a particular image may be fair in some articles but not fair in others. Anyway, changing my vote to support. You've gone overboard deleting all the images. One of the subject would have been fine, but that's your choice. Rossrs 21:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support PROVIDING you remove at least the Superman image. The article doesn't need a picture of his wife that badly. Andrew Levine 23:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support current version with one promo photo. Object per User:Carnildo. At present, this article sets a bad example for overuse of "fair use" images. Otherwise the article is quite good, and I hope that I will be able to change my vote. Jkelly 17:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Every image has been removed from the article. So will that satisfy the objectors? PedanticallySpeaking 17:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It really could do with a photo of the guy, but other than that, it's fine. --Carnildo 19:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
It's an impossible situation. People object to the pictures. So I delete them and I get an objection to no pictures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Content is fine, but it has no pictures. Ambi 07:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
It's an impossible situation. People object to the pictures. So I delete them and I get an objection to no pictures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note. I went ahead and restored the picture of Aubrey in the lead, which I don't think anybody objected to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh good for you B of G. I Still Support: but there are times when I despair of this whole project., a great page ruined - for no legal reason. why? Giano | talk 21:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The removal of a number of pictures showing images tangentially related to the topic of the article does not "ruin" a fine article like this. You may be being overly dramatic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • If it humours you to believe so. Giano | talk 21:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
          • For an article to be Featured, it has to be held to a very high standard of quality, because we are going to showcase it publicly as an example of our best work. This must include having only images we are sure we can use. Fair Use is not a catch-all, and it is ESSENTIAL that someone introducing a fair use image into the article detail exactly why they think its use is justified under the fair use defense. You are being exceptionally over-dramatic to insist that the article is "ruined" by removing images when the legal justification for using them is shaky, and their justification in terms of the project's goals is also shaky. —Morven 20:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent biographical article. —Morven 21:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Barbara McClintock[edit]

Biography for one of the stand out scientists from the 20th century. Written by me, but it has also been though peer review and informal review by other editors. Sadly, when you read the fine print for the National Library of Medicine, there are no free images of her, so appropriate fair use images are included.--nixie 12:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Impressive article. Interesting that her mother was right ;-) --Martyman-(talk) 12:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent encyclopedic article. One request: can you give the reader a way to follow up on this sentence: Nowadays, Ac/Ds is used as a tool in plant biology to generate mutant plants used for the characterization of gene function. Congratulations on this job. Jkelly 02:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've indluded an external link that explains how Ac/Ds and other transposons are used as mutagens- I don't really want to go into detail in the article as it is a bit of a detour.--nixie 03:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Not too difficult for the layman, and it steers clear of some of the rumor-based biographical material. There are a few commas that need to be cut or added, but I'll leave that to the authors, as they don't make the prose misleading. Geogre 13:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent job. I support this. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Canon T90[edit]

Self-nomination. A one-man effort, I'm afraid. Images right now are fair use but fully sourced; I have had no luck getting any free images despite numerous requests. —Morven 15:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

For free images: have you tried asking someone who's auctioning one of these cameras off on ebay? --Carnildo 03:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Good idea - I'll give it a try. —Morven 03:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Addressed - article now uses CC-BY-SA images. —Morven 19:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment those singe line paragraphs should be merged with larger paragraphs. Small sections should be expanded or combined with other small sections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've merged the single line paragraphs that I easily can with other paragraphs. The ones remaining would require more extensive restructuring to get rid of. Some, perhaps, are an indicator that more should be said about a topic, at least enough to fill out a paragraph. The one that doesn't seem to meet that requirement is the single-line paragraph ending the 'Design' section, about Colani receiving the first production camera. Not much else can really be said about that; it doesn't merge into the previous paragraph; and placing it in a different paragraph wouldn't flow all that well, I think ... —Morven 22:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I have expanded on a few sections I considered too short. Would any sections now be too short? —Morven 00:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It could do with a light copyedit. There's to much text in brackets and certain terms in the lead could be expanded. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Can you help me with the latter? I'm not sure which terms you mean, but of course it wouldn't be obvious to me since I wrote it. I've removed some of the parenthesised asides, many of which on reflection don't add useful info. —Morven 20:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I've copyedited a bit of the article. Some points: 1. Please remove those inline instances of bold text. 2) Who is Stephen Gandy? Please add his designation/occupation before his name. 3) The inline references in parenthesis is not formatted correctly. You should either use footnotes or {{inote}}. For this article, inotes should be ideal. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
              • References in parenthesis is completely acceptable; see WP:CITE and Harvard referencing, the guidelines in which I believe I have followed accurately. I dislike inotes because they are not visible to the reader, only to those familiar with Wikipedia editing who know of inotes and think to look. I am open to using footnotes, however. As to bold text: I will leave in bold texts when they refer to products not otherwise defined in Wikipedia, e.g the Command Back 90 (I believe there is a redirect pointing to Canon T90 from that name). Otherwise you have a point. An earlier draft of this article had more about who Stephen Gandy is, but I was of the opinion that explaining that inline ruined the flow of the text; one can go to the reference (which is online). Perhaps that information should be in a footnote? —Morven 07:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                • Footnotes should be fine for the inline references. As for Stephen Gandy, I'm assuming he's a photographer, so the text should be modified to something like "...renowned photograher Stephen Gandy..." =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • Done. How does it look now? —Morven 17:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Support – no further objections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. Fieari 02:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I liked. Well-referenced article. Carioca 01:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - well written and well-referenced. good job. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


WikiProject Canberra have done a great job on this article, writing comprehensive text and creating loads of free visuals. Nominate and support. --nixie 22:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - declaration of interest: contributer in small way to the article and resident of the city. The article was peer reviewed in September 2005 and the points addressed with either changes or comments.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 00:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Note: I am also a member of WikiProject Canberra and have made contributions to the article. I feel the article has come a long way during it's recent push to get up to featured article quality. --Martyman-(talk) 00:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Excellent article, but I've got a few minor issues. The pronounciation guide in the lead is hideously ugly when some of the characters won't display on a reasonably standard computer; this should either be removed or translated into English. I'd like to see a little more history in between the 1920s and the present, although I understand the need not to blow the section out. There's no mention of the high rent prices in the economics section, which is probably important to mention. There's a few other minor quibbles I could note, but the article is already probably about as long as is warranted already. The article may also need more references. Ambi 03:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Support. I'd like to see the housing issue covered somewhat better, but it's such a good article that I can't reasonably oppose. Ambi 10:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Rents added. As was discussed in the peer review and the article nothing really happened in Canberra until after world war II since there was no money and no free man power to build it and the city did not have any independent government so nothing politically intersting happened either. If there is something that you think actually needs an inline citation that doesn't have one please point it out.--nixie 03:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added more on urban development in the interim years. Could you reconsider supporting now? Adz 07:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • IPA is now the Wikipedia standard for pronunciation guides. Template:IPA helps work around the IE bug with displaying the IPA characters, so it should work fine on most browsers. Do you still have problems with it, Ambi? —Morven 08:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support happily.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nixie, why did you nominate this so late? It deserved to be on FAC ages ago. Support ofcourse, reviewed it months back and it still looks good. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support although I too need to declare an interest in that I have also contributed to the article along the way. Adz 07:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely brilliant article. Ten points to everyone involved on it! Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 09:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Astrokey44 12:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well done! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 13:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite support Brisvegas 06:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Interesting and well written. Giano | talk 10:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Good article. Now you don't get Spawn Man's support often, so take a photo & frame it. (Nice gold rim would look nice!). Spawn Man 02:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe this is the best city article in Wikipedia. Carioca 03:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Self-nomination. This is my first FAC. I have been working on this article for quite a while. With the exception of the sections on synonymy and language, I have written the bulk of the article myself. The article has been put through peer review twice and all comments have been addressed. I'm grateful for Ish ishwar who provided the marvelous information on the name and language and Bishonen who provided many helpful "pendantries" that have greatly improved this article. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 21:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Featured articles desperately need more non-modern/non-Western articles like this. Bwithh 05:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak object Support. Fantastic article, but there are a couple of sentence-level fixes needed. I attempted to go in and fix some things myself, but ran up against the fact that I don't know enough about the subject. So, here:
    • "For the Mandan, each person had four different souls." I find this construction difficult to parse. Are the souls "had" concurrently?

**"These souls lived on much as did the living people." A little awkward, but I don't know how to clarify the sentence. Are the souls immortal? Or do they live additional lives and then die as humans do? **"the exact origins of the Mandan are lost to time" Cliche **"continues to draw tourists and fill the tribe's coffers" Cliche Please allow me to reiterate that I think this article is truly impressive, with wonderful images and prose that is engaging and informative. I am confident that the rewording of those four sentences is a trivial task for someone with experience of the subject, and I look forward to full support. Jkelly 20:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentences as requested. Thank you for your suggestions, they are much appreciated! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, fantastic article.--nixie 23:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Support. A great article, well-researched, of the better ones I've seen on indigenous peoples anywhere. There are a few further clarifications however, which if addressed would assist the reader:
    1. opening para: "...establish agricultural, stationary villages". "Villages" already implies that they are stationary- would "permanent" be more apt?
  • Changed.
    1. "" "" : From the description of the Okipa ceremony given further on in the text, it is not at all clear how this could actually serve to "bring the buffalo closer to their villages". No doubt this was an intention of the ceremony; but were any more "practical" measures used to ensure availability of this food supply? Or were none needed?
  • None of the sources I have describe anything of a physical nature to entice the buffalo. [fair enough, just wondering really- cjllw]
    1. "" "" : Was it the Missouri or Ohio river where they were 1st encountered by Europeans in 1738? Either interpretation is possible from the current sentence structure (is explained later on, but needs clarification when first mentioned).
  • Changed
    1. ==Language== : Perhaps mention here that the Welsh-origin theory is now discounted (is covered later in history section, but this is where it is first discussed).
  • Changed
    1. ==Religion== : "...Mandan's religion was one of the most complex". This seems to be a subjective view, and one which perhaps unjustifiably if unintentionally underplays the belief systems of other Great Plains tribes they are compared to. Unless this particular complexity can be independently demonstrated, it might be better not to use this comparison.
  • Changed to the less-subjective "more complex."
    1. "" "" : presumably Chief Four-Bears and others who survived two Okipa inductions did not have to sacrifice their little fingers a second time :-) or did they lose yet another digit?
  • Not sure. None of the sources say. Though if you count his digits in most of his portraits, Four Bears only has 4 fingers. [no matter, again, just curiosity- cjllw]
    1. ==Origins & early history== : language relatedness to Ho-Chunk is not mentioned in Language section? These accounts seem to differ.
  • Ho-chunk is discussed in Hodge's 1906 tome. I changed the paragraph to reflect that this is from early scholarship. No mention of this relation occurs in the more modern texts.
    1. ==Late 19/20 C.== : "...was abandoned and later submerged under the waters of Lake Sakakawea"- I know it is explained a little further on that this refers to a later dam, but until that information is reached the sentence is a little puzzling. You might consider inserting something up front when it is first mentioned to explain the inundation of the former village.
  • I simply removed the submerged part as it is covered later in the text.
    1. general- given their current situation/combination with two other groups, would it be possible to expand upon the impact of this, whether separate traditions were/are maintained, or combined somewhow, whether there are any differences in relationships/leadership/social interactions between the three groups now combined into the Three Affiliated Tribes, etc? (the article on the 3 tribes discusses each individually, but does not give more information about how they are united or relate/differ to one another). Only a brief summary would be needed for Mandan article, more detail could go into Three Affiliated Tribes, but it would seem to be relevant info. [brief additions just made now cover the essentials needed for this, as mentioned perhaps some more could be added to Three Affiliated Tribes; for the current purpose however this content is now fine.- cjllw]
  • Added. It failed to even cross my mind. Thank you for your concerns! They have been helpful! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 01:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, this is a good article on a worthy subject, the above are mostly minor concerns.--cjllw | TALK 00:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Ganymead for a highly-informative read. Happy to support this material!--cjllw | TALK 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very interesting subject and very well done. --PamriTalk 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, very well-balanced and informative article on an interesting subject. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. The copy could use some polish, but it's good now and improvement can be an ongoing thing. --Tabor 04:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Nice article. Well researched, referenced, and written. Giano | talk 09:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Our Friends in the North[edit]

Self-nomination. Almost entirely a one-man effort I'm afraid, but it's an article I'm quite proud of, and I have done my best to try and get other editors involved in improving it. It sat on peer review for two weeks and got a grand total of one comment, which I have acted upon. I appreciate that some people don't like the presence of fair use images in featured article candidates, but in a piece like this I can't believe there's any viable alternative source of illustration, and the screen grabs are all clearly labelled and detailed with source info and fair use rationale. Angmering 11:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Fair use is fine here, especially since you've been very thorough in providing information on it in the image description pages! Purists might want smaller versions of the images - no larger than are actually used in the article. Article looks good at first sight. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there any particular reason the footnotes are separated out by type? I think it would be more conventional to have all three types of references in a single list (or possibly separate them in a "References" section but keep them together in a "Notes" section); the repeating note numbers in the text were somewhat startling when I first noticed them. Kirill Lokshin 18:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't very experienced with footnotes, and I suppose I wasn't entirely certain about how to structure them. I personally thought it seemed better to have the different sources separated out like that, but if others agree it doesn't look good I'm more than prepared to change it. Angmering 21:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I had a quick look; it isn't a good thing the way it is. Don't get me wrong, the separation is nice in the footnotes list, but it presents several problems. The most significant of which are that you have multiple footnotes named 1 (or 1 in square brackets), and you have some footnote indicators in the prose which go to a differently-numbered foonote. (12 goes to Webpages 1). A single list of notes would be much better. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign this earlier, actually)
I've now changed the footnotes so there's one consistent numbering system and they're all in one list. You're right, it does look better. Angmering 22:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Mark1 05:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent, very well-written article. An even better claim for fair use would be to have one screenshot with all four main characters in the frame, but as it stands now, I think the fair use rationales are more than adequate, and I like the arrangement of the images on the page (one to each section). The black bars look rather odd, but that doesn't matter. Extraordinary Machine 13:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I did originally look for such an image as you describe. Unfortunately, in the whole ten hours or so of the thing there isn't really one really good shot of the four of them together, if at all. There are scenes, obviously, in which the four of them appear, but never in the same single camera frame. There *are* publicity photos of the four of them (such as this), but they're obviously dodgier for fair use claims. As for the black bars — my thinking behind leaving them there was that they show the 14:9 aspect ratio it was shot in. It's quite an odd ratio — the result of the Super 16 mm film format the programme was shot in — and I thought that cropping the bars away might make it look like actual image had been cropped from a full 4:3 aspect ratio picture. Anyone else have any thoughts on whether I should edit them out of the pictures? Angmering 14:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - comprehensive, very well written - an excellent article. With regards to the images, I don't think they would lose anything by being cropped, but if you prefer them as they are, I think that's valid also. Perhaps putting a note on the image description page explaining the significance of leaving the black bars, might help future editors understand your choices. Rossrs 13:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I changed my mind about the images — I had a look and I think you guys were right, so I've edited them to remove the black bars. They do look better, and it's more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia too. Angmering 16:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Looks good! Rossrs 21:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A nice job all-around. An overabundance of red-linked names is about my only qualm, and my personal feelings lean toward that being OK. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I could probably knock up stubs for the three directors and the producer, and possibly also the former BBC Managing Director of television who also gets a mention. I did consider doing this before, but wondered if it would be worth it, considering they'd almost certainly never expand very much. But if you feel it would reflect better on the main article I'd be more than willing to do so. Angmering 23:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
If it were me and I felt that way, I'd actually delink the names. Others would say to make the stubs, because you never know when an unexpected expansion will occur. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
What I'll probably do then is make articles where I can and de-link where I can't — somebody can always re-link them later if they get articles, which I think is unlikely in the cases of the television critics. But right now I'm off to bed. Goodnight. Angmering 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I've now created stub articles for Will Wyatt, Charles Pattinson, Stuart Urban, Pedr James and Simon Cellan-Jones, and de-linked the four journalists as they were unlikely to get even stubs. Angmering 13:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Waterfall Gully, South Australia[edit]

Self Nomination. Previous peer review is here and the points listed there have been addressed. I'm hoping that this will be the first featured article of a suburb! I've pretty much been the major contributor and have taken a number of photos for it myself (with the rest being that of my friends). Please leave any comments, any issues will be attended to promptly. Thanks!

G 04:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Image Removed. G 06:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It's good, but a little on the short side; admittedly, for a suburb, it's going to be shorter than an article from a larger city. However, these are a few comments I had upon reading it:
    • There are more than a couple one-sentence paragraphs. These should be merged into an adjacent paragraph or expanded into multiple sentences.
    • The lat/lon at the top of the page should go under ==Geography== (i.e. "The town is located at...")
    • Sections shouldn't start with a left-aligned image, as it pushes the text too far over from the heading. I'd move the picture under ==Transport== to the right, rather than keeping it where it is.
    • Rather than having sub-sections for each attraction listed under ==Attractions==, it would make for much better prose to combine them all into a longer main section of 3-4 paragraphs. I'd help as far as I could, but knowing nothing about the town makes it rather difficult...I'll be glad to provide a critique, though, if you'd like.
    • Under ==Transport==, when you refer to the CBD, spell it out the first time you use it (I'm assuming it's Central Business District?). Also, make sure you reference exactly which CBD you're talking about -- is it Adelaide's or Burnside's? The article is unclear.
    • External links within the article should be moved to the bottom of the page, with all the other external links. You could also wikilink the topic, although you run the risk of a red link in doing that.
Good luck! Let me know if you need any help. PacknCanes | say something! 07:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've copy-edited the article, so some of the above comments are inactionable. It would be nice if there were a few less red links. Perhaps you could create some stubs for the more prominent, particularly those in the lead section?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • These things happen when one person edits while another's reviewing... :) The only thing I see that was addressed in my list was the left-aligned image under ==Transport==. The only problem with where that image is now is that it pushes the ==Residents== heading over to the right. Maybe the image could be a few pixels smaller? But the prose does look much better after the copyedit, indeed. PacknCanes | say something! 08:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
At what resolution are you viewing the page? It appears fine at 1024x768 pixels. Also, the CBD thing shouldn't matter any more, given it is spelt out in full at first appearance with acronym in parenthesis. Furthermore, I've replaced most occurances of CBD with other phrases anyways.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see the CBD definition there now. I must have been using a cached version earlier. My resolution's set at 1280x800, and I'm not making a point of objection based on how it pushes over the heading on my screen...I know that it's dependent upon the resolution, and it's not fair to object based solely on the article's appearance on my own screen. I probably should have tagged it as a comment, in hindsight, but unfortunately my regular vision is a bit worse than my 20/20 hindsight. :) PacknCanes | say something! 09:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've corrected a number of one sentence paragraphs, but I'm not quite sure how to go about the "attractions" changes. Would you like to have a go PacknCanes? And I believe that the lat/lon is standard for Australian suburb articles. Thanks for the comments so far and Cyberjunkie for the top copyedit. G 15:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I took a shot at un-sub-sectioning the "attractions" section, with a little reordering for nicer segues. While I was in there, I ran across one sentence which absolutely stumped me: "...the mines are roughly 1700 mm in height and 1000 m in width." What does that mean? 1.7 m by a kilometre? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's well on its way. The attractions section looks very good I told G earlier, I was just a bit antsy about messing around with the content not knowing exactly what the relevant points were. All that's left now is to get rid of the one-sentence paragraphs and the in-article external links...neither of which should be too tough to tackle. It's looking very good, though...I have a feeling I'll be able to support sooner rather than later. PacknCanes | say something! 21:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I've eliminated all of the one-sentence pargraphs and the problematic links! Any other specific pointers to tackle next? G 02:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Nope. :) Support; very good job. I'm impressed. PacknCanes | say something! 05:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now but I do think this is a very good article that should get there soon.
    • "The suburb's natural beauty attracts residents as well as tourists and could be categorised as upper-middle class." The natural beauty could be categorized as upper-middle class? Something's gone awry. In general, it needs a little more copy-editing here and there.
    • The same sentence shows an example of overlinking that's a problem throughout the article. Linking residents is over-the-top, as are links to things like brook, miners, agricultural, mayor, walking trails, park, etc. etc. I could point to some style guides that talk about not overlinking, but common sense is the best thing here: link topics relevant to the article and ones that have more use than just a dictionary definition, unless if it's an obscure word.
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Just had a go at fixing both of those. The second lead paragraph has been rewritten, and I've gone through and removed a number of non-relevant links. Mind having a look and tell me if it's good enough, and well, if you now support it? Any minor changes would be great! michaelg 05:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Objections struck; don't have time right now to do a thorough going-over of the article to decide regarding support yet. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. This is a good article for sure, but much of it could still do with a copyedit for prose; some of the language is a bit odd in places (i.e. Since European Settlement the native plant life has suffered considerably, though there's quite a lot of other examples). There are also some problems with image formatting - in the attractions section, there's four images side-by-side, which looks terrible on a smaller screen. 'd also like to see a reorganisation of the content in the Attractions section - what is there is all good, but the way it is organised could do with a little bit of work The first objection particularly could take some time to fix, but apart from these qualms, it's the best article on a suburb that I've ever seen. Ambi 06:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    What did you mean by "side-by-side"?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I find the prose fine, even excellent compared to what is was before. Would you like to have a go at improving it or tell us which sections specifically need improvement?
  • The edit which positioned the attractions images as they are now is much better compared with before (see the history for sake of comparison if you wish). I just did an edit of the attractions section, which hopefully makes for better prose and organisation.
Thanks for the pointers though, but if you could elaborate further on these qualms it would be of great assistance! - michaelg 07:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not that the prose is bad, per se, but there a lot of examples of awkward and convoluted wording (the example I gave wasn't a great one, but I digress). I tend to do the same thing when I write articles myself, which is why I try to get at least one or two people to copyedit them afterwards. As to the other objections; the images don't warp the text anymore, but it still does look strange having four side-by-side - wouldn't two of them be able to illustrate the article just as well? The attractions section is quite improved, although the sentence "Earlier treasure-hunting efforts..." doesn't make much sense in its current context. Ambi 07:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
That still doesn't help much! Argh! I can't fix anything if I don't know what is wrong with it - you've given two examples so far and practically retracted your objection to one of them. That said, I'll change the "treasure hunting efforts" to something better. Would anyone like to experiment in regards to the images? I don't know what to do in regards to that. - michaelg 07:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
<Blush> Turns out Ambi's original example is of my writing </Blush>. What I think makes it awkward is that there is practically no elaboration or examples. How and why has native vegatation suffered? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've reduced the attractions images to two (which still looks suprisingly decent). I've also got information on native vegetation here and here. Just added another small bit to do with geography and added a footnote for reference. Should make it a bit clearer, but a small copyedit might help. - michaelg 07:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the image issue, but I'd appreciate if you could at least try to fix my most substantial one. I'll supply some more examples:
Before the colonisation of South Australia, Aboriginal history of Waterfall Gully and the surrounding Mount Lofty area was notable in the Dreamtime story of Yurrebilla
They discovered it in April 1837
With continued development further up the catchment region, such as farms and orchards, the water quality quickly became poor
In 1945 much of the area that is today's Cleland Conservation Park was purchased by the State Government (it doesn't make much sense unless you know what the park is)
Residents continue to be drawn to Waterfall Gully by its picturesque scenery, relative seclusion and proximity to the city proper. (has NPOV issues), Much of the north-eastern side of the gully is part of Cleland (clarity - should at least spell out again what Cleland is)
Since European Settlement the native plant life has suffered considerably
Recently, the Burnside Council has been creating footpaths
Recent developments to the area in the form of making the restaurant wheelchair accessible, an expanded car park, renovation of the restaurant, installation of a pay phone and public toilets and information signs, as well as numerous safety and cosmetic features began in 1995 and were completed in 2005
I'm sorry to be a grammar nazi, but these really do stand out in a close reading of the article. Also, would it be possible to add the current member for each electorate in there? I just noticed that at least one of their websites was linked under external links, but not mentioned in the article. Ambi 08:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Thankyou! :D I've gone through and corrected these, take a look! And in regards to the MP's - they did used to be in the article (when it's politics section was more comprehensive than that of the actual electorates) but were removed due to non-relevance with the suburb. Are you sure you want them back in? - michaelg 08:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The full lists were a bit much (they did belong in the electorate articles), but I think having the current members would be helpful. Ambi 08:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
That's looking much better. I've switched to support - this really is an excellent article. I just noticed a couple more (minor) things, though - do you have any more information on the history of the area? It seems to cover some things quite briefly (like the mention of bushfires in the 20th century had me wondering if the suburb was actually damaged)? Finally, I wonder if "residents" wouldn't be better entitled "demographics". Neither of these should be considered as objections to this being featured though. Ambi 09:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of Aboriginal culture reads pretty bad. Could you expand on Yurrebilla? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Cyberjunkie, I've fixed that, and included new and clearer info (one of my source websites had changed it's Yurrebilla story). Ambi, the history has been compiled from plaques and information signs scattered all over the gully (I've been out alot) and from internet sources. To gain more information I would have to start attending Burnside Historical Society Meetings! And in regards to Residents/Demographics, I'll see what future community consensus says about it! It doesn't really matter *too* much. Thanks for now supporting! :D - michaelg 09:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Object -- the article is well laid out but I've found some problems. 1. Why is the title "Waterfall Gully, South Australia" and not "Waterfall Gully"? other Australian cities do not have the state appended to the title. 2. "Unfortunately" for the Aborigines --> this is emphathy, change to "However" 3) text inside parenthesis. including Waterfall Gully's First Creek; skewed due to the height of the surrounding hills). Please convert these and other instances to normal prose so that it flows. 4. Since its a geographic article, a map is needed. 5. The political parties list should be converted to prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Hi Nichalp. Waterfall Gully is a suburb not a city, and is named per the conventions for Australian locations. Capital cities (Adelaide, Canberra, Sydney etc) are the only exceptions.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Rightio! Well here we go:
  • It's not an Australian city, it's an Australian suburb. And as laid out by the guidelines in WikiProject Adelaide this is standard for Australian suburb articles. (however Waterfall Gully does redirect to this article)
  • Aborigines empathy bit fixed.
  • Prose issues you described corrected
  • There is a map given in the form of the NASA image showing location of Waterfall Gully in the Adelaide Metropolitan Area. There are no other fair use images available yet that would constitute a replacement map.
  • By political parties list do you mean the election results? These are displayed better as a list, and I would create a pie graph showing the results before making it harder to read by making them prose. Can you offer further comments?
Cheers for the advice! - michaelg 10:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok you got me on the title, but a redirect should be created. Ok, I've copyedited the text and I've noticed you followed up on it. However I am still not satisfied with the following:-
  1. Location map is still absent. Its hard to figure out where the place is. See: Image:Johannesburg map-withannotations.jpg. I would like to see some images on the region. I could draw a map if you could source some sites.
  2. That chart should never be a .gif file. Ideally it should be .svg (openoffice supports svg), but if you cannot get an svg file, then png is the correct filetype. Use ".png" extension and not ".PNG".
  3. The tone of ==Transport== and ==Attractions== need to be more in the encyclopedic tone. Promotion of a restaurant etc; specific buses give the article more of a tourist brochure read to it. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
  4. Population should be mentioned in the lead.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

      • Okay... hmm.
  1. If you would be able to draw a map, that'd be great. Refrence maps: here, here, here and here if you want to give it a go.
  2. Image reloaded as a .png .
  3. The tone I will have a go at, but I'm not sure exactly how to get it out of a tourist-esque feel if it still has it (I heard this complaint before and made changes).
  4. Number of people now in the first line of the article.

Thanks for the advice, and especially for the offer of drawing a map. - michaelg 12:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If I may say so, I disagree with Nichalp's objection about the article seeming "touristy". Earlier versions did certainly have that feel, but I really don't see any particular problem with listing the buses that go through the area (just as you'd say which train line it was on if there was one), and the waterfall is clearly one of the major reasons the place is notable. Ambi 12:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Instances of text such as "all close at 6 p.m. on weekdays; the restaurant keeps the area open later some nights" ; " mines are not marketed in any local tourist guide or council publication"; " It is at the south-eastern end of the road (four kilometres from its start)". Other text such as Joseph Di Stasio's stomach problems (focus is on the suburb remember!), time taken to reach the place etc, certainly makes it more useful to a tourist. I've already modified some sections, you can go through the changes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the objections you noted then. However, I still believe the bus route information should stay - michaelg 13:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree with what Ambi said. I took into account a specific complaint about the restaurant and sorted that out a bit though. - michaelg 12:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
PS> If you aren't comfortable in having the political text converted to prose, you can insert it as a table and right-align the table. (One more thing, its not an objection, there's an ugly red link, could you fill it?) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've created a Mount Bonython stub. - michaelg 13:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I've created the map. I've also copyedited the text and left some comments. Please addresss it and let me know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the map and left a link to it on your talk page. I also checked the comments and copyedits and made suitable adjustments - nice work!
Cheers, - michaelg 01:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I just caught one other thing while looking through the article again - under "Attractions", the last sentence of the first paragraph is somewhat odd. Would it be possible to fix this? Ambi 04:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I just took a copyediting pass through the whole thing. I don't think it's too touristy; comprehensive detail on an area this small is by its nature going to contain material like this. Getting the map in there would be great. By the way, I'm red/green color blind and in the current satellite map, I am totally unable to determine what area is "highlighted in red". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Bunchofgrapes! And Ambi, I've tidied up that last sentence. I guess the only two things outstanding now are a table for the politics results (would someone else be able to have a go at this, I don't know tables here at all!) and the map. - michaelg 04:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Recent developments began in 1995 and were completed in 2005 and provides a good view of the falls. - seems still to be there. Ambi 04:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Fixed! And I've just spent the afternoon getting to know photoshop and editing the map - it's now in the article. - michaelg 04:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Titoxd has graciously fixed up the politics table for us. I think this satisfied the last standing objection. :) Ambi 06:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I did some minor reformatting (added party colours, put percentages last). The article is great. The only thing wrong is those bloody reference numbers in the tables that just don't seem to want to order themselves correctly. But that can't be helped..--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Loving the party colours! Cheers to all, lets hope User:Nichalp drops by soon. - michaelg | talk 07:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Good work by michaelg, cyberjunkie, ambi and all. I'm sure you and Ambi will agree that the touristy text has now been removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why no infobox? Those are useful for orienting non-expert readers to where and what they are supposed to be reading. By glancing at the article someone may think it is about a natural feature, not a suburb. If the article is about a suburb then show pictures of suburban developments. A map of the street layout or urban form (land use) would help. --maclean25 08:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Among Australian suburbs, this one is probably the most developed. There has not yet been consenus as to what infobox should be made to accomodate all the suburbs of the country. When consenus has been agreed among all the Australian wikiprojects, I think this would be the best time to introduce an infobox. As the article states in it's lead: "the suburb encompasses one long gully with First Creek at its centre and Waterfall Gully Road adjacent to the creek". The 'geography' section expands further on the layout. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 08:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Michael, have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra. There's a suburb infobox in development for Canberra. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll throw it in, and will also chuck an example on the WikiProject: Adelaide suburbs page aswell. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 10:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I was just curious to know what you thought of it. I probably should have raised it at the WikiProject. Don't feel as though you have to use it. There's a modified version at Sheidow Park that I was planing on using for Adelaide Suburbs. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll retract my previous comment then, the Sheidow Park one looks good - however I want to keep the iamge of the Waterfall up the top. I'll see about integrating them, but if it doesn't work out well I won't bother.
Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 10:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Howzat! Looks tops IMO. Thanks for that, Cyberjunkie! Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 10:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ok, but the politics section goes into too much political analysis for a suburb page. Xtra 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The Wikiproject Adelaide Suburbs page states that "Politics (local issues, what state and federal electorate the suburb is in, who are the current local members, is it a safe Labor seat/safe Libs seat/marginal seat)." This is discussed in the politics section to explain why it is a safe lib seat, etc. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 01:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I for one think the political section is great. It's not overly wordy, all of it pertains exactly to the suburb, and it's quite an interesting read. Ambi 01:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

War of the League of Cambrai[edit]

Self-nomination. Went through a peer review here (the only comment was regading the addition of a map). I think that this article is a rather comprehensive treatment of an obscure historical episode; the only real issue is the fairly small number of pictures. Kirill Lokshin 06:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, this piece is obviously the product of many moon's hard labor. It is throughly researched and, despite what the objection below says, clearly written. It does a fine job of describing a highly complex and dynamic series of military and political events. This is not an easy task to pull off, my friends, believe me, I've tried:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for two reasons:
1.The article is full with details: names, dates, places which are very difficult to remember and make the reading very hard. For example:

On April 15, 1509, Louis left Milan at the head of a French army and moved rapidly into Venetian territory. To oppose him, Venice had hired a condottiere army under the command of the Orsini cousins — Bartolomeo d'Alviano and Nicolo di Pitigliano — but had failed to account for the fact that the two disagreed on how best to stop the French advance. Consequently, when Louis crossed the Adda River in early May and Alviano advanced to meet him, Pitigliano, believing it best to avoid a pitched battle, moved away to the south. On May 14, Alviano confronted the French at the Battle of Agnadello; out-numbered, he sent requests for reinforcements to his cousin, who replied with orders to break off the battle and continued on his way.[10] Alviano, disregarding the new orders, continued the engagement; his army was eventually surrounded and destroyed. Pitigliano managed to avoid encountering Louis; but his mercenary troops, hearing of Alviano's defeat, had deserted in large numbers by the next morning, forcing him to retreat to Treviso with the remnants of the Venetian army.[11]

In this paragraph, it is very hard to imagine what is really happening without knowing where is the Adda River or what means south in ...moved away to the south. Do we really have to click on condottiere army to understand what is the relationship between Alviano and Pitigliano, and the Pope? What means and continued on his way? It is unclear. Perhaps a way to make all this understandable would be to put some schema of the battles or region (a simple map with a few arrows and names: the provided historical map is nice but too complicated). Another hint: why not introduce a table summarizing all the names (who fought for whom? With Pitigliano and Alviano ordered below Julius).
2. I was interested in the name because I thought this war happened in Flanders. However I haven't found any trace of the reason why Cambrai is associated to this War. Why not putting this in the lead such that people interested in the history of the Low Countries would directly see this has nothing to do with that.
Vb 08:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I cannot agree with your first point: I find the paragraph you quote, and the entire article, to be clearly written and easily followed. As for your second point, a sentence explaining why the League of Cambrai was so called might be a good idea. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
In regards to the second point, I've added a parenthetical note in the lead that explains the origin of the name; hopefully, that will clarify the issue. Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Mousekateers, let's put on our thinking caps:>

Pope Julius II had intended that the war would curb Venetian influence in northern Italy, and had, to this end, created the League of Cambrai, an alliance against the Republic that included, besides himself, Louis XII of France, Emperor Maximilian I, and Ferdinand I of Spain. Although the League was initially successful, friction between Julius and Louis caused it to collapse by 1510; Julius then allied himself with Venice against France. The Veneto-Papal alliance eventually expanded into the Holy League, which drove the French from Italy in 1512; disagreements about the division of the spoils, however, led Venice to abandon the alliance in favor of one with France. Under the leadership of Francis I, who had succeeded Louis to the throne, the French and Venetians would regain the territory they had lost through their victory at Marignano in 1515; and the treaties of Noyon and Brussels, which ended the war the next year, would essentially return the map of Italy to the status quo of 1508.

So lessee if I got this right-In 1508 the Pope did not like the Venetians, who at that time lived in Venice. So he formed an alliance against them called the League Of Cambrai, presumably because this is where the emmisaries and ambassadors met to hammer out the details and sign the paperwork. This league originally included the French. But the Italians soon discovered(as does everyone eventually) that despite their differences, they disliked the French even more, and so allied against them and donkey punched them out of Italty. But being Italians, they soon began to quarrel amongst themselves, with the Venetians (still residing in Venice, BTW) approaching Les Francais and their new king, Les Francis for an alliance this time. They regained some lost territory, which finally compelled the Pope and his possee to the negotiating table and a year and two treaties later everything was basically back to where it was in 1508. Status-Quo ante-matter. Does that sound about right? Did I miss anything there? If not, it seems pretty clear to me. But then again I'm a victim of the U.S. Public Edumacational system.:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Perfect! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, many paragraphs sound a bit like : X did that. Y did that. Then he went there and killed Z. It is difficult for the layman to keep the flow and gain some overview. Moreover many names and places are not described and the reader has to click on the link to know where or who it is. For example, the name Cambrai is now cited in the lead but it is not written that it is a city in Flanders or Nothern France. Cambrai is not Paris or New York it is not a city which could be assumed to be known all over the world just like the Adda River which is also not the Rhine nor the Nile. But I think my objection could be easily removed if a schematical map would be provided where one could read the important places and maybe troop movements. The provided map is not readable without clicking on it and include much too many details. I think also too many secondary characters appear. About the example above wouldn't it be clearer to say things more simply in one sentence without mentioning any names nor places that I don't know and I don't mind about. If places are important then point them on a map or write a short comment like "Cambrai, a city in Flanders". If not than remove them. The same is true for names, if some persons are important put a picture, a table summarizing all of them. If not then skip them. Vb 13:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me provide a new example:
In the aftermath of the First Italian War, Pope Alexander VI had moved to consolidate Papal control over central Italy by seizing the Romagna. Cesare Borgia, acting as gonfaloniere of the Papal armies, had expelled the Bentivoglio family from Bologna, which they had ruled as a fief, and was well on his way towards establishing a permanent Borgia state in the region when Alexander died on August 18, 1503
I don't know what is the First Italian War. Do I have to click on this? Couldn't one editor write behind that (14??-15??, between Sweden and Japan). What is gonfaloniere? Could someone write behind that some words defining this? had expelled the Bentivoglio family from Bologna, which they had ruled as a fief: Do we really have to be told about the Bentivoglio family? Couldn't one say simply "conquered Bologna"? Is the exact date August 18, 1503 really that important? Why not write simply 1503?
The full article is full with such details and need in my opinion a througout re-edit. Vb 13:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, I believe that FA criterion 2b ("an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details") explicitly forbids this; I simply don't see how an article about a war can be considered comprehensive without giving the specific details (names, places, dates) that you're objecting to. It also seems to me that the use of internal links for terms (rather than a duplication of the content of those links in the article itself) is standard Wikipedia convention.
I'd appreciate any input from more experienced editors on the degree to which this objection is considered actionable. Kirill Lokshin 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think one of the most important things in an article is its flow. It must be fluidily readable by non specialists in a reasonable amount of time. This implies not too many parentheses, lists, short paragraphs and links. If you think the exact dates are important make something like a timetable in a table. When you write an article about math you have to define each word unknown to undergrad students even if those words have a specialized article of their own. You cannot expect any reader to read all WP math articles if she is interested in the main topic of your article. This is the same for historical articles such as this one: when you use the word gonfaloniere please define it because if the aricle about gonfaloniere is more interesting than War of the League of Cambrai your reader will not come back again. :-) Vb 15:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
FYI: The condottiere were mercenaries and the gonfaloniere was the commander (or Captain general) of the Papal armies. There! See, you've learned something! :>. Your main objection seems to be this article is too in depth and complex. To me this is a plus. It is better to err on the side of completeness than omit in order to dumb an article down and cater to the limited attention spans of some readers. Apart from that you seem to dislike its style and topic. You are entitled to. However just nitpicking the article is not very helpful or constructive. You seem to be mostly saying "I just don't like this...BLEH! DRY!". --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
No I really try to be constructive. One way to improve the article would be to add some figure like "Image:Ww2summarymapeurope.gif" even if this picture is for my taste too detailed with too small characters. Vb 09:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
In order to answer to your point about details let me cite this critique to the article human: What's wrong with details (particularly dates)? This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to have details.(...) Referee's reply: Wrong. The purpose is to omit as much detail as possible, leaving only the essential. I utterly agree with this referee Vb 09:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
To be blunt, historical articles should be full of names, dates and places. That's what they are about. I see no issue with the flow of this article at all. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not your opinion. I think historical article should also show global viewpoints, interpretations, summaries: history is not only a sequence of facts. Moreover a feature article should be some kind of self contained. The example of Cambrai and Bologna is illuminating: while Bologna can be assumed to be a city known to a reader interested in an Italian war, one cannot expect the reader to know where is Cambrai. Details should be put in overview tables or maps or in subsections, clearly specialized paragraphs or in daughter articles. If I want to know the exact date of Alexander's death, I look at Alexander's article not at War of the League of Cambrai.Vb 07:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
By the same token, we can assume that the exact location of Cambrai would be of no interest to "a reader interested in an Italian war", while the date of Alexander's death — given here because it is the event that sets the precursors to this war in motion, not because Alexander himself is of great interest to us — is directly relevant to the subject.
The objection to human isn't really applicable here, in my opinion; human is a much more general article, which must cater to a wide variety of readers. Nobody will read past the lead section of War of the League of Cambrai unless they are interested in the details of the war; I see no reason to deny these details to the curious reader. Kirill Lokshin 12:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, the test of a good article is not whether someone can memorize every detail on a single reading. Just one question, I noticed the spelling "detachements", which I'm not familiar with, is it British English? --Michael Snow 19:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It was a misspelling, actually; I've corrected it. Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Vb's right, this article is head-bustingly complex. So is 16th-century European history. This article is a thing of beauty. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well written. But I have no idea what everyone's arguing about. Not only is the article extremely understandable, but other articles that have been elected have been less legible. Most articles would bathe this article's footnotes or tend to it's paragraphs. Kirill has done a great job on this article, it needs to go the whole hog. So there's my terribly written thought(s). Have a nice day.... Spawn Man 08:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Support WOW! So many references! Brisvegas 09:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. AbstainImpressive, especially the notes. However I'd like to see Template:Warbox (with a list of battles) and prefferably a new map with marked battles and troop movements. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added a warbox; I'll see what I can do about a better map. Kirill Lokshin 19:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A great article about something I for one had nevcer heard of. Yes it's complex with many names and places but some subjects are inherently complex. Well illustrated and referenced and overall of a very high standard. Lisiate 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

November (film)[edit]

Self-nomination. Was on peer review here, and concerns about the length of the plot synopsis have been addressed. While the film itself may not have been released so long ago, I believe that the article is as strong as other featured articles about big (as well as small) screen productions. Extraordinary Machine 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. I'm always impressed to see so much info on something I haven't even heard of before. Everyking 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: You might add some sort of short intro to the Cast section, mentioning any casting problems, or break-out roles, or anything else worth mentioning to keep the section from just being a list. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 05:26
    • I couldn't find any information titbits about the casting of the film (other than Courteney Cox, and that's already mentioned in the "Development" section), or anything that suggested that cast members other than Cox had their careers changed somehow by their participation in the film. I could include quotes from critics about their performances, but that may look odd when there are reviews quoted further down the article, and also not all the performances were commented on by anybody (particularly Nick Offerman and Matthew Carey). I've removed the "Cast" section entirely and fleshed out the lead section of the article a little, to include a mention of Matthew Carey (this is similar to the layout of Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) in terms of mentions of the cast). Extraordinary Machine 13:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But please expand the cast section as per brian above. --PamriTalk 10:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I love the attention you showed the plot, very well written had me in suspense waiting for the ending and then it just stopped, now that is what I call A grade material. Also I appecriate your use of the screen shots from right to left helps the article flow smoothly because it is a rather long read. KnowledgeOfSelf 17:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a great film, and a great article. Certainly deserving of featured article status. --Winnermario 01:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Haven't seen the movie, but this looks like outstanding work. --ausa کui × 09:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support could use a grammar punctuation check, I saw a few sloppy sentances.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 06:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The problem is, I read this article so many times while editing it that my mind kind of went blank in regards to its smaller problems. Don't worry, though, I'll take another look at it sometime today (hopefully!). Extraordinary Machine 13:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great movie article. And also is well-sourced. Carioca 03:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Boston, Massachusetts[edit]

This article has gone through a failed FAC and two peer reviews. Since then, the article has seen a lot of improvement. The question now becomes: is the article ready to be featured? Pentawing 03:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. It's good. It's really good. No reservations about using this as a model for articles on American cities. Jkelly 03:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Pentawing has built this to a great article, with outstanding leadership. Kudos to Pentawing. Fg2 04:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent Everyking 04:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good. I cleaned up a few typos, but nothing big. Well-referenced, nice pictures, thorough content. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 05:24
  • Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It's very, very, very close to being there. However, there are a few minor points to hit:
    • In a few places (specifically the ==History== section), the prose is choppy, and there are a few instances of subject/verb disagreement—specifically the first section in History. The colonists weren't founded on 9/17/1630, the city was...but the way the sentence is written makes it sound like the city had always been there and the colonists were discovered on that date. :)
    • Look out for single-sentence paragraphs. I caught a couple of them; either merge them into an adjacent paragraph or expand them.
    • I'm not entirely sure that "State and federal agencies" and "Crime" deserve their own subsections under ==Law and Government==. Rather than the 4 short paragraphs that are there now, could they be merged into 2 or 3 longer ones simply within the confines of ==Law and Government==?
    • This was pointed out to me on my talk page during the Cleveland FAC, so I don't know if it's a legit objection...but census figures from the 2000 Census should probably be in past tense, seeing as they're going on six years old in a few months.
    • Under ==Education==, there are some hanging right parentheses; are they missing a left pair, or are they just an oversight?
Overall, very good work. I'd be glad to help out in any way with this, seeing as how a city article I was intricately involved with just went through FAC. Take care -- PacknCanes | say something! 07:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I have taken care of the problems, but I did it very quickly. Hence, I need someone else to check my work. Pentawing 07:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's been checked, and you did take care of them. I did a little more copyediting to smooth over some of the prose, but it looks excellent now. Support; great job. PacknCanes | say something! 19:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)]
  • Support - Excellent work! A couple of things to consider
  • Explain BosWash rather than link it or just delete it. Something like "Boston has begun to resemble other parts of the continuous string of Northeast seaboard cities dubbed the BosWash megalopolis." I went ahead and changed it, but it may not need to be there
  • An explanation of the Brahmins may be helpful for people unfamiliar with the term, though you do describe their wealth
  • I pay my gas bill to NSTAR as well! I don't know, are there multiple providers?
  • The ePodunk reference is pretty lame. I understand the NPOV desire, but...
  • There are a few red links. Not a big deal, but there's only a few!
InvictaHOG 21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I did some copyediting to address these issues except for the ePodunk reference (to maintain NPOV), and electricity and gas providers (I am only aware of NSTAR and KeySpan). Pentawing 00:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • NSTAR provides gas to much of Boston. I don't know about KeySpan, but I'd check to make sure that your list is complete. As for ePodunk, a review of their rankings shows Boston as the top college town among cities with more than 300,000 people, not the top college town. They do not compare head to head across populations as far as I saw. I think that you should either find another source or change the assertion InvictaHOG 13:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I reworded the ePodunk assertion to note that Boston is at the top of the 300,000 people or more category. Pentawing 22:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just a minor (perhaps petty) quibble, so I won't make this an objection: the infobox stikes me as absurdly large. Either the (rather non-descriptive) photo needs to be chopped, or something needs to be trimmed elsewhere. Also, it would be nice if it sat flush with the side of the page. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I replaced the image with one of the Bay Bay skyline and resized is to 250px. However, I can't be able to have it flush with the side of the page since the infobox is within another template that someone else created . The only way to solve this is to move the infobox into the article itself and have an admin delete the unused template. As for the infobox size, this can't be helped since it is based on another format that is being used at other city articles (e.g. Louisville, Kentucky and Los Angeles, California). Pentawing 22:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: This page has been greatly improved since the last time it was a featured article candidate. Wonderful work, Pentawing.--AaronS 15:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article has seen some major improvement since this topic first came up. Sahasrahla 03:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The history section seems to me to be too sketchy, and needs significant expansion and a bit more gravitas. As it stands, the most important piece of local history would appear to be the "Banned In Boston" phenomenon, which is noteworthy but not, on balance, terribly important. The role of the Irish in Boston (to say nothing of other immigrant groups) is barely addressed; the long-running controversy over school desegregation in the recent past is simply ignored treated too superficially. And the last paragraph of the history section sound like the product of the local tourism bureau; it's not really an encyclopedic tone. Monicasdude 21:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a History of Boston, Massachusetts sub-article that has more details, including information concerning other immigrant groups and the Boston busing situation of the 1970s. However, I can't expand the history section without going over the 40 kB limit unless you can tell me exactly what you think is lacking in the history section. Pentawing 22:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I added in a notation about the busing situation of 1974 and major Irish figures who have a major presence in Boston politics. I also reworded the last paragraph to a previous version. Pentawing 04:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I still find the history section inadequate. There's almost no discussion of events between (roughly) 1820 and 1970, and most other historical discussion is just too sketchy. I really don't think that saying "During the early 1770s, Bostonians initiated the American Revolution" is particularly accurate, for example. I can't tell you "exactly" what to put in to fill the huge gaps in the history section, but it probably should be rewritten from scratch -- the "History of Boston" article isn't very good, as an article or as a starting point. Monicasdude 01:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll see what I can do, but you have to be specific as to why the history section is "sketchy" (what you believe is sketchy may be fine to someone else). Again, I have to note that the history section is merely a summary, that it should not contain every detail imaginable (which are covered in the sub-article). Pentawing 01:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support looks damn fine... lets feature it (front page next anniversary of the Tea Party? - Thats December 16th folks :)  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 06:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The link to 'see also Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts' is located at the bottom of the Demographics section, not the Geography section which deals with this subject. Was that intentional? I haven't read the second half of the article yet but look forward to being able to support. Adz 00:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The 'see also Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts' was placed in the demographics section instead of the geography section since the article focused on the population makeup of each neighborhood rather than the geology of the each part of the city. Pentawing 04:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Medium Object (Changed vote to support below). Some key parts & sections could do with rewriting & more flesh to them. Overall, this article just doesn't feel right to me, but the again, it's just my opinion. Especially the sports & culture & lower down sections need work. Spawn Man 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you be specific as to which sections have problems and why? Thanks. Pentawing 04:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • As stated above, the sports, culture & sections that are lower down on the article page are in need of some lengthening. They have much more potential, but are still around 4 paragraphs long, & the health section only being 1 paragraph long. Other than that it is an awesome article & would gladly support it if the lower sections were given some much needed attention... Spawn Man 22:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • There are more details about culture in Culture in Boston, Massachusetts (the section in the Boston article itself is a summary of that sub-article). The same applies to the transportation section. The summaries were to address another user's concern (Nichalp) that the sections were too long and should go into sub-articles (plus as a means of keeping the article close to about 35kB as he prescribed). I'll see what I can do with health and medicine. Pentawing 22:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I do not think the page size should limit the growth of an article. Some articles have been 72KB long!!!! Spawn Man 22:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
            • comment: Then we need to come to some sort of consensus on what summary style really is. This is a problem I've had as well. I don't mind using summary style, but there needs to be some (even unwritten) understanding of exactly what a featured article's summary style should look like. It's ridiculous to me that you create one objection by satisfying someone else's objection. PacknCanes | say something! 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I expanded sections which do not have a corresponding sub-article to cover the details. Please let me know if you see something else that could be added. Pentawing 01:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes indeed I see something, could you please expand on the references section, as I know there are many other books on Boston out there. After that you will have my full support... Spawn Man 03:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
              • I added two references that I found through Google Print. I will look for more sources when I get the chance to visit the local library this weekend. Pentawing 20:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You have far exceeded my expectations, you now have my Full SUPPORT. Thanks.... Spawn Man 23:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, article is well written and formatted, and summarises the relevant subatricles well. One tiny quibble is the see alsos at the end of sections, could these be absorbed into the text if possible?--nixie 02:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sylvanus Morley[edit]

self-nom. Started this one up and have been working on this for a couple of days now, and taken it about as far as I can. The subject is one who is very well-known in his field, despite some retrospective criticisms about his work of which I've tried to give a balanced view and provide the appropriate context. He's quite an interesting character, perhaps more so now that the "secret agent" aspect to his career has come to light. The article has been informally reviewed by several others, with generally favourable comments. There don't seem to have been many (or any) FAs on archaeologists or the field in which he worked, so I'd like to put this one up for nomination to see the community's opinion.--cjllw | TALK 07:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Support: Obsessively comprehensive and well written. The only thing that rankles is "apparently made" a major contribution. If he may or may not have, then it's probably best to cite someone saying he did and let it stand or not say it at all. Otherwise, there is such a careful reconsideration of Morley that I'm afraid he comes looking very bad. I understand that the objections are in print now and the lauds are long gone, but too much correction leaves us thinking he was a big phoney who never deserved the praise. Geogre 17:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Geogre. The note of hesitation stemmed from my reliance for this info upon a "non-specialist" source, which had also confused some biog details with the other S.G. Morley. On reflection, and given that the other's autobiog makes no mention of it, I've decided to properly credit Morley with these advances, and removed "apparently". Morley was certainly no phoney in his field, just one whose ideas have been revised in the light of better evidence not available to him at the time.--cjllw | TALK 00:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Everyking 04:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Stongbaddest Support A SUPERB effort! I enjoyed reading this article so much, I'll have to reread it again to find any minor flaws to gripe about. But I'm sure whatever they may be, it won't be enough to change my vote. I knew a bit about Sylvanus before, now I know a lot Morley...sorry :> His story has adventure, intrigue, espionage, lost cities and ancient mysteries. Why Hollywood has'nt turned it into a movie yet I don't know...oh wait...they have.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. What's there is good, but after reading I felt like there was a huge gap in the article. The introduction (which incidentally could stand to be slightly longer) says he is "particularly noted for his extensive excavations of the Maya site of Chichen Itza".
The article then goes on to talk about his proposal for the excavations, his fieldwork in other areas while the excavations were ongoing, a dispute with the government about the excavations, some people who were influenced by the excavations, and the end of the excavations. There's also some good discussion of his theories, which I presume were partly/mostly inspired by the excavations.
But for all that, there's hardly a word about what the excavations were actually excavating! Practically the only informative content on the subject is the captions of the pictures. There are all these nice trimmings around the outside of the plate, but the meat they're supposed to go with is missing. For a 20-year project that's supposed to be an essential part of his achievements, this is an incredible oversight. --Michael Snow 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Michael, I will take them on board. I had generally sought to avoid making too many digressions by way of explaining Maya history and site specifics, thinking that perhaps the more detailed Chichen Itza article could stand as a companion-piece. However, I take your point and although there's more to Morley (!) than Chichen Itza, the article could use some additional exposition on his actual efforts and findings in that area, & provide the background which led to his theories (you are right, his C.I. investigations did contribute to the ideas he was to develop, but not exclusively, I'll try to make that more clear). As for the introduction, I tried to keep it short'n'sweet, with what I hope was enough material to interest the reader and encourage them to read more; let me see if there are any other points which could be mentioned up-front. I'll work on these additions over the next day or so which will hopefully address your concerns. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 03:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I have now greatly expanded upon Morley's work as it relates to Chichen Itza, also supplying the background and historical context for the results. The article is now longer than I had originally intended, but hopefully contains enough information for the non-specialist reader to appreciate his works without external references, while still maintaining the general flow of things. In any event, I think I've addressed the concern voiced above, and look forward to any further comments on that score.--cjllw | TALK 05:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
To help with the length issue, I think the Context subsection is actually a bit longer than was particularly needed for an article on Morley. Some of it might be more appropriate at Chichen Itza, which is by comparison a pretty superficial article. Trying to appropriately balance what goes where can be a challenge at times. Anyway, this does fill the gap and addresses the major problem I found, so my objection can be withdrawn. --Michael Snow 18:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who missing episodes[edit]

Project nomination. This originally started as a section in the main Doctor Who article and expanded slowly over the months, with a companion article, List of incomplete Doctor Who serials, providing a bit more information. I took the discussion bits from the latter and merged it with the former to create this article, and it rapidly expanded from there, mostly thanks to Angmering (talk · contribs), with myself chiming in every now and then for the copyediting chores. It was then sent for peer review, with only one real comment and I believe the issues have been addressed. It would be nice to have a Doctor Who FA that was completely non-fancruft in nature, so I am therefore submitting it for consideration. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not bad at all. However, one annoying aspect was the sporadic, inconsistent linking of low-value years and decades. I've removed these so that your readers will be more likely to follow up high-value links. It's easier to read and edit now, and looks better on the page. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. 'Compare with' for contrasts, 'compare to' for similarities. Prose needs a run-through to bring it up to FA standard ('compelling, even brilliant')—shouldn't be too hard a job, though. Tony 05:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I've had a tinker, and the only real problem seems to be little bits of grammar here and there, which is trivial unless the article is consistently in pidgin (compare for example Battle of the Bulge, which has been a featured article for some time and is much worse in this respect). Otherwise it is comprehensive, well-written, entertaining, and just the kind of thing I like to read during my lunch break. Also, it gives the impression that the writers are aware of the world outside Doctor Who, and doesn't give off the whiff of autism that emanates from so many other fannish articles. I imagine it will fail the nomination because of the pictures, though. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the images should pose a lot of problems. While the number of images used may be up for debate, it's clear there's no free alternatives to illustrate this article with, so claiming fair use on some images is in this case perfectly allowable - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. As noted above, the prose needs a strong copyedit to bring it up to standards. More importantly, though, this isn't really an article about the missing episodes themselves, as the title suggests, but an article about the loss and recovery of the episodes. It's historical rather than simply descriptive; and, aside from a better title, it needs a few gaps in its framework plugged -- most conspicuously, a summary of the missing material when the recovery process began in earnest and a comparable summary of the current state of the "inventory." A small amount of work is required for a substantial improvement in the article. Also, the timetable for audio releases mentioned here (finishing in 2005) doesn't match the schedule in the linked article (finishing in 2006). Monicasdude 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added a listing of the episodes missing at the time of the 1978 audit which have subsequently been recovered, with a link to the existing List of incomplete Doctor Who serials which lists the still missing material, and is probably too long to go in the parent article on its own. I hope that satisfies that point. As for the prose, I can't really comment on that as I wrote a substantial chunk of it, and it's always harder to edit your own stuff as I'm sure my fellow Wikipedians can relate to! So I'll leave tidying up my writing to others. Angmering 22:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, as nobody else had I've now gone through and tried to tidy the prose here and there where it seems appropriate. Let me know what you think. Please do point out specific examples of what you think needs changing if it still doesn't come up to your standards. Angmering 11:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I just corrected the last point (about the schedule), and updated some of the other information in the "Orphans" section of the article, to match information in the previous section. --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Looking good OmegaWikipedia 17:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Object. The article is very well done, and worthy of Featured Article-ness, but it's still not the best it can be. A little more work, and my vote will be a support, just do what those above me said. --Quadraxis 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the only things left to do to make this article FA worthy would be to go through it for spelling and grammar mistakes, and perhaps to consider changing the title (but the title change isn't that important). Keep up the good work! --Quadraxis 15:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Since I only tossed "two cents" in, I hope that qualifies me to cast an objective vote. :) I would say Support - I think the prose and flow of the article has come along nicely, and I think the other objections have been handled, and handled quickly! --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, seems reasonable now. Could maybe use a different title but I'm not going to object over that. JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. An interesting piece of UK TV history. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


I've been working on this article for a very long time, and I have to say that all the work has finially paid off. Please compare : [9] with Human ;)

Despite the obvious bias of each and every one of the editors (were only human!), we've finially managed to pull together and achieve consensus, in the best example of wiki-spirit I have yet encountered. Even if this articles fails this time, I'm sure it will succeed soon enough, given the wonderful team of editors involved. In case they don't already know, it has been a great pleasure working with them, a highlight of my experience on the wikipedia. Sam Spade 13:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It was indeed a pleasure working on this article with so many editors and of so many different backgrounds. A great example of a successful collaboration. Look forward to hear what other editors think about the article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t@ 14:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I once bumped on this, and is a HUGE article!Support! igordebraga 16:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:Map of skin hue equi.png has no source information, and has a note on the description page saying that "The map's intended use is in articles dealing with the history of the notion of race, and it should not be used as an up-to-date reference"
    2. The image Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg is rather confusing. Polar projections are rarely used, so they're hard to understand, particularly without some visual indication of the projection. The thick lines used obscure large areas of detail - and the drop shadows don't help. There's no indication of what the letters mean. There's no indication of what units the numbers are in. There's no indication of what the different types of line mean.
    3. The image Image:Evoskulls.gif is tagged as "fair use". There are two serious problems with this: (1) Fair use images must indicate the source. (2) Fair use images should never be used in series boxes or other templates.
    4. The image Image:Cavehand.jpg has no source information.
    5. The image Image:Kant.jpg has no source information.
    --Carnildo 19:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we can easilly accomodate all of those concerns. Sam Spade 20:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

*Comment—I'm impressed; it certainly is a major article that deserves to be promoted to FA status. I've looked at the lead and added a few inline comments. I'll come back from time to time and work through the article. Tony 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC) But now I'm having second thoughts. Tony 08:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Support a major article, a major topic. Just clear up those image concerns. Renata3 12:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What on earth is that Terminology section doing there? Please trash it now; it says nothing that needs to be said, and weakens the impact of the entire article. Tony 13:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Comprehensive, good top-level structure, but has several problems. These come to mind:
    • Too much explaining in detail what things are instead of explaining how they relate to humans. For example, "Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon operating in the three worlds of time, pitch, energy, and under the three distinct and interrelated organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody." Completely irrelevant. There are many similar instances throughout the article.
    • The article is full of single-sentence paragraphs, collections of random facts, and sections without internal structure. This particularly applies to the section on "Mind".
    • Replace instances of "Lorem ipsum... (See [also] Foo and Bar.)" with "Lorem ipsum ... foo ... bar ...". Get rid of the "See also" section entirely.
    • Replace the current mixture of inline links and Harvard style citations with footnotes.
    • Remove details. For example:
      • "on October 31, 2000"; "in 2000" would suffice.
      • "Geneticists Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending of the University of Utah have concluded that"; put the source information in a footnote.
    • Copyediting needed. Skimming the article revealed several instances of erroneous capitalization. I also spotted an instance of "da Vinci" (ew!) - Fredrik | talk 14:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I had some concerns over your concerns.:
      • See also is a very important section which gives all of the related topics in a concise manner in one place. I don't see why it should be deleted. Most FA's have it.
      • What's wrong with details (particularly dates)? This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to have details.
      • Whats wrong with 'da Vinci' (unless it's at the beginning of a sentence)?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Nearly always, the "see also" section is used as a sloppy substitute for actually using the article text to explain how other things relate to the topic. In other cases, it's redundant because the content is already covered in the article. Even when the section is appropriate, the links seem to be chosen on random. (This article has bits of each.)
        • Wrong. The purpose is to omit as much detail as possible, leaving only the essential.
        • The name is "Leonardo". Fredrik | talk 10:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I feel there are some problems with the writing in the intro:
    1. The human mind is "responsible for complex behaviour ..." The brain is responsible for behavior (although "responsible" is an odd word to use), but what's meant by the human "mind" being responsible for it?
    2. "Curiosity and observation have led to ... explanations for consciousness ..." It's not entirely clear what that means.
    3. "Religious perspectives emphasize a soul ... and are often characterized by a belief in ... God ..." Okay, but then it says: "Philosophy ... attempts to fathom the depths of each of these perspectives." Philosophy isn't just about fathoming the depths of religious perspectives, and no other perspectives have been mentioned.
    4. "Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings." But no concepts and feelings have been described, except God and souls, and music and art does more than express the concept of those. And neither of those is a feeling.
    5. [Humans] create complex social structures ... these range from nations and states ... and from the community to the self." Are we saying the "self" is a complex social structure? Yes, it might be, but that's a bold, unsourced claim for the introduction.
    6. "Seeking to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of technology and science as a social, rather than an individual, enterprise." It's a sentence that at first glance seems to have meaning, but when you think about it doesn't. How could one human being on his own have developed technology? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, this is just to clarify that the above are suggestions, not an objection. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Support. I think this is up to standard (not to say you shouldn't take suggestions!) but covers all the bases well enough to deserve this honor. Go for it. HereToHelp 19:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong object.

My query about the Terminology section hasn't been addressed—suddenly, immediately after the lead, the article turns into a dictionary, with capital letters, adjectives, nouns, and etymology; we wander off into the odd phrase about philosophy and religion, with mention of artificial intelligence and extraterrestrials chucked in for good measure. It seems like a trivial distraction before we deal with the biology of the species.

This leads to a more serious problem: the scope of the article, a problem that is already glaringly evident in the lead. The article doesn't quite know what it wants to cover, and seems to tip its hat at a wide range of topics—from music to trade and economics to technology to motivation to spirit—without a systematic or explicit goal. These topics, each of vast scope, is necessarily treated with extreme superficiality (music is allowed two sentences, language seven, and mind five); the connection between them is tenuous, and seems to rest on the fact that humans experience all of them; on that basis, we could include mention of every article in Wikipedia here. In trying to be comprehensive, it turns into fudge, which is only to be expected when the scope has not been strategically delineated. And, given the lack of delineation, it's far from comprehensive and is not of appropriate length (failing FA Criteria 2(b) and 5). Where, for example, is dance, an essential part of human behaviour? Where is mention of the bodily fitness indicators that play such important roles in the reproductive process, e.g., the female breasts and the penis, unique among apes in their size? These are complex matters. There's a multitude of others that beg treatment in the current scope.

It may have been viable to structure the article strictly around what makes humans different from other apes, avoiding the need to dip our toes into religion and economics and space-age technology in a laughably inadequate attempt to explain what it is to be human. Even then, this would have been difficult in a summary article. Or it might have been possible to thematise the human body alone OR cognitive capacity OR emotion OR sexuality, all solely in relation to other apes. That may have been manageable in a WP summary article.

There are factual errors, or at least misleading errors of omission (Criterion 2(c)). Take the treatment of bipedal locomotion:

'Humans exhibit fully bipedal locomotion. This leaves the forelimbs available for manipulating objects using opposable thumbs.'

This ignores the theories that this form of locomotion arose because of the advantages it bestows in high vantage point (seeing prey and predators) and speed (capturing prey and avoiding predators), or even in displaying the sexual organs to the opposite sex.

No, it doesn't. It's not saying humans evolved to be bipedal because having the forelimbs available conveyed an advantage (thought it clearly did); it's simply saying that as a result of the first, the second. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There's POV (Criterion 2(d)), for example:

'Human emotion ... can even be said to control human behaviour'. (Not sure about that one.)

'Humans categorise themselves and others in terms of race or ethnicity when it is useful to do so.' (These categories emerge not only because they are 'useful', and useful to whom, we wonder?)

Or: 'Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon operating in the three worlds of time, pitch, energy, and under the three distinct and interrelated organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody.' (What happened to timbre? Not all music cultures have harmony. What is the anthropological function of music?)

There are problems of logic and relevance, for example: 'The science of linguistics describes the structure of language and the relationship between languages. There are estimated to be some 6,000 different languages, including sign languages, used today.'

And finally, the language of many sentences needs fixing (Criterion 2(a)). Here are some examples, drawn at random:

  • 'the variation in the total stock of human DNA is minute compared to that of other species'—(compared with) for contrasts.
  • 'long-term habitation of these environments are not yet possible'—(is)
  • 'discrimination by humans based on one's own race'—(their)

The contributors have worked really hard, and I admire that; there are moments of interest, too, and the images are good. But this article should be withdrawn, broken into several closely delineated articles, and rewritten. I'm sorry to have to say this. Tony 15:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose per Carnildo. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 15:43, 23 October 2005 (CDT)
    • I believe all of Carnildo's objections have been addressed. Sam Spade 14:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- I now know more about me, thats just how well this article is written. Getting this article here must have been a monumentious task. TomStar81 05:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This article could of course include much more but its outstanding. The flow is a little broken but with so many topics covered it kind of has to be. I personally like the Terminology section, and would keep it although its not completely neccessary. Good job! Falphin 20:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportThis is excellent and very concise considering the huge subject it is covering. It should not be broken up, I remember someone once saying here very succinctly "only a fool unravels a cashmere sweater" and I think that quote certainly applies to this comprehensive article. My only quibble (minor) is: is it a little over linked? e.g animal, logic, speech, time, life and God just a few of the perhaps unnecessary (IMO) links. However, in spite of that minor quibble I strongly support this very well written and informative easy to understand page. Giano | talk 10:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)