Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2005 to November 2005

November 2005

2005 Southeast Asian Games

previous FAC

Palpatine

I'm nominating this. It is a comprehensive article, which is well-written, referenced, sourced, picture-ied, discussed etc. I've implemented most of Peer Review's suggestions, and I really see no reason why Palpatine couldn't be a Featured Article; it would be pretty neat- AFAIK, our first Star Wars FA. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The additional material was really unnecessary. It was a good, though bloated, article beforehand. Today's changes have largely succeeded in making it fatter with poor grammar and a variety of short, choppy sentences in the opening segment. - Anon

I feel I should note that the preceding comment is from an anonymous user's whose removal of references and other edits to Palpatine I've reverted several times now now. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Palpatine/archive3 -maclean25 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - Is it not possible to fork this article out? It's so long, 100 kilobytes, and looks very text heavy. - Hahnchen 16:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Impressive, but much too long. It needs a good copy-edit to get it down to a decent size. — Wackymacs 18:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above. Article is three times as long as it should be. Jkelly 21:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you two point out specific areas of bloat? --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. For ideas on how to trim the article without sacrificing any important information, see articles that make heavy use of sub-articles like Charles Darwin. It's slightly unusual to do so with a fictional character, of course, but hey, I'm all for it. Sub-articles let Wikipedia please both the people who only want the basics on a figure and the ones who want all the nasty little details. Best idea since sliced bread and templates, I says. -Silence 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• A division between film and expanded universe material would be a great start. - AWF

I'm not sure that's possible. I suppose one could divide by sections, and anything that is not a movie-section would be EU. But EU would inevitably contaminate (or vice-versa) the movies- how on earth could one possibly explain the opening of Episode III and General Grievous without drawing on EU knowledge of Grievous and the events of the Clone Wars micro-series? etc etc. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's why I suggest that we do just as you say: have one article for each of the six Star Wars movies he had a major appearance in, if there's enough information to justify making a new article. Then have a separate article for "EU" stuff in general, or something similar, again depending on how much noteworthy information there is (obviously not everything currently on the "Palpatine" page is noteworthy, like the move-by-move battle description; this is a science fiction movie, not a world-famous chess match or a Civil War battle), and mention the EU stuff on the movie pages only where it's directly relevant. Anyone have any problems with that idea, at least as a starting point for cleaning up this page? (The only people I expect to have any strong objections are the "fancruft" police who will demand that this page be scourged of information. :) But even that will be much easier to do once it's subdivided into different articles which can be individually checked for relevance.) -Silence 22:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me: I was saying that splitting by movie was not a good idea because Palpatine as a subject cannot be easily split that way. It is not a natural way to divide and categorize (albeit the current chronological, then subject, system is not perfect, it is a lot better than splitting by movie) by canonicity, because most people do not care about "Palpatine as solely an EU character" or "Palpatine as solely a movie character". Indeed, the meat of my previous statement was that the fundamental flaw of dividing suchly may be simply that it is impossible to divide the information that way- that the movies have come to inextricably be supported and explicated and borrowing from and nestled within the EU, that there is little relevance to the EU/movie distinction anymore, that effectively the prequel trilogy is simply EU in another medium. Grievous was just an example. But anyway, the battle descriptions you denigrate are largely gone: there has been a lot of editting on the article to try to address the concerns adduced here. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the current system is unacceptable. Little effort seems to have been put into Wikifying most of the Palpatine page, or properly moving sections into new satellite articles (in fact, the new attempts to move the article into new subarticles seems amazingly rushed, with absolutely no effort put into setting context for any of the articles, and the abrupt moves shattering numerous footnotes). The more I read this article, the more I feel that it needs at least three or four "cleanup" tags, not Featured Article status. "Palpatine becomes Chancellor" violates WP naming standards of using gerunds (it would be "Palpatine becoming Chancellor"), and is much clumsier than Palpatine's Chancellorship or similar. The liberation of Naboo needs the "the" removed from the title, and doesn't seem significant enough for its own article right now anyway. The article topic "Palpatine as a ruler" also doesn't make any sense; why is "Palpatine as a writer" a subsection of this? This article has lots of great information, but its presentation is a true mess; it will probably take months of work to get it to acceptable quality. -Silence 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. That would be my fault. I'll fix it tomorrow.--User:Jedi6 November 27, 2005

Maru: you do understand that StarWars.com has two different articles on Palpatine, correct? Under his entry, they have "film" and "expanded universe," each a distinct piece written for its own purpose (hell, they even have two more for "Darth Sidious"). As far as Palpatine's abduction is concerned, the opening crawl of the movie explicitly states what happened. You don't need EU material to explain it anymore than you would for the article on Revenge of the Sith. These are very poor justifications on your part. - AWF

What is right for SW.com is not necessarily right for Wikipedia. And a bare mention in the crawl does not explain and justify Grievous' entire stoyline or influence. It is your justifications which are sounding weak here. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

StarWars.com was used as an example. It's actually quite simple to divide information provided by film from information in EU material and I'd certainly be curious as to why that "isn't right" for Wikipedia. As far as the Chancellor's kidnapping is concerned, I'd also be curious as to how so many who saw the film had no trouble grasping this concept. There are millions worldwide who have never read a Star Wars novel or viewed the Clone Wars micro series for themselves. - AWF

• Yes, and you may even want to try having one Palpatine page for each Star Wars movie he played a major role in, considering how much information there clearly is to pass around. More room to grow, anyway. If you do decide to try our suggestion, then once you've decided what satellite pages to make, I'd consider moving most of the information there, and summarizing it on Palpatine with an average of 2-3 paragraphs for each section and a link to the main article using Template:Main. Also, of course, you should make sure to keep the satellite pages in good condition along with the main page; too many articles develop a large quality difference between the top page and the sub-pages, it's best to avoid that if you want to get Palpatine Featured in the future. I think the satellite pages idea is a good one. Even if it ends up being decided that the pages are too trivial and should be deleted (which I'd oppose), the process of making them and creating summaries for them will let you end up with a good, much shorter page anyway. So it's probably the best course of action regardless of what the decision ends up being. -Silence 02:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

How would the footnotes work? --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The same way they work in Hugo Chavez, an article that is very long, very heavily footnoted, and uses a large number of satellite articles. How else? -Silence 06:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. Too many fair-use pictures. I'd suggest getting rid of Image:Movie4 bg.jpg, Image:The Seduction of Dooku.jpg, Image:PalpyLightning.jpg, Image:Lord sidiyas.JPG, Image:Vaderrots.png, Image:Palpatine Ep6 DVD 6.jpg, Image:Swhde16 bg.JPG, Image:Empire.jpg, [[: and moving either Image:Palpatine1.jpg or Image:Emperor Palpatine DVD Empire Strikes Back.jpeg up to the infobox.
  2. The fair-use screenshots need to indicate which movie they're from on the image description page.
  3. The fair-use images that remain need to have fair-use rationales.
  4. Get rid of the blow-by-blow descriptions of combat. This is an encyclopedia, not a novel. For example, the third and fourth paragraphs of "Palpatine becomes Emperor" could adequately be summarized as "When Yoda confronted Palpatine, the two fought to a standstill, and Yoda fled".
  5. I'm sure there are other things that need to be fixed.

  --Carnildo 07:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is very hard for me to do, being a Star Wars fan and having editied this article myself before. But, my reasons are:

1. It's been said before, and I'll say it again: length. Length, length, length. Unfortunatly, when you split up an article it isn't much use as featured.
2. I agree with the above user that the article goes into too much detail with the fight scenes, but that's not it. The article gives a detailed synopsis of all of Star Wars. The article should be focusing on Palpatine and him alone. Touch, but do not elaborate, on the other incidents. To use the above example of the Yoda vs. Emperor fight, how about this: Yoda confronts Palpatine, and they fight thier way into the Senate chamber. At this point, both combatant lose thier sabers, so the fight continues with other Force powers. Eventualy, Yoda escapes, and Palpatine orders clone troopers to try to find him, to no avail. Palpatine senses Anakin is in danger. Palpatine goes to Mustafar, where Anakin has suffered severe injury at the hands of Kenobi and the lava. Palpatine rescues his apprentice and gives him his distinctive breathing suit.
3. I do not think this article uses too many pictures, but if you need to eliminate some, sacrifice the less canonical ones from sources other than the movies.

I still think you can do it...there is still good in the article...--HereToHelp (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• There are no "less canonical pictures." They are all in the same continuity. The Wookieepedian 06:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Take a look at the information on Star Wars canon, right here on Wiki. The ultimate form is considered "G-canon," meaning the content of film. Expanded Universe material is considered secondary and void altogether if it contradicts any material provided by Lucas himself. - AWF

1. • Oppose - The entire article is under a spoiler warning except for the first sentence. This is carrying the concept of spoiler warning to a ridiculous extreme. It should be quite possible to create a non-spoling lead paragraph, at the very least. Furthermore, the basic facts of Palpatine's biography are common knowledge to practically anyone who cares to read this article. Balcer 05:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed so I withdraw my oppose vote. Balcer 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I disagree. Numerous articles have only the first line or two non-spoilered, and then have an immediate spoiler tag that continues for the whole article. It's impossible to write about the details of a fictional character without giving away spoilers, and even the most basic elements of Palpatine's character can be considered "spoilers", since his very identity is one of the big mysteries of Star Wars. I agree that it's a bit silly (if the entire article is a giant "spoiler", then how can we use a spoiler-warning when really bad spoilers appear in the article, to warn off people who know the basics but not some important details?), but it's also quite standard. -Silence 05:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you consider certain factoids non-spoilers, then I could remove the spoiler warning: a fair summary/introduction. If Palpatine's dual identity as the Sith Lord Darth Sidious is not a spoiler, if taking over the galaxy is not a spoiler, if who kills him and when and where, is not a spoiler, I would be glad to move the spoiler tag further down. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would simply like to have something like what we have in the Luke Skywalker article, for example. A few sentences at least to indicate the importance of Palpatine as a character. I stand corrected though. The spoiler warning can be carried to even greater extremes: consider Anakin Skywalker.

The reason I am sticking to this point is simple: if this ever becomes a featured article, the lead of the article will be put as an abstract on the Main Page. And surely we cannot put a spoiler warning on the Main Page (at least I have never seen that done). Balcer 07:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Nah, that's nothing to worry about. If we included this on the main page, then we wouldn't worry about spoiler warnings, because our concern would be giving people a taste of the article's info so they'll want to learn more, not protecting people from the very info that we intend to tease them with. I see no problem with having a spoiler warning for almost the entire article itself on the page, and no warning at all on it's main page if it ever appears on the main page, especially considering that while a spoiler warning on an article stays forever, a main page appearance is only a single day's event, and thus shouldn't overly influence the content of every FA article in existence.
• Oh, and I've fixed the Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader articles, in response to your point about the "soft redirect" silliness. :) Let it never be said that Silence isn't an impulsive (and compulsive, and perhaps even repulsive) editor! -Silence 09:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object mostly on length concerns which other people raised above. The EU material should also be better separated from the film material (the cultural awareness gulf between the movies and the EU is really, really big). I do not have high hopes for this article right now, even though I'd like to see a Star Wars article of high standards to which we can then compare the others. Please note that I condensed the Yoda-Palpatine fight scene description as Carnildo suggested (in fact, using Carnildo's words verbatim), and the old description is now back. See this diff. I don't have the time or the patience to wade through the entire edit history, but I would like to offer my personal opinion: just because "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", we are not freed from the obligation of making it a legible one. Oh, and just to provide a bit of information, remember what David Brin says: The whole Luke-Vader-Emperor scene in Return of the Jedi is IRRELEVANT! It makes absolutely no difference to the success of the rebellion. The only characters who matter a bit in the actual plot climax are the wookie and Lando!" [1] Anville 12:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Anville, from an EU viewpoint Brin is wrong; that objection has been rendered moot by the retconning/addition of Battle Meditation- in essence, the TIE fighters were empowered by the Emperor, and had he not been distracted/killed, would certainly have smoked Calrissian (as you will notice they were doing quite adequately till they crashed themselves). That also goes for the fleet- the Rebel fleet would defintely have been pulped by Executor and associated vessels had the sudden withdrawal of Battle meditation not led to Excecutor crashing into the Death Star II and the fleet panicking. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any basis or source for this? What information ever claims that the Emperor was using "Battle Meditation?" (Especially considering that he was occupied before the battle began to even take place). Frankly, it sounds made up on your behalf. - AWF

Heir to the Empire. Thrawn Trilogy. --Maru (talk) Contribs 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's why that scene had to happen in the last movie, not the first one. It requires that you care about the specific characters involved to have any tension, since the fate of the universe doesn't in any way rest on what happens in that sequence of events. :) -Silence 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans Mint

Self-nomination. I think most of the issues that can be resolved for this page have been resolved. There's no way to get around the "long list at the bottom" unless you just cut that out of the article, which makes no sense, because it's relevant encyclopedic information. Anybody have ideas about how to reference information found in the Min Museum itself? That's honestly the references that need to be added. [posted by Absecon 59 00:14, 25 November 2005]

[See Old nomination]

• Comment. Why didn't you submit this to Peer Review after that was suggested in the previous nomination? This nomination seems to be an attempt to get feedback on how best to handle various problems with the article (like the fact that half of the article is a ridiculously enormous list; note that there's a separate FA for Wikipedia:Featured lists), not an attempt to nominate an article as one of Wikipedia's best. -Silence 04:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to what Silence says above, File:NOmintpostcard.jpg appears to be missing. Andrew Levine 04:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is in a poor textual arrangement. The images scatter haphazardly. The long lists at the bottom can be tabulised. It's better off to fix the article, getting things shipshape, before the nomination.

• Object, same reasons as before:
  1. The images Image:1907 NOMintpostcard.jpg has no source information.
  2. The image Image:NO Mint Booklet 2.jpg is claimed as GFDL. However, it appears to be a "slavishly accurate" reproduction of a two-dimensional work, and thus is not eligable for copyright. Further, the subject of the image may be copyrighted, in which case the only possible license terms would be "fair use" (which would be hard to claim, as this image is not essential to the article).
  3. The image Image:NOmintpostcard.jpg is missing.

  --Carnildo 19:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Bohuslav Marashek

Bohuslav Marashek. This article should be featured. That's all that needs to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.40.197 (talk • contribs) [2]

• Object. No references, no images, very short. Please see the featured article criteria -Silence 04:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Images are not actually a requirement for a featured article. — Wackymacs 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object per above. You might want to enter it for WP:Peer review for specific suggestions on what can be done. — Wackymacs 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl

I decided to clear out this nom and start it over with a clean slate. It has changed significantly since it was first nominated (so I'm not sure which objections are still applicable). In addition, there were several objections I found inactionable. The old nomination can be found here. Raul654 09:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remark: "It is cited as the musical descendant of Toni Basil's single 'Mickey'" is painfully over-erudite for an article about a pop song. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, you're right. I made a change for clarity (of course, not just because it's a "pop song"). --Tsavage 19:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remark - Wouldn't it be more constructive to refactor the original nomination, rather than remove it entirely? The inactionable, and the protracted sidebar conversations, could go. The central objections, mine, at least, still stand (or would have been amended if they were still here), as the article has only changed in terms of the objections (a significant part of that due to changes I've made, in response to my own objections). This seems like wiping the slate clean to avoid dealing with the process as it's unfolding (although, I don't know anything of the history of FAC...maybe this is normal?). --Tsavage 19:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done this before. It's unusual but not without precedent. Raul654 19:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I've not commented on an FAC for a song before, but here's a point, and I think it applies to many Wikipedia articles of this nature. The critical reaction section of the article only mentions a few online pop websites and maxim. Now, of course I respect Allmusic, I use it all the time. But, say in the UK, no one really cares that much about what websites say, compared to the specialist music press. I'd much rather see reviews quoted from NME, Q Magazine, and other US publications, like Rolling Stone. I've written a few new articles on some computer games, and where possible, I try to reference print magazines over things like gamespot and IGN. I know it's a lot harder to reference print reviews, but in my eyes, they are more established, professional and respected in the music world. - Hahnchen 19:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree 100%. That was exactly on my mind, but (as I maybe do too ofen), I deferred to my possible ignorance, figuring maybe Pitchfork, et al, were pretty well central these days. In the old days, (circa 1999-2000, I guess), it was still about (in the English-reading world), in the US, Rolling Stone, Spin, maybe Village Voice, and some big paper critics as the mainstream first line of music crit (for better or for worse). And in the much more print-oriented (and, um, literate?) UK, NME, Melody Maker, Q, Record Mirror (RM), etc, were the first to turn too. And then, there were always a few high-profile "underground" titles of the moment that generally had very relevant critical comments for their time. And yes, for all that is available on the free Web, I think if the editors don't have personal, first-hand knowledge to inform their research and synthesis (e.g. here, about, the music industry, music production, entertainment media, etc), it's hard to construct something really in-depth, to a Featured level compared to the many generally solid and informative articles on Wikipedia, from readily available online sources only. Case in point, omitting the remix history for a contemporary pop hit where remixes are available creates a major hole in the coverage, but someone who doesn't have an idea of the industry and subculture aspects of modern big label 12" remixes could easily not see this, as the broadcast edits of song and video would seem to be the "important" aspects. If each new FA reestablishes the standards, then I guess this is an attempt to establish a higher one for songs to come. (I dunno why I've become so attached to this one FAC, maybe its the sudden cold snap that's keeping me from the fields...) --Tsavage 19:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This article is already featured-worthy. --DrippingInk 20:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't personally care about where the review comes from. All that matters is that the song was critiqued, and was published. The point about the remixes and such is somewhat true and somewhat false, although I really have no idea what to do about its presence in the article. --Hollow Wilerding 21:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• To be honest, it's not a major point, and there is already a lot of information on the article. But I would just prefer more in depth coverage from established music publications. I know it's more difficult to find for a single, as they are rarely published online, but something like referencing some of the magazines as mentioned above would mean the article would have some unique information not found elsewhere on the web. - Hahnchen 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I see, I see; you're absolutely right. --Hollow Wilerding 23:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I hate the song, but this is a remarkably thorough article. Mareino 21:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - After the recent changes, I'm close to supporting, except for these specifics:

• The recent reversion of chart position notation from numeric (#1, #82, etc), to written out number-one, number eighty-two reduces readability and should be reverted. I don't know if there's Wikipedia style guide guidance for this, but the using numerals for positions is quite common, and employed elsewhere on Wikipedia.

• Please see any other mainstream music artist: Kelly Clarkson, Mariah Carey, Green Day, Avril Lavigne, Madonna, and their accompanying singles. You will see that the chart positions are written out in standard English, and not numerically. Chart positions in Cool (song)—which is featured today!—are also written in standard English. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• You're picking your references. There's no consistency on this in Wikipedia. The Billboard Hot 100 article uses both, FA "Layla" uses numbers (#27), and so on... Billboard itself uses "No. 1". I'm suggesting that, in a dense chart data section, the abbreviated, easy-to-read format makes sense. "#88 with a bullet" vs "number eighty-eight with a bullet". No. 88 is OK, too. (BTW, reverting w/o comment is kinda rude.) --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some singles articles have it typed one way, while some the other. I don't see what the fuss is all about. I'd prefer it to be typed in standard English because "#1" or whatever suddenly throws the reader off into a world of numbers before resetting in English again. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Setting aside the issue of consistency across Wikipedia, my point here is not to push for My Favorite Format, it relates directly to the issue of the long, unrelenting Chart performance section (addressed below). This is a reference article. Try this: scan the section and locate number eighteen and number four, and so on. Try it with #18 and #4. It's readability, or scannability, whatever. Anyhow, IF you deal with the other chart performance issue below, I'll drop this point, as really, it is WHATEVER as far as a standard format... ;) --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't plan on changing it, though. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I made the changes, at least, in the Chart perfomance section, and you summarily reverted them. Again, I believe I'm working within the process -- this objectinon is directly based on the amount of chart data included (and not a personal format preference), which as I've noted below is excessive for the info it contains. As it stands, "Chart performance" accounts for 25% of the article by word count, and most of that is US straight Billboard data. I find that unbalanced, most of it could be summed up in a paragraph or a simple footnoted list; one step would be to at least make that stuff readable. --Tsavage 00:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note that the "#1" style should be avoided because it will not be understood by many non-U.S. readers. If Billboard use "No.", then that would be a good choice, since it is more widely understood. (I would agree, by the way, that numbers should be used in preference to text for chart placement data.) — Haeleth Talk 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• The Remixes section should be in the main body of the article, not appended to the lists and stats section. (If there is a convincing reason why the Remixes are not a part of the general production and promotion story, I'll strike this objection.)

• Well how about due to the fact that remixes after often materialized after the release of the single? A single is never produced alongside its promotion. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• That is totally incorrect. Remixes can and do appear before, at the same time, or after a radio single is released. A remix may even be the "primary" single as far as play or publicity. If for editorial guidelines a "reference version" of songs had to be defined, there's a good argument for LP/EP version over the radio single (for one, since the radio edit--and music vid--tend to have profanity excised). Parallel example in film: if there are major differences in, say, US and Euro releases, do you pick one and footnote the other, or cover all the versions as part of the main article? --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough; remixes will be placed in the body of the article then. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Struck. --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• The Critical Response should be more representative of the music media. If it is meant to portray the fact that critics had diverging opinions, then this material should be otherwise presented. Some of the major music media response has to be included, such as Rolling Stone, NME, etc (see previous comment), at least a couple to augment the current selection. Considering the chart section deals with millions of units and radio and video impressions, the media coverage covered should represent the same scope.

• I honestly don't understand what you mean by this. Could you explain it more thoroughly? --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's kind of apples and oranges. Hollaback is a Big Hit. Critical Response should therefore at least include Big Media: Rolling Stone, Vibe, MTV, whatever, critical response from the media that presumably reach the same mass numbers that the song racked up in sales and airplay. Otherwise, a selection of quotes from college newspaper critics, for example, would be just as appropriate as Pitchfork and AMG (they're published, often well-written and well-circulated). And it's not online-offline, it's size and stature that should be relative to be representative. --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. A review is a review. Whether it's big media or small media, it's the same can of worms. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's preposterous. Think about it... --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Again, it's the same can of worms, the same field, the same thing: just a bunch of reviews. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Tsavange on this one - a review on Joe-Nobody's blog does not have the same weight as a review in Rolling Stones does. A request to use more mainstream, weighty sources is a totally reasonable (if difficult to fulfill) one. Raul654 10:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well you might be in charge of this FAC, Raul654, but just because you've made a comment doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly change my mind. --Hollow Wilerding 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but if you are going to be obstinate about the constructive criticism you are being given, then it sort of defeats the purpose of having your article reviewed. Raul654 02:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• However, like I've stated above, a review is a review: it doesn't matter if the source is not well known, because the result is going either be good or bad. I don't see the reason to include one musical source if another one is going to be excluded; I hope the article nomination does not fail because of this reason — that would be faulty generalization. --Hollow Wilerding 00:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• The Music Video section needs a bit more detail, at least the video director's name, and the shooting location (town or city). If this section is to be as long and prominent, it should match the length with depth.

• I've addressed your objections, however I cannot locate the city or town the music video was shot in. The only information I knew about its filming whereabouts was the state of California. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Objection satisfied. --Tsavage 05:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• The Chart Performance section is padded with irrelevant info, and needs a good edit:

Please note: Forcing all of this detailed explanation (below) may obscure the core objection for some (it's directly above), or make it/me seem overly picky or "against" this FA for personal reasons. I hesitate to think it's a tactic. The items below are examples, not a strike list. The fundamental problem is a section that takes up 25% of the article (a third if the redundant Charts section is included), while focussing primarily on US Billboard charts (the article summary states this is "an international success"). There is some notable, interesting info, like breaking the million download mark, but all of that can be expressed MUCH more succinctly. The peak position and trajectory data is also repeated in the Charts section. And much of it is so fleeting in nature, it is difficult to decide what couldn't be included here: e.g. fastest-rising single on the chart in 2005, as of when? still? we're IN 2005. IMO, basic editorial perspective and judgement needs to be exercised, to put this in line with the rest of the article. --Tsavage 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

1. It is US-centric; too much Billboard, too little rest of the world.
2. Why references to Mariah Carey and Kelly Clarkson, etc. In the case of breaking someone's record, maybe, but even there, the stuff considered here is changing monthly, annually. And I don't get the point of noting which song replaced which, and only arbitrarily (why what replaced Hollaback, but not what Hollaback replaced...?)
3. Why the reference to the ARC Weekly chart? It more or less says: In case you don't trust Billboard, here's another chart that says the same thing? Not justified.

Overall, I understand and support the value of a thorough section for chart fanatics, but this isn't it, this is mainly a lot of words about a bunch of Billboard charts and should be edited down accordingly.

• Why not list what songs replaced it? Why not list what records it broke, what records it didn't break, etc.? Also, most of what is written just comments on the song's that exceeded its time at the number-one position, and cannot be replaced monthly, annually, whatever. And why not mention the ARC Weekly Top 40? It's just another chart; we're not attempting to ask users to visit the website if they find Billboard is in a minority. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Respectfully, what kind of reply is that? It doesn't address anything specific in the objecton. For example, what is the purpose of stuff like this, how does it further comprehensiveness, usefulness, interest value?:
• It maintained the position for four weeks before being replaced by Mariah Carey's sixteenth U.S. number-one single, "We Belong Together".

• It's comprehensive because the song replaced it at the top position. Had the song peaked at number two, then the point would be irrelevant. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Then isn't it just as important/interesting/"comprehensive" to know what song Hollaback replaced to make it to number-one? --Tsavage 23:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I find it perfectly acceptable. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• For the week ending 29 October 2005, "Hollaback Girl" slid off the Hot 100, along with Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone". Although "Hollaback Girl" had been bigger, "Since U Been Gone" remained in the top fifty of the Hot 100 ten weeks longer.

• Longevity. Hollaback Girl was expected to attain the longest run of any single on the Hot 100 in 2005. However "Since U Been Gone" accomplished this instead. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I expect to live to a hundred, but...so what? Who expected Hollaback to attain the longest run? --Tsavage 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Billboard. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• This made it the fastest-rising single on that chart in 2005; once again, Mariah Carey's "We Belong Together" replaced it, and remained at the top for ten weeks. --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Again, which song replaced it at the top, and the fact that it was unable to spend the most time at number one in 2005.

• Yikes. I don't know what to say, other than, two down and four to go (and that there should be version timings in the track listings, and which version is 3:20 noted in the sidebar), and Carey and the others are irrelevant as presented... --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. The length timings would be nice to have, but they're just far too difficult to locate, especially if you live in Canada (like myself). The CD single is no longer in shops, and Amazon.com does not display them. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• That is not sufficient. Because material is difficult to locate does not invalidate an objection. None of my objections that have to do with content require ridiculously impossible actions, they are the type of thing any diligent researcher/writer would source as a matter of course (for example, in order to present a paper in school for grading, or an article to a professional publication). If I wanted timings, I'd contact the record company, the publicity department handles stuff like this all the time. If I wanted a basic music description, I'd contact someone with the skills to provide a technical breakdown that could be verified by simply listening to the song. (Please note, I have contributed new material and copyedits to this article over the course of this FAC as time permitted, but my priority isn't too make sure this article becomes an FA, otherwise, I would resolve all of my own objections. Trust me, it's all pretty standard stuff...) --Tsavage 00:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Missing a basic description of the music: song structure and recording. (This was in my objection in the previous nom proceedings, archived a few hours ago.)

• Having edited the "Versions and remixes" section and repositioned it back into the main body, the absence of a music structure section is now glaring. I thought about why this article seems so wrong: it is largely because it is written "fan-style" (whether or not the prime editors are fans) or just in a very contextually unbalanced and uninformed way, with a wrong weight and filtering of facts. The writing makes what has been given attention seem inappropriately lavished upon, like the drone-on about chart performance, and this sets off warning alarms, I imagine, with any truly interested reader. The same factual material, written with the right balance and tone, would maybe have gotten my support, if it "read right". Right or wrong, we are not data-filtering machines, presentation is of course CRITICAL... There is a reason why some people write, others don't. Of course that doesn't invalidate global participation in Wikipedia or the fine quality that comes from such but it does set up a barrier -- a much higher standard -- for FAs. Looking at "Cool" as today's main article is a little embarassing from the perspective of having given this FAC some extra thought. I checked a couple of previous song FAs (mainly, Beatles) and found basic syntax errors and typos just for a start, as if an FA couldn't be run through a spellchecker.... Anyway, on with the fight for, um,...BASIC QUALITY IN FEATURED ARTICLES. --Tsavage 14:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• You're objections continue to grow and I've reached the point where I'm about to give up because I'm exhausted from attempting to make this article as perfect as I can. Please note that There is no such thing as a perfect article. I will remedy only the objections that you posted before the sixth. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this is the perfect article. Nice try though. --129.173.105.28 21:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. There is no such thing as a perfect article. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is no reason to let clear imperfections slide. Does the impossibility of true perfection mean that we don't have to check our spelling? That we don't have to be comprehensive? That we don't have to cite sources? I'm confused here. Anville 22:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It is comprehensive. Spelling we should check — nobody's perfect. Our sources are cited. Is that better? --Hollow Wilerding 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment With all due respect, I cannot consider the article comprehensive in its current state. Tsavage made a very reasonable request for "a technical breakdown that could be verified by simply listening to the song". The way the article is now, I can't even tell if the song has an instrumental bridge. Why should I care about the many remixes if I know nothing about the original? Any article on a song should provide this sort of information before it can become an FA. This information might not be online, in which case a Google search won't find it. So whoever said writing a Featured Article was supposed to be easy? In each of the three articles I've pushed to FA status, I relied upon non-Internet sources. Consequently, each article contains information the Web could not provide elsewhere, making them de facto unique and valuable resources. The editors reviewing "my" articles held them to high standards; this may sound selfish of me, but I don't see why the bar should be lower for any other article. Anville 17:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Six actionable objections... --Tsavage 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm through posting to this FAC thread, except in response to direct actions against my objections. The objections seem to be clearly worded and easy to understand, as those who have commented on them, or posted below and acknowledged them, don't seem to have had a problem with their meaning. Thank you. --Tsavage 00:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC) I struck rather than deleted; in any case, on the point of my general comments here (which is unrelated to the FAC proceedings proper), I changed my mind! --Tsavage 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very thorough. I personally don't agree with any of the five objections listed above, but that's just me. B1oody8romance7 02:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral based on mixing external links and references within the body. Choose one system. The content itself I think fine having gone over it. Marskell 09:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I placed the references where they belong and the external links where they belong. Would you like to upgrade your vote? --Hollow Wilerding 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I was only neutral to begin with so my strike through oughtn't alter things. I hestitate to move to support, however–the comments from the main supporter for the article are, shall we say, needlessly aggressive. I don't want to vote on FAC based on attitude, but given that I don't actually have a substantial vote I feel comfortable simply striking out my comment and leaving be. Absolutely kudos on making the change though. Marskell 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'll be aggressive when the situation requires it; this isn't one of them. --Hollow Wilerding 23:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think your comment is indicative of a very poor understanding of what FAC is. 'Nuf said (as they say). Marskell 22:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's why man is entitled to assume — it doesn't mean he is accurate. --Hollow Wilerding 00:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Point proven. Marskell 05:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. More than anything else, I concur with the last three standing objections raised by Tsavage, of which I find the final one most compelling. In addition, the claim about the (ahem) scatological expletive made in the lead still has to be justified. This may be a remarkable density of profanity for a pop song, but it certainly isn't for pop culture. The claim may be entirely valid (assuming good faith, I'll grant that it probably is), but the article doesn't back it up. The derisive comments in "Critical response" say that the song's general lyrical quality is low, but they don't make a point about one particular word being used more frequently than the pop-song average. The Urban Dictionary "reference" also doesn't do anything for me. (Note: I've never heard the song, and if nothing else, this article convinces me I haven't missed too much. If that's not what the intended effect was, well, ...) Anville 10:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Your objections confuse me. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Extra strong SUPPORT! Since I just had to return to see Cool on the front page today, I decided to drop by this article's nomination. Seeing how it was reset (odd?), I figured I might add my two cents: I don't know how much information is expected to make up Hollaback Girl, but its current state is good enough. I worked hard on it, but some users threw me into a wall, which led me to quiting Wikipedia — so I return today for one last vote to the article that will be featured on the front page within the next few months. Hollaback Girl became my pride, devotion, and insecurity (literally, please). So please don't leave a message on my talk page relating to this issue, as I give User:Hollow Wilerding full permission to erase the page if necessary. If anyone fails to believe that, lead them to this nomination page. I support this article and hope that the majority of above objections are ignored. The article is complete. GOOD WORK EVERYBODY! GOOD WORK! --Winnermario (Goodbye's the saddest word)

• For the vote, thank you, Winnermario, for the comment about me allowing you to blank your user talk if necessary... thank you... I think... --Hollow Wilerding 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, provided that you put a footnote directly after the comment about Toni Basil, to provide a specific example, so it doesn't appear to readers as just a baseless claim. -- user:zanimum
• Oppose, sorry, but I don't find the writing to be FA quality. I'm not knowledgeable about this subject (not at all enough to copyedit it myself, unfortunately), but I have to agree with Tsavage about the presentation. I'm registering this objection because the bolded bits quoted by Tsavage above ("being replaced by Mariah Carey's sixteenth U.S. number-one single, 'We Belong Together'", etc) caught my eye, and I'm quite taken aback that such irrelevancies are offered in a FAC, and that good advice about them, such as Tsavage's, is slighted. Also, checking out the section "Composition and meaning" in the article, I find the prose rather incoherent, especially the first paragraph which is a collage of source text fragments slightly (too slightly, I would call it plagiarism) reworded, and combined without enough regard for what words and phrases referred to in the original context. Bishonen | talk 01:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the excess information, except for "We Belong Together" replacing it on the Billboard Hot 100. For now, that is all I can correct. --Hollow Wilerding 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, as the article is fantastic. Too bad the song is the pits..... 64.231.163.172 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Let's have more like it! We should be demanding of quality, but let's not get hung up on every little point. Remember you can't get everybody to agree on everything—trying to do that just means frustration. What's important is that everyone is broadly satisfied that this is a high-quality article. Everyking 01:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good comment, Everyking! :) I bolded your support so that it can be located with less effort. --Hollow Wilerding 02:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I was trying to avoid hurtful remarks, but if my oppose above is taken as suggesting that I'm "broadly satisfied", I'll have to be more blunt: the article is not well-written. In places, it rips off its sources, while degrading the style and structure of them. I also see serious objections remaining from others, especially Tsavage. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object based chiefly on featured article criterion #2a: "A featured article... should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. 'Well written' means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant."

• First paragraph is poorly-written. Second is well-written, but "Composition and meaning" has quite a number of poorly-written lines. Few errors in "Versions and remixes", but more in "Chart performance"; largely minor. The "tongue-in-cheek" bit is a bit lacking if it's trying to provide evidence of tongue-in-cheek moments (why is a cameo "tongue-in-cheek?"), and doesn't really flow with the rest of the section; it's in the same paragraph with the completely unrelated info about the music video's success, presumably to avoid being too short of a para on its own. Also:
• "Lyrics that are apparently directed straight at Love include:" must be substantiated with a citation, or at least some reasoning; I see no reason to assume they're targeted specifically at Love, considering how generic they are.
  • They are aimed at her. --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Requirement unsatisfied. Stating something doesn't make it so. -Silence 21:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Recommend moving second image to "Versions and remixes", where the version used internationally is briefly discussed.
  • Completed. --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• I also agree with several past objections, such as the ones regarding a lack of high-profile reviewers (Rolling Stone, MTV, etc.), and don't understand why Hollow claims that "A review is a review."; a more well-known source is always better than a less-well known source with the same credentials. Even more important is "Missing a basic description of the music: song structure and recording." (and instrumentation and etc.) — a Featured Article about a piece of music should spend at least a couple of paragraphs discussing the music itself, regardless of the situation, to meet the "comprehensive" requirement.
  • A review is a review. Rolling Stone reviews don't amuse me anyway. --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Whether they amuse you or not has nothing to do with whether they're as noteworthy as possible, which is what Wikipedia cares about. I find it vaguely ironic that you'd justify an editorial decision based on personal preference for a certain magazine over another, when you've (rightly) attacked everyone who's criticized the article based on subject matter, because of their own personal dislike of the song, rather than on the article itself. Still, since you do have a good number of reviews, one or two of which is sufficiently noteworthy, I'll change to "neutral" if you can meet my other concerns, even though ideally there'd be more mainstream reviews—as has been said above, the article doesn't have to be perfect. (The lack of information and analysis on the music itself is something that bothers me, though. How hard information is to find is irrelevant to FA nominations, only how important information is matters.)

• I will attack someone when it is necessary — that has yet to come. Okay, I will look for some other reviews for "Hollaback Girl", including All Music Guide. (Although I think those reviews are complete nonsense; The Emancipation of Mimi had tracks "It's Likte That", "Mine Again" and "Say Somethin'" checked as the best tracks on the album; after the successes of "We Belong Together" and "Shake It Off", the two tracks also had check marks, while "Mine Again"'s had disappeared. Rather fishy.) --Hollow Wilerding 21:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. -Silence 22:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Lastly, the Fair Use Rationale for some of the images seems rather dubious; note the fifth rationale in Image:Camera2.jpg and Image:Hollaback Girl music video shot.jpg, "I believe that this music video screenshot should be used as fair use because it adds variety to the Hollaback Girl article." I don't think any court would find that convincing. Hollaback Girl screenshots would "add variety" to my line of counterfeit T-shirts too, but that doesn't help make them "fair use". -Silence 07:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The last sentence you typed makes no sense whatsoever, but judging from what you wrote preceeding the questionable comment, I removed the line "I believe that this music video screenshot should be used as fair use because it adds variety to the Hollaback Girl article.". (I also corrected a humiliating typo I previously did not catch.) --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• What's questionable about it? I gave a valid reductio ad absurdum to counter a bogus fair use rationale you'd provided. :P But yeah, that satisfies this requirement. -Silence 21:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• If you do so insist. --Hollow Wilerding 21:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Unless I am terribly mistaken, or my computer is currently acting up, there doesn't appear to be a review on the Rolling Stone website for the song. --Hollow Wilerding 22:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone was just an example of a mainstream publication, its specific status is irrelevant, though there is an article in any case. -Silence 22:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• The article does not provide a review on the song. Despite that it does hint its presenece, it fails to communicate a complete message. --Hollow Wilerding 00:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• At this point, I would like people to begin pointing out where the article is not well-written. Every time I read it, I have no issues. Remember that there is no such thing as perfect English. --Hollow Wilerding 00:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Now that's just silly. "Perfect English"? That argument almost sounds like a parody of the "perfect article" claim, comparable to responding to requests for references to "remember, there's no such thing as perfect references!" The request is for Good English, not "perfect English". And, again, one FA requirement is "that the prose is compelling, even brilliant". -Silence 00:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• I would really prefer that people do not ramble about something unrelated to my question — because this appears to be a trend on Wikipedia: I ask questions, I receive an answer that has nothing to do with my question. User:Silence, could you please point out some of the English that you think does not meet the criteria of a featured article? --Hollow Wilerding 01:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• for Stefani's debut solo album Love. Angel. Music. Baby (2004).
• The song features a limited range of instruments, and a hip hop-influenced production, courtesy of producers The Neptunes (Williams and Chad Hugo).

• Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• The lyrics indicate that Stefani insists she is not a "hollaback girl", a response to Courtney Love, who labelled Stefani as the music industry's "cheerleader".

• Attempted to fix. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• a tough task, considering she felt there were already too many tracks to begin with.

• Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• The song is known for its repeated use of the word "shit" (which is sung thirty-seven times), and appears most frequently in the bridge

• Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Love had publicly accused Stefani of being a "cheerleader" for the music industry, essentially, an artistic sell-out.
• Lyrics directed straight at Love include:
• the bassline from the Queen single, "Another One Bites the Dust", is played.
• In a dark-humoured, line-by-line analysis of the song's lyrics,

• I don't see what is incorrect about this sentence, but I've fixed it. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• was produced by No Doubt bassist and former Stefani partner, Tony Kanal.

• Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• came courtesy of Diplo, a Philadelphia-based DJ/producer with a Miami bass background, known for fusing

• Fixed. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Need more? -Silence 03:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out some of the errors, and you are correct. I suppose my eye cannot catch every little detail, but it seems as though yours can! One concern, however: for Stefani's debut solo album Love. Angel. Music. Baby (2004). If there is anything wrong with this sentence, I might as well sink a ship. --Hollow Wilerding 13:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Added a review from Rolling Stone. If this pleases anyone, feel free to scratch your objection. --Hollow Wilerding

• Oppose Its simply not encyclopedic! Gwen ain't that important musically. It would be diffrent it it were an article about Ozzy, Rush, Madonna, Elvis, or even Bjork, but not Gwen. Plus, this is exactly the article I'd write if I were being paid by an independent promoter (ultimate scum of the music industry) to write an article. We need to prevent advertising. If Gwen were to someday lead to ska overpowwering dance music or something, great, her article should be improved and FAed, but not the individual songs. JeffBurdges 12:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think your objection is actionable, and is therefore irrelevant. I might be wrong though. Raul654, is this not the same issue that was raised by a user during the old nomination? --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please do not call me a promoter until you locate the proper evidence. --Hollow Wilerding 14:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Hollow Wilerding is correct - this objection is not actionable. Raul654 18:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I am objecting that this article does not "exemplify our very best work" because it is "not encyclopedic", which is a grounds for deletion. Gwen herself is obviously encyclopedic, but it seems work is being directed at individual soongs, not the author. I've not accussed any specific person of being paid by independent music promoters, but the pattern of work, such as targeting individual songs instead of the artists own page, is clearly consistent with such an agenda. Anyway, if my objection is ignored, it should still be taken as a request to mark the article as "not for the front page" JeffBurdges 19:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The rule of thumb where the featured articles are concerned is that: theoretically, anything that can survive VFD could concievably become a featured article. If you think this article is unencyclopedic, then nominate it for deletion (I'm confident it would end up being kept). This is not the proper place for objections that content is "unencyclopedic" Raul654 19:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• If an article is encyclopedic enough to exist, it's theoretically encyclopedic enough to be FAd. If you think that an article about a Gwen Stefani song is so trivial that it shouldn't even have an article, then the place to bring up that complaint is on the pages discussing what Wikipedia's notability standards should be, not on a specific FA vote, because currently a #1 song is always an acceptable article subject, and almost anything that's an acceptable article subject can, theoretically, become a Featured Article if it's made expansive, in-depth, and high-quality enough. You should be happy that we're discussing whether or not to FA "Hollaback Girl", rather than something like Bulbasaur or Porthos (Star Trek). Trust me, it can get much, much worse. -Silence 20:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, Bulbasaur is probably more encyclopedic than Cool; the pokemon phenomena was quite a bit more influential than Gwen; athough Porthos (Star Trek) is clearly not that big a deal. IMHO, this article should obviously not be deleted, quality should trump some other concerns. But not using encyclopedic for "featured" status lends considerable support to the deletionist cause. It would be different if "featured" was simply called "well-written" or "quality". Anyway, i'll be happpy as long as I know how to vote against the article for front page status. JeffBurdges 21:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note that none of the criteria on Wikipedia:What is a featured article in any way relate to the subject matter of the article. I understand your concerns, but our job here is to try to interpret the current FA policies and requirements in terms of the specific articles that are brought here, not to try to change how FA works on an individual level. If you believe that we should add a new criterion to FA that requires the article reach a certain level of "noteworthiness" above even that required to exist on its own as an article, then you should probably bring that up on that page's Talk page, and perhaps start a petition to get this requirement added. Fighting against a single article's FA is a minor and short-term goal compared to the change you seem to be advocating. -Silence 22:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I snipped the "Chart performance" section. --Hollow Wilerding 14:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have any actionable objection. But if it were up to me I'd like this article not to become featured. Almost every featured article is interesting to me and presents me with something I'd like to know but this one doesn't. In fact reading the lead leaves me with no interest in reading the rest of the article and forcing myself to do so anyhow presents me with little memorable content. I supported "Cool" because every concrete objection I had to it was fixed. But I didn't much like to see it on the main page and I would like even less to see another song by the same musician there. Don't get me wrong - I think it's great that Wikipedia has good coverage of contemporary culture. And maybe lots of people feel the article is a compelling read, even though I don't. At any rate I can't oppose because I don't see anything specific that should be fixed. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Not every Featured Article goes on the main page (not for a long, long time, anyway). If you think this article is FA-quality, but just don't like the subject matter and wouldn't want to see it on the main page because it's embarrassingly trivial, then I don't see any justification for not voting "support" for it. On the other hand, I do agree with you that the article could be more compelling and interesting; at least the "Cool" article told me a bunch of tidbits that I didn't know, but the Courtney Love backstory is comparatively simplistic, and many aspects of the song aren't explored at all, like the reason for all the "bananas" references, the random visit to the supermarket, etc.. (And there also don't seem to be any genuinely positive reviews for the song on the page: three reviews are treated as though they're "positive", but they really just come across as neutral descriptions of the song's style, which are then immediately followed by passionate denunciations of the song.) But "not interesting enough" is too vague to really be an actionable complaint either, so I'm not basing my objection on that. -Silence 19:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good points, all of them. I indeed don't so much mind this being classified as a good article but I would mind seeing it on the main page. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding Silence's correct observation about the "positive" reviews: Checking the sources, in all instances (LaunchCAST, AMG, Smirke/PlayLouder), they are taken from album reviews, and in context, serve primarily as brief song descriptions. Quoting them in a way that implies upbeat excerpts from positive reviews of the song, as is the case here, is inaccurate. The whole mixed critical reaction/polarized critics thesis, while quite possibly accurate, is not supported here. As presented, the info is at best misleading. This also calls into question the corresponding note in the introductory summary. --Tsavage 22:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• maybe lots of people feel the article is a compelling read, even though I don't - IMHO, if you take the time to comment, it's probably worth taking the time to formulate your comment into a Support/Object format. An important point here is that Wikipedia potentially makes "everyone an expert", so, while it would be obnoxious for people to constantly comment on things they "don't know about", it's not very functional to rely on "experts" coming in to make sure things are right. Here, for example, if you examined why you don't find the article "compelling" (I'll take the liberty of interpreting that as simply "interesting"), perhaps on a careful readthrough, you might notice that the "interesting bits" (unique, relevant facts) are few and far between, and also that some sections require significant reading time, while not adding anything that seems to you to be meaningful. These observations might in whole or in part correspond to a couple of my central objections, namely: 1. no coverage of the music structure and recording ("almost no information on what the song actually sounds like"), and 2. the long Chart performance section, followed by a Charts sections ("the positions and weeks and trajectories on so many different charts seem overemphasized/largely trivial"). I'm not trying to get you to object, this is a general comment, in that, if in practice, "actionable" is given too limited and technical an interpretation (as in: change this, footnote that), it becomes an avenue for an individual or small group to compromise the consensus/vetting process. If someone does not have specialized knowledge, common sense and editorial judgement are also useful tools for formulating both support and objections. Anything that's really off-base from a specialized POV should be easy enough to answer, in a way that allows other non-experts to evaluate, e.g. "All those chart positions are important because..." (Sorry if I'm going off on things that have already been discussed, or are self-evident from FAC actions elsewhere, but FAC is all new to me as of the last week, and Hollaback is one of the first I've participated in!) --Tsavage 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Those points are also very good. I would like some sort of meaningful analysis of the song. Why should I care about it? What's special about it? I think Rambot writes more engaging articles than this. No, sorry, that wasn't fair. But since, as you have perceived, I know very little about current popular music I hesitate to be too critical. I found it sort of interesting to read a detailed treatment of one song ("Cool") because ideas like "chart trajectory" were new to me. But seeing the exact same thing again makes me feel like I'm reading a bot-written article. I still don't know if I can formulate a vote on this. Maybe I'll sleep on it and give the article another read tomorrow. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object until all aforementioned problems are addressed. To Hollow Wilerding, you do not own this article and cannot force people to agree with your views, particularly regarding arguments about poor writing style and choice of reviews. Please don't tell experienced and respected editors that they violate FAC rules, but rather work towards a future FAC which can have consensus support. Thanks. Harro5 23:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Your comment is offensive as I never stated anywhere on Wikipedia that I own Hollaback Girl. Do not call someone out in a negative form when you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. –Hollow Wilerding 23:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have been watching this discussion (out of interest). Hollow Wilerding has never said that he/she/it owns the article. Hollow is the proponent of the article through the FAC process. This process requires a proponent to take a sense of ownership over the article to satisfy objections. However, Hollow's conduct has not impressed me, so I agree with the rest of your statement. --maclean25 02:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Are there any other objections that should be corrected? --Hollow Wilerding 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, per outstanding objections of Tsavage, Harro5 and Anville. Ambi 01:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything that could be posted below this message that should be changed in the article? The nomination is going to finish within the next day, I'm sure. Judging by the current state, the article is either going to be featured or not be featured. So any final objections should be raised now. --Hollow Wilerding 02:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm happy to keep this open as long as there is activity going on here (e.g, fixing valid objections and raising of new ones). I don't think you should write off ambi's comment like that. Raul654 02:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, thank you. Um, and you're right, I shouldn't have. Nonetheless, I will continue to attempt to correct all objections. --Hollow Wilerding 03:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If this is to be an article improvement edition of FAC, here's another point: In "Meaning and composition", I'm not sure how the Highlander item was obtained, but if it's based on lyrics only, the song says, "There can only be one" whereas the signature Highlander line is, "There can be only one!" (the pronouncement that explains that the immortals have to kill each other off until only one remains). So, unsupported, that seems a bit of a stretch in interpretation... Is that plain wrong information? --Tsavage 05:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Somehow, I'm getting in deeper and deeper... I borrowed LAMB (the LP) and, based on listening to the album version of Hollaback, posted my question about/problem with the Highlander comment to the Talk:Hollaback Girl--Tsavage 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I've finally got around to reviewing the article again and it has improved, but I'm afraid that I still have an outstanding issue with it. The Musical structure and recording section is only a sentence long, this needs to be expanded before the article can be called comprehensive. Leithp (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reached the conclusion to take a break from the madness that has become Hollaback Girl. I will renominate the article within the next month. –Hollow Wilerding 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Céline Dion

Self-Nomination. This article has come a very long way. I mean, a VERY long way. I discovered it in the summer, and was appalled at its state, so I decided to improve it (even though school got in the way). Ive worked laboriously, seeking the help of User:Mel Etitis and User:Extraordinary Machine, both of whom have provided valuable feedback. It was also submitted for peer review, (though only two users replied--User:Jkelly and the aforementioned User:EM). Here is the article before the others and I got to it: Celine Dion in August, and here is the finished product: Céline Dion. I think it displays one of Wiki's best work as it's comprehensively written and meets all the FA criteria. If you disagree, please provide constructive criticism and I will be sure to address them and resubmitt. Thanks Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 19:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. C'est magnifique! However, there are some consistency issues: francophone and anglophone are written in the article with both capitalised and uncapitalised initial letters.--cj | talk 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Balcer 01:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Enchanting article. Although I would advise you to place the "External links" section at the very bottom. Amazing work! --Hollow Wilerding 01:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. I would put external links at the bottom, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), "notes' should be at the bottom. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 01:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, really? I did not know this. Then that's fine. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Good job! --Hollow Wilerding 02:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Learn something new every day. I didn't know that either. Jkelly 03:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I too was surprised to learn this. I've posted a comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings) asking about it. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The article is better than most of her songs, really. :) Halibutt 02:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Objections: 1. Most of the images lack detailed fair use rationales. 2. I respect Stephen Thomas Erlewine, but there is far too much dependence on his and other All Music editors' reviews. 3. Focuses far too much on dry awards and sales information with only vague notions of the interesting aspects: What does her music sound like? How has it progressed between albums? What themes do her lyrics cover? What is the recording process for her albums like? What musicians does she work with on the recordings? Article also appears to not mention what label(s) she's been signed to and how they've worked out. 4. Lead section is choppy and needs to be tightened -- listing every specific award she's won and the year she won it isn't particuarly effective in hooking the reader to read the rest of the article. 5. Many albums aren't linked to, I assume because it would create glaring red links throughout the article. If that's the case then why not create stubs for them? 6. For discography section, suggest not listing compilations and the like, focusing only on her main albums, and save the rest for the discography page. —jiy (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. I will address those concerns posthaste. I also encourage anyone to help. 1) For the images, would you specify which ones in particular? 2)I know that the article focuses on AMG reviews, but that site is one of the most authoritative for reviews. And even if you search the net and find reviews, at the end of each would read ...All Music Guide. Ive tried incorporating Rolling Stones (they have only reviewed one of her albums), and Amazon.com Editorial reviews (which sometimes borrow from AMG.) 3)Now that you mention it, the article could talk more about her themes etc. However, most of her collaborations are listed in the article (or the ones worth noting), but thanks for pointing that out. 4) The article does mention her label (Columbia)-- as early as the lead section. 5)The lead section isnt the greatest, but its not choppy. I think its a matter of personal style, (that especially why there's no such thing as a perfect article) Again, thanks. Hopefully, my changes will persuade you to change your vote. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 03:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• No vote, but for a performer who so many people find bland and artificial, especially in her English-language material, you would think from this article that she was a critics' darling, which on the whole she is not. -- 08:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• support but not strongly yet.. good article to read / excellent referencing, easily better than many existing FAs but probably the previous vote is right that more negative responses to her work should be included. Mozzerati 21:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very encyclopedic. Has someone fact checked all the information? Wikipedia needs articles of this quality on all major people so we're not caught flat-footed when they're above the fold news.--FloNight 22:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the votes. Just to let you guys know, Im wroking on addressing the concerns of User:Jiy. Any help would be appreciated. I will also include more negative comments to balance it out. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 22:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support --User:UrineForGas 15:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support--compelling article. Most of the issues that User:Jiy had problems with seems to have been addressed. I think that it's a great article. Khalif 20:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I think jiy's points are well-taken and most of the issues have not been adequately addressed to this point. Relying on Allmusic blurbs for critical perspective is like quoting from Amazon staff reviews; this is not the stuff of a serious encyclopedia. This is part of why the article fails to synthesize its material so as to allow the reader to evaluate her career, instead filling out primarily with awards, chart positions (CHR Audience Chart? BDS era? What are we talking about here?), and gossipy personal factoids. The fact that the authors seem ignorant of the difference between Rolling Stone and (The) Rolling Stones is symptomatic of the problem. For somebody with an extended career that has received a tremendous amount of media coverage, there's a large pool available of significant, generally professional, critical material with both positive and negative assessments (hint: not all of it is available online). This article barely dips a finger into it. --Michael Snow 21:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object After reading the article I can't but agree with the anon's and Michael's objections above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There's far too much overreliance on AllMusicGuide and Amazon staff reviews to give any really deep sense of critical reception, especially for a singer with a strong reputation for producing bland schlock. 90% of it reads like it was written by her publicist, and the other 10% like it was written by the staff of People magazine. Andrew Levine 18:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, as per Michael. Give us more meat in the references and notes sections. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I understand all of the comments, but the people magazine thing was a stretch. Ive really worked hard on the article, and none of the constructive comments seem to point out anything good about the article i.e. what should stay/what works etc, then go on to what's bad, poor ect. Now, Im not angry or anything (in fact, Im far from that), but I beleieve that you could be a little more sensitive. Now, on to more important matters: I know that the all music guide references are a stretch, and Ill remove them, and find other ones. (Again, I ask for help). Maybe the article was prematurely nominated, I dont know. Anyway, there were some who thought that it was excellent, or atleast, very good.

Also, why does everyone think that Dion makes mediocre music (User:Andrew Levine and others)? The lady has won five Grammys. Can mediocre music win Best Pop album, Best pop vocals,(twice), and the most coveted Album of the year and Record of the year awards?. I really don't think that theres much pov in the article. Before the 2000s, Dion did make good music (as can be shown by her awards→Grammys etc), she does have a good voice (shown in the fact that she was voted as the 9th greatest voice in popular music, and the 4th most outstanding pop vocalist on earth). And please dont be against the inclusion of album sales in the article, its shows the fan's reaction (popularity), just as how the reviews show the critical reaction. I agree that since the millennium, she had lost her spark (for lack of a better word), and she has gotten unfavourable reviews. Ive included all this in the article: Rolling Stone reviewer calling her music "schlock pop". Ive used quotes that proves that her album/singles are "uninspiring", "lifeless", disastrous , "forgettable" "predictable", "inconsistent" and a host of other words. The fact remains, however, that she is not as loathed by the critics as you want the article to potrey.

Ill see what I can do. And i would encourage people to give other ideas of how it can be improved (instead of joining the band wagon by saying as per Michael ...) Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) ^{Make Céline Dion a FA!} 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you regard the criticisms of the article as insensitive to your efforts. But we have to be firm and rationale here. Let's face it, the article needs more research. There's nothing wrong with that -- featured articles should not be rushed.

Maybe a different approach is needed for addressing the article's critical eye. Critical perspective is not a simple matter of seeking a representative for each extreme and quoting them. Perhaps a broader perspective could be achieved by reading multiple reviews and extracting the common criticisms and accolades between them, then formulating it into prose. It is not a matter of just "good" and "bad", either, but also how her work fits into the overall framework of music. Industry awards and sales figures are not indicative of artistic worth, and the reader cannot infer worth from these aspects alone.

Before things get too far out of perspective, though, we must keep in mind the critical side is not the only aspect to focus on. There are no interviews (in other words primary sources) in the reference section. Surely a more detailed and accurate picture of this woman and her career, in terms of biography and history, can be extrapolated from the various interviews that have accumulated over the years. By using VH1 and fansite biographies for this purpose -- secondary sources -- we are basically summarizing summaries. Perspective, detail, and accuracy is lost in this way.—jiy (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I voted as I did because Michael said what I thought. FAC is a process that relies on consensus, and if I did not voice my agreement with Michael, it would be as if only Michael felt that way, which would increase the likelihood of the article being promoted without our concerns being addressed. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats totally understandable. Sorry for the outburst . like I said, Im not angry :). Now, come to think of it, the article could use some improvement, I been rereading it (especially the last part) and Im not too happy with it. Im gonna make sure that it does reach FA status. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support, because the article is very well thought out! 64.231.163.172 23:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Good article, lots of information. Terenceong1992 17:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A very good article, but could use a good deal of expansion before it satisfies the "comprehensive" requirement. Could also use a good copyedit, lots of strange word choices like "Though her albums were relatively successful, it seemed as if Dion had already reached her plateau since the late 1990s, and her albums failed to really ignite critics and fans." Is this saying that Dion is living on a plateau because of the existence of the late 1990s, presumably to hide from prosecution for setting her critics and fans on fire? Less casual and vaguely POVed terms in general will help give the article that extra inch it needs for FA. -Silence 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Reads quite well, long but there's a lot to cover. My two specific objections echo some of the objections above:

• Almost no coverage of Dion's MUSIC. After a brief mention of her genre influences, the rest is mainly the critical and sales performance of her recordings, and other details of her personal and business life. There is nothing about her actual singing: her voice and her approach to making music. As it is now, I suppose this format represents one type of "accepted" music biography, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to promote it as a Wikipedia standard, not if it could clearly be improved as far as comprehensiveness. For example, on Wikipedia, I looked up the first dozen or so names of popular musicians and singers that came to mind, and found among them two articles which do attempt to treat the music; neither are very well done, but I think they illustrate the missing dimension that should be a part of all MUSIC articles...coverage directly related to the music itself: Billie Holliday, The Edge.
• Over-reliance on AMG and use of Amazon.com. - If critics are to be quoted, there should be a reasonably representative variety of sources, not almost exclusively one writer from one source. Using Amazon.com as a source of critical reviews doesn't seem right, as these reviews appear on the pages devoted to selling the product that they are covering...

• Comment: I heavily disagree with this specific part of your objection. There is no rule on Wikipedia that states "articles must have reviews from various music/film/food etc. critics". As long as there is a review featured from a specific source, the story is settled, and it adds to the article. Having "over-reliance" on certain reviewers is a POV-reason to object. However, I partially agree with your other objections, though this article already meets FA status in my eyes. —Hollow Wilerding 23:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

--Tsavage 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Ive addressed many of the concerns that arose from the article. Ive removed the superfluous A.M.G reviews, and I found some other reviews, Ive spoken about her music, and the transition of her albums, the instruments used etc (and removed most of the dry awards and sales). Ive linked the albums, provided firuse rationales for each image, oh, and the Intro is changed a bit. Ive used the Kylie Minogue article (a featured article) as a model for this one. Does anything need further attention? Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1997 Pacific hurricane season

Attempt 1
Peer Review

Second try. It is well-referenced, meets standards for the appropriate WikiProject, has many PD pictures, covers everything in detail, has appropriate use of spinoff articles. This is a self-nom. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good. Everyking 01:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good work but there are several stub sections, short paragraphs and short sentences. — Wackymacs 07:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • • Support Looks excellent now. — Wackymacs 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded the sections on Tropical Depressions a bit. Could you please name which other sections you find too short? Some of the sections are short because there isn't really a lot to say about a cyclone that lasted 2 days and never threatened land. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Almost all the sections are too short, because there are too many subheadings. For example, 'Tropical Depression Three-E' and Tropical Depression Five-E' are both only one sentence long. Each section should be up to two paragraphs long. If there isn't enough context to put there, then they should not have their own sections. — Wackymacs 07:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I put the depressions in their own section. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
• Support, though I'd recommend expanding the stub sections. –Hollow Wilerding 14:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- would it be possible to reorganize the article so that the storms are treated by maximum intensity? That is, first cover tropical depressions, then tropical storms, then hurricanes, then Paka. Keep them in chronological order within each section, but cover all the tropical depressions in one section (no subsections) so that there aren't any super short sections, as there are now. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I put the depressions in their own section after the named storms. The named storms are in the order they formed during the season. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
    • That's a start. Now I'm wondering if separating it by month would be helpful... the bottom line is that this article has a really big table of contents for the amount of information, and that means that sections should be consolidated. I'll make the change so you see what I mean. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've changed the navigational structure of the article so that there aren't any short sections, so I'll support now. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Because of the radical and bold changes, this article is very different from when it was first nominated. For that reason, I am closing the nomination and sending it to Peer Review because some of the original comments may not apply to the changed version. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Delrina

• Self-nomination. A fairly exhaustive article on the company that was best known for being the creator of the original WinFax product, but influential in many other fields. It is well researched and backed by appropriate references, and contains information not collected together in a cohesive format anywhere else that I have been able to find. Have found interesting and representative screen and product shots to illustrate the article. Has already gone through a peer review and have plugged most of the more-pertinent dead links, as well as other suggestions. It is what I hope is an interesting slice of software corporate history, for which there are not too many examples on Wikipedia (at least when it comes to "dead" companies). - Captmondo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very well done. The only quibble I have is the large amount of red links around the second half of the article; having those cleaned up would be nice. Otherwise, excellent work! The Catfish 03:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. Good-looking article I'd be happy to support if it had some citations to printed works, e.g. articles in the business press. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A point I hadn't considered, and I can see the point. Ideally a range of sources is a good thing, not just those found on the Web. Guess I'll have to head down to the reference library sometime soon and brush up on my microfiche-reader skills... ;-) Captmondo 22:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But in this modern age, printed works are searchable on the web! Try Google Print... I've only glanced at the results, and they're not all relevant, but you may be able to tease some citations out of there. — Haeleth Talk 23:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the suggestion Haeleth! Have managed to find about four *relevant* print links, which I will be adding to the article in due course. I was really surprised, since I doubted very much that there was much out there that wasn't strictly product focused that would be in print. Captmondo 10:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Done. Print references now provided. Captmondo 03:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A fully-written article on a relatively significant company. Amazing that the company was essentially based in my backyard, and I used their products, yet I've never really heard of them. This article just helps to prove my ignorance! -- user:zanimum

• Object I think it's a great article for content. It seems to provide a thorough profile of a notable software company. But I have two points:

Writing needs cleaning up - Overall, it's OK for readability, but there is quite a bit of loose construction: a couple of typos, word redundancy, etc. The whole thing needs a once over, and particularly the lead paragraph should be tighter.. Examples of sloppy construction:

• Over time, parts of the company would be sold, such as the sale of Delrina's Group Electronic Forms Division to JetForm in September 1996.
• Other than WinFax, perhaps the other best known product Delrina released was its series of screensavers products. The original purpose of any screensaver product was to ensure that there would be no phosphor burn-in of images left on a CRT based screen of the time, but Delrina added sounds and some interactivity with its series of screensaver products, arguably qualifying it as an early form of multimedia.

Were there any common-industry-knowledge issues/controversies or other negatives associated with Delrina over its history? - I ask because, the flying toasters and Opus aside, this is a notably clean, trouble-free corporate story. Was a decision made to write this strictly on a "business facts" level, omitting other "newsworthy" stuff that may be of interest? For example, big companies like Symantec often bought out smaller competitors or would-be competitors to kill off the competition. Was there controversy around the sale...? Or, was there a notable problem with, say, a version of WinFax that people might remember? I'm not looking for, or expecting "dirt", just wanting to be assured that this isn't a selectively clean version.

--Tsavage 00:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The first point is well-taken -- I am my own worse copyeditor. ;-) The second point is harder though, and while I don't doubt that there was controversy, I couldn't find it. I don't doubt that there were bad reviews and a few problems with the software *are* noted, and the relatively well-known court case over the screensaver is noted. At some point this becomes more an exercise in journalism than in encyclopedian-ism, and in some cases absence of dirt may simply mean that there were none to be found (or at least, that was publicly documented -- this should not be a place for conjecture).

Will spend some more time with this article before resubmitting as a FAC and see what I can find by way of further info, and will try to clean up the text as well. Cheers, and thanks for the constructive criticism. Captmondo 21:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I just skimmed the article again (I read it the first time), and it does seem to be THOROUGH. It's the kind of piece I'd like to find if ever I needed to look up Delrina... Once the copyediting is done, should it be resubmitted to FAC, for what it's worth, I should have no problem with supporting it. Later on... --Tsavage 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

English language

English language is the world's most widely taught second language. One-third of the world's population can speak some English. There is no reason that there are objections. 202.40.210.164 09:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object: a couple of things to begin with. 1) No clear references section. 2) Lack of flow to the structure. Some sections (e.g. the Constructed variants and Sounds sections) are just thrown at the reader with no introduction. Too many list-like sections. Some very short paragraphs. Overall, not a very good example of the English language. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object: a complete, well-written article, but there is no References section, and there are very little graphics/no photos. Ronline 09:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

^_Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

**Just as a matter of interest, what photos would you expect to see? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) question answered below. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object I agree with the previous points raised: poor flow, lack of clear references, too much list-like prose. The "history" section, at the very least, could be illustrated with photos of significant manuscripts (from Anglo-Saxon on up). It's always worth combing Featured Pictures to see if anything is germane. Anville 09:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: Gallery of illuminated manuscript images may also be a good place to start a hunt for appropriate images. If none of the images in this gallery, or the galleries listed in the See also section, are appropriate then the image description pages should provide useful links to libraries and museums that have images of historical manuscripts available. Another possibility is authors who have had a major influence on the development of English such as Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare. --Allen3 ^talk 23:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I HIGHLY encourage a part discussing the impact Chaucer and Shakespeare had on the language, as that is sadly little known. I have studied both extensivly in university classes and have come to the conclusion that English would look nothing like it does today at all without these two men. According to many sources, Chaucer is responsible for the vast majority of England's interest in the language. That is to say, many people who spoke either local celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, or other languages learned English specifically so they could read Chaucer. My understanding is that before him, it was mostly just a language used for trade and not used much in private. As for Shakespeare, I've heard the play Hamlet alone contributed 500 new words to the English language. In fact, were it not for him, we would be retireing to sleeping chambers at night rather than bedrooms, as the word bedroom did not exist before he used it. Out of all of the authors who have ever written in English before or since, Shakespeare's works contain more total vocabulary than any other. Contrafool 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The main reason you nominated it was its epic importance, so we shouldn't let it be featured until it is at the very paramount of our standards. -- user:zanimum

• Object The article does a fair job, but most of the objections listed above do seem quite valid and proper considering the nature of the article itself. To my POV, Filiocht says it best here: "Overall, not a very good example of the English language." One part that really irritates me about the article (aside from the quality of the content dealing with earlier incarnations of English) is the "External Links" section. It is begging for a Wiki-scythe to come sweeping away the weeds. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Insulin

This article is very well written and informative. It is a jewel of Wikipedia that should be considered for featured article status. --153.104.27.107 01:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lacks references. KingTT 02:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No references. Andrew Levine 05:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Sufficient references, I think. There's a reference to a book on the history of the discovery, some links to various historical sites, and so on. This is not a topic about which controvery demands copious references. It's pretty well settled what the substance is, how it's produced, and what it does; little dispute there. This stuff is important enought that it has earned 3 Nobel Prizes for scientists studying it. ww 07:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No references. --Oldak Quill 10:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lacks references. --Hollow Wilerding 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Let me be slightly more detailed than those above. Put references in a "References" section, as per FA requirements. Make sure there are sufficient references. The reason references are required, even in non-disputable articles, is due to the fact that ANYONE can edit this encyclopedia. If we don't prove that what we say is true, how can anyone be sure that they aren't reading, for example, sneaky vandalism? We need to be verifiable in every aspect. Fieari 15:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unreferenced, even the easy-to-find ones (such as the Banting-Best paper cited in diabetes mellitus). It makes no use of the subarticles intensive insulinotherapy, conventional insulinotherapy, could use a microscopic image of the islets, etc. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose. Good-looking article, it just needs a bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article incorrectly suggests insulin therapy is limited to humans. Article also needs at least short systematic discussion of the various types of insulin formulations (e.g., NPH, Lente, ultralente). Monicasdude 04:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Søren Kierkegaard

• The Father of Existentialism himself has a very nice Wikipedia piece indeed. I belive that this is a wonderful article in every way and very worthy of being a featured article. Cited sources, plenty of imagry, and highly informative. 72.15.175.129 00:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd love to see Kierkegaard featured, and I'll be back when I've actually read the article, but, to be going on with, I'm afraid the incomplete references alone preclude its being featured right now. The last three items in the References section are quite unhelpful, with two of them being mystifying Wikipedia articles (which should be under "See also", except... no, not there either) and the third a collection of "Links to online resources" (you might as well list Google.com under References). Disregarding these items, then, remaining as references are "Alienation in Hegel and Marx" from the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, "Adorno’s Reception of Kierkegaard: 1929-1933", and a 5-page article "Kierkegaard, the Apophatic Theologian". These are all short non-print pieces, off-centre to the general topic of Kierkegaard, and the article can't possibly have been constructed on the basis of them. No way. I looked over the External links section also, to see if it would help to upgrade some of them into references, but, no, it wouldn't. (I assume the " Religion After 911" is a spam vandal addition? General cleanup of this section is needed, there are dead links, also.) Bishonen|talk 05:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I repaired some of the links and reordered the links to have the more important web links listed first. I also made the Biography section part of the references, since I myself used Alex Dru's Journals and Hannay's biography to add some points to the article. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 06:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The biographies are fine, that helps, but References (=sources, works actually used for the article) must be kept separate from External links (=recommended online further reading), which can't be a sub-section under References. A link like for instance Online Library Catalog at St. Olaf College; select Kierkegaard Library from the menu to search for books and articles isn't a reference, not even close. The Reference section is for information about where specifically the facts in the article come from, to enable the reader to check that information in those sources (print or online). A library catalogue can only be an item under External links, or (better yet) Further reading, and then only if it's exceptionally useful and the reader can't find it easily via Google; by no stretch can it be an item under References. Also, I see that the mysterious Wikipedia articles that I complained about above remain under References, Kierkegaard, Wikipedia Reviews of Works and Kierkegaard, Primary Sources. As I said, they don't belong there. Wikipedia isn't a reference for itself. What are they anyway? Kierkegaard, Wikipedia Reviews of Works--note the very strange name--is a big redlink collection which I'm tempted to put on WP:AFD, but perhaps it's some kind of work in progress? It obviously needs moving, anyway, but to what? And is it really claimed that it has been used as a reference for Søren Kierkegaard? How...? Bishonen|talk 11:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've now separated the links that are referenced in the article from the other "Further Reading" ones. As for those mysterious articles, I don't know what the original author intended for those, but I just made them subpages of Kierkegaard, until it can be integrated into the main article somehow. Reviews of Works looks like a Complete Works List while Primary Sources looks like a Bibliography. It's too bad that more of Kierkegaard's individual works aren't on Wikipedia. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 13:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I too would love to see Kierkegaard featured. A fascinating philosopher and I think this article provides a concise view of Kierkegaard's main philosophy. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 06:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would love to see the discussion of his philosophy adequate to be FA quality, but for a long time now this article has been one of our sorest wounds. The discussions of his various works are spotty (some there, some not) and incomplete. I'm not supporting or opposing at this point, but I've been waiting for a long time, now, for an actual Kierkegaardian to come along and fill in the stuff, from Either/Or to Concluding Unscientific Postscript, charges of anti-rationalism becoming mysticism, charges of misogyny, the troubled relationship his philosophy has had with the various churches, the way his philosophy has prevailed despite official opposition, his place among other reactions to Hegel and Kant, etc. It's a big, big, big topic. Geogre 13:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes it is a big topic, but after seeing the tons of conflicts in Friedrich Nietzsche, I'm not so sure about adding everything into it; maybe just the basics for the encyclopedia. But I was planning to write a section on Kierkegaard's criticism on Hegel and on the Corsair Affair before I'd submit it for FA status. The anon beat me to it. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 13:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The edit history of User:72.15.175.129 shows that he/she has made a total of 9 edits, and this FAC was put up by that user on his/her fourth edit. This is not in itself a reason to object; the article must be judged on its own merits. But I would feel more comfortable about this FAC if someone did an IP lookup on one or more of the article's regular contributors and did a comparison. Thanks. Saravask 07:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC) No need. My mistake. Good luck to the nominator. Regards, Saravask 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget to AGF, Saravask. And we only do IP checks on suspicion of major wrongdoing. It's only of marginal interest whether or not 72.15.175.129 is a major contributor, but perhaps he/she would like to enlighten us? Bishonen|talk 11:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. While the biographical portions of the article seem quite well written, the bulk of ==Important elements of Kierkegaard's philosophy== has a way to go before it even reads in an encyclopedic fashion (although I see it has improved some already since the FAC nomination). Specifically, it has a lot of first-person singular and plural references, and large paragraphs that lose track of the fact that this is all "according to Kierkegaard". Of course, just adding "Accoding to Kierkegaard" at the start of each sentence would leave a mess, too. I'll also note that there is at least one section where I can see a whole page of text onscreen without any links at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Good points by Bunchofgrapes, Yorick, George. However: he article is accurate and describes the central tenets of Kierkegaard's philosophy/theology accurately. Everything on the page now is what a bystander would want to know (and more) about Kierkegaard. Issues of his relationship with churches and the stances of political institutions are secondary -- I agree that they can/should be added. Additional analysis with regards to Kant, Hegel, mysticism, and specific works like Either/Or and Concluding Unscientific Postscript, would risk dangerous and unagreed-upon academic grounds, and should NOT be added (or, if added, should speak carefully). The Nietzsche page, as stated, is a clear example of this danger; and a more in-depth analysis of Kierkegaard would prove controversial. I also don't find the first-person writing all that bad. It reflects Kierkegaard's own style and delivers the point well. So I think the accuracy of the article is fine. Just needs to be a bit more comprehensiveness with regards to Kierkegaard's impact on the world in which he lived: Denmark, the Church, etc. --i.h.

Seinfeld

• Great Show, Great Article. Detailed Article, and has sources cited and deserves to be a featured article for meeting criteria. FireSpike 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comments: I'll withhold a vote for now, but have a few issues which need to be addressed. All screenshots and other fair use images need fair use rationales, and please get rid of the funny lines used as dividers in the characters section. More problems will probably surface with others too. Tell me, has the article undergone a peer review? Harro5 00:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too many non-free images. I'd suggest getting rid of all the non-free images except Image:Seinfeld.png and [[:Image:Seinfeld characters.jpg]. Also, Image:Seinfeld characters.jpg needs information on its source. --Carnildo 01:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Plenty of work to be done:
  • The structure of the article needs work. "Overview" is just too general. The lead, if anything, is the overview. A more logical and informative section hierarchy is needed.
  • "Memorable incidents" is pure trivia and doesn't even belong in a sub-article as far as I'm concerned.
  • "Product placement" is not unique to the show and I don't see why it should require separate treatment, let alone a whole section.
  • "Music" and "Awards" are merely over-specific lists sprinkled with prose.
  • "Criticism" seems to be merely fan opinions with plenty of weasely "some"s in it. Summarize this quite brutally and insert into a history of the show (or something like it). And the opinions of a general audience and critics, not fandom, is what should be focused on.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Apple Macintosh

This is great article that has been through the Article Improvement Drive. Over the past few weeks there has been tons of copyediting and revision of the entire article, and we all feel that it is well deserving of Featured Article Standard. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article is, unsurprisingly considering the subject, overlong. The history section in particular needs to be spun off into a separate article and condensed for the purposes of this one. The narrative of its development is extremely clunky and disjointed, seeming to introduce Jef Raskin three separate times, then later bringing up Hartmut Esslinger and the Snow White design language as a "key move" without any indication of why this was important. And, despite the section's overall length, the article manages to devote all of one sentence to Jobs vs. Raskin and the whole "Father of the Mac" issue.

Other problematic writing is scattered throughout. "In 1990 the Mac had gained widespread acceptance, but it was generally seen as too expensive" - huh? "In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Macintosh sales have been increasing continuously" - okay, did we need each of those years listed individually? Is the article trying to tell us that sales increased "continuously" not just year-over-year, but month-by-month as well, or is it just the hagiographic tendencies of Apple enthusiasts getting the better of them? (See also the skating over of internal company politics.) --Michael Snow 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I went through the article and copyedited almost 10k out, along with a major cleanup of the history section. I think 32k is basically unreachable for an article of this caliber, and many of our FAs are indeed longer. What do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 00:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement, and I'm not insisting on 32k, but the 51k it was at was excessive. Another section that I would suggest needs condensing is the advertising section. For that matter, upon reviewing the source of the illustration for that section, I am considerably skeptical about the accuracy of the information in the first two paragraphs. It's difficult to be sure how many Newsweek ads ran, since it appears to talk about the same ad twice but with different details, and the page lengths stated do not match what appears in the source.

The writing in this section is as atrocious as some of what got cleaned up in the history section, which doesn't help the situation. I have the impression that this was filled in by somebody writing whatever came off the top of their head, without bothering to be careful about checking what they thought they knew. Obviously, that doesn't cut it for a featured article. --Michael Snow 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:IMac G5.jpg has no source information.
  2. The images Image:Emac.jpg, Image:XServe G5 Ext.gif are claimed as "fair use". It's quite possible for someone to make a free replacement for them, so there's no reason to use a fair-use image here.
  3. The images Image:Apple Macintosh Desktop.png, Image:MacOSX10.4.png, Image:MacIntroBrochurePage1.jpg, Image:Apple Special Event Photobooth.jpg are tagged as "fair use", but have no fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 00:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Image:Apple Macintosh Desktop.png, Image:MacOSX10.4.png, Image:MacIntroBrochurePage1.jpg - fair use rationale added.
  • Image:IMac G5.jpg, Image:Emac.jpg, Image:XServe G5 Ext.gif - removed from article, searching for free replacements. Free images in the table commented out until free images for all products can be found.
  • Image:Apple Special Event Photobooth.jpg - removed as not really necessary to illustrate the paragraph in question.
  • -- grm_wnr Esc 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 01:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As per above. 64.231.177.76 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• object one line sections shouldnt exist (Apple_Macintosh#Models) use wikipedia:summary style or remove the section and move the link to a list. --Jiang 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Line moved to "See also" section. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support However the article could be a bit shorter and the last few sentences of the market share section need citations. Cedars 00:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object I have done a lot of work on this article but I must object for now, because there are still a few problems in the English, it does not have an excellent flow. It is also very long, exceeding the 32KB suggested limit. — Wackymacs 08:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

See above. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Support Nice work, looks lots better now. I must agree, it is hard to reach 32KB limit, there is just so much information to mention on this topic. — Wackymacs 01:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me, though the objections above need fixing. Ambi 23:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object.
  1. Make the captions more informative.
  2. Try to cut down on the size without destroying any data. Provide a bunch "main article:" and "see also:" links.
  3. Pictures of other macs? make sure you have the links
  4. All other complaints.

Get that done and go for it. HereToHelp|talk 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A very well-done article. But a lot of terms many people won't know (graphical user interface, Steve Jobs, Lisa, etc.) are not defined. They are wikilinked, but it's my opinion that users should not have to follow a bunch of wikilinks to understand an article. -- Mwalcoff 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Well done, but no. Not until this huge rendering difference issue with firefox is resolved. B1oody8romance7 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Looks fine to me in Firefox on a Mac, and should look OK in Firefox on Linux/Windows as well. — Wackymacs 18:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What skin are you using? There's a big difference in how Classic and Monobook display certain types of image layout. --Carnildo 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy

This is a good quality article that I think should be a FA. It went through a peer review back in July (there wasn't much of a response, unfortunately) and I believe the issues raised have been addressed. As to my participation in this article, I have made some minor edits, nothing substantial as far as I can remember, mostly copyedits. Akamad 12:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I'm concerned with the level of unattributed opinion in the article. A quick scan read throws up "some people", "some sources", "some claimed", "some critics", "critics, some of whom", "many other critics", "leading many to deem", "many who listened", "many military officials" and "many civil rights leaders". Who are these people? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • There are entirely too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which really chops up the prose and doesn't allow for a good flow to the article.
  • I'd like to see some better organization to the article; for example, under "Early political career" there are details about Kennedy's marriage and stillborn child. These have nothing to do with his political career, so I'd recommend creating a specific section dedicated to his personal life. (You could probably put it under "Image, social life and family" but I think that deserves a full section and not just a subsection.)
  • At points, the article reads like a "list in prose". It's not a list per se, but it seems to be little more than an annotated timeline at times. (In 1950, this happened. In 1952, this happened. Then in 1953, this happened. ...and so forth)

Good luck! PacknCanes | say something! 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  • Very unevenly written. Some paragraphs are excellent, but between them are one sentence paragraphs that often seem out of place. For example, "Years later, it would be revealed that Kennedy had been diagnosed as a young man with Addison's Disease, a rare endocrine disorder. This and other medical disorders were kept from the press and the public throughout Kennedy's life." is the second paragraph of early life. Not only does it not fit, it is hardly important in the overall role his childhood played in his becoming president and the greater influence that had on US and world politics.Dtaw2001 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The images Image:JFKPT109.jpg, Image:JFKSENATE.jpg, Image:Jfknixon.jpg, Image:Jfkspeech.jpg, Image:JFKNASA.jpg, Image:KennedyCabinet.jpg, Image:2005 proof Kennedy half dollar.png have no source information.
  2. The image Image:Jfkatbcin56.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  3. The image Image:JFKMLK.jpg has no source information. "Fair use" cannot be claimed without knowing the source of the image. Also, there's no reason to use a non-free image here.
  4. The image Image:Kennedy bros.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but it appears to be for decorative purposes only. This isn't allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use.
  5. The image Image:JFKCasketLeavesCapitolHill.JPG is claimed as "fair use", but I'm sure there's a public-domain replacement somewhere.
  6. The image Image:Democratslogo.png, used in the template {{USDemPresNominees}}, is tagged as "fair use". Non-free images are not permitted in templates.
  7. The image Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but has no source information. It also has what appears to be a copyright statement dating from 1992 in the lower-left corner. If at all possible, this image needs to be replaced with a free image; if not, source information and a fair-use rationale need to be supplied.

  --Carnildo 23:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object, although it's nicely structured with a lot of good material. I'm not an expert in US history or culture, as you will be able to tell from my comments. (a) Almost all of the links in the See also section should be included in the main text of the article (in fact after looking more closely, I notice some of them already are). (b) While I don't necessarily disagree with the assessment, could the statement that the Cuban Missile Crisis "brought the world closer to nuclear war than at any point before or since" be argued rather than asserted? This assertion is even stronger than the assertion in the Cuban Missile Crisis article, which is itself not backed up by direct evidence. (c) "Patsy" is US slang, and not in common usage elsewhere afaik (I had to look it up, anyway :-) - can this be reworded? (d) What exactly does the phrase "he was the last Democrat from the North" mean? (e) The intro states the assassination is often considered a defining moment in American history both because of its traumatic impact on the entire nation, and because of Kennedy's elevation as an icon for a new generation of Americans and American aspirations. However this is not discussed in the article, even in the section "Assassination and aftermath", and there is no mention anywhere of the impact of Kennedy's assassination (if any) on the rest of the world. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

M1 Garand

The M1 Garand was the first self-loading rifle to become a standard issue weapon in the army of a major world power (the US), and was the only semi automatic rifle in service for the majority of World War II. Has been extensively edited and supplemented, and in my humble opinion the article is very well written. A very significant rifle in the history of firearms, and one that may quite well have influenced the outcome of World War II. EDIT (11/15): I have given the article what should be complete references. Unsigned comment by Banana! (talk · contribs)

• Object, no references. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: gave the article a once-over and added website references.--Banana! 18:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It's a nice article and I learned a lot. However, I think that the references should probably be incorporated into the text. Also, some copyediting would probably help - two discussions of the ping, etc. Great work! InvictaHOG 20:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Drop a note to User:WegianWarrior. He was essential in bringing Kammerlader up to featured status and he knows his fire arms. He might be able to provide some helpful insights. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

MMORPG

I do think this article do deserve to be featured, it is well in length and depth. It's well written and very comprehensive, after all it has been cited as a resource by BBC, even though it might still lacks some pictures. --Yamamoto Ichiro 00:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Too long, should be split up. Needs a more comprehensive lead section (merge "overview" section?). Doesn't follow Wikipedia's stylistic conventions (e.g., uses second person pronouns). Prose isn't brilliant; lots of list-like sections of single-sentence paragraphs. Fredrik | talk 00:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Lead needs expantion, external links should be moved out of main body to references and linked via Wikipedia:Footnotes, more pictures and references would be useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:WoWScrnShot 090404 231112.jpg seems to be used for decorative purposes only. This does not qualify under Wikipedia:Fair use, so the image should be removed.
  2. The image Image:Runescape222.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but does not have a fair-use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 22:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien

Partial self-nomination; this article has been quite stable for some months now, and there are six FAs on other language WPs that partially derive from it. I've looked it through again, and while there are some minor things that I would phrase differently, as a matter of personal taste, I do think it is fair enough, and would welcome more scrutiny. As possible objections, I see the liberal use of "fair use" images (actionable easily enough, either we keep them, or we scrap them), and the bibliography (cf. the Talk archive; I would prefer to keep it in the article, but others may vote to export it; compare the (featured) de:J._R._R._Tolkien, where they take an even more radical approach, including the list of poems we have exported to Poems by J. R. R. Tolkien). The ToC may also be a matter for discussion; I have given this quite some thought, and at the moment I see no better organisation than the "Bio/Writings/Languages" sections, but maybe there are better suggestions. dab (ᛏ) 13:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object, as follows:

1. Everything in the "See also" section is linked from the text; is its presence necessary?
2. The "Professional life" section looks like it could be expanded a little; but I'm not certain how much material of interest is actually available.
3. I've never seen a citation style that places the date before the author; is this actually in use elsewhere, or is there some other reason for it I'm unaware of?

Other than that, it looks to be a very good article. Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

1. yes, I've just trimmed it, leaving only the single few most important links. You can remove them too, if you like, it's a matter of your philosophy of the "See also" section.
2. I've just created it. It could be merged back with "Personal life", but then I'm at a loss for a good title ("Middle age"?)
3. this is also on purpose; it is how I usually do bibliographies on biographical articles (obviously not "literature" sections for references or further reading). The idea is to present the works in their chronological order of the author's biography. We can certainly also change that format if people don't like it.

dab (ᛏ) 18:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

uh, I only just realized that the "Further Reading" section is in the same format. I agree that this is not very good, and I'll change it. I've converted it to {{Book reference}} style (which doesn't look very good for collections with only editors but no single author; maybe we have another template for those?) dab (ᛏ) 18:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Support after those changes. I generally favor minimal "See also" sections, but, as you mentioned, it's more a matter of personal style than anything significant. As far as {{Book reference}} goes, it's rather inflexible; but I prefer Chicago style, so I format references by hand in any case. Kirill Lokshin 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a very good article but is missing a few bits of final polish.
  • Too many fair-use images by far. Wikipedia:Fair use states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." In most biographical articles, that means one picture of the subject, in the lead, though I think I could support two here. (It would be nice if there were a picure from around the '40s, though.)
  • Not enough references in the text. If I were to try to fact-check the article, it would be quite difficult to determine what facts come from which source. Only quotes from Letters are treated as I would expect.
  • Speaking of quotes from Letters, it took me quite a bit of hunting to figure out what book that referred to. When I did find it (under "Posthumous publications", I wasn't given a publisher or ISBN number, which might make it hard for me to find the book, or the right version if there are multiple (which I'm guessing there aren't, but there could be in the future, possibly). I think you need a separate "References" section, which might have some duplication with the bibliography, to help readers find the books referred to in the text.
  • The "Professional career" section needs to be expanded or possibly merged with the "Personal life" section. One way or another, the one-paragraph section needs to go.
  • I think the article overlinks years and dates; if you really like that style, I won't fight it, but it's more-and-more the case that we're not linking years and dates, and it does make reading a little easier.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• regarding the fair use images, there are three in total: the two 1972 images, and the book covers. The remaining three are PD, dating to pre-1916 (in the US and most other countries, probably not in the UK. I do think that for our purposes US law applies (the KJV is copyrighted in the UK, and yet we have it on wikisource)). There will be no PD post-1916 images of Tolkien, so I do think the fair use rationale applies. There is also Image:Jrrtolkien2-sm.jpg which I removed because I was unable to date it.

I'm no copyright expert. But those pre-1916 images are currently tagged as "copyright unknown" and "fair use". If there's an argument to be made that they are PD in the US (I thought the author had to be dead for 70 years for that, or something), then they should be retagged. Even assuming we're convinced the pre-1916 pics are PD, that still leaves too many fair-use images. We don't need two 1972 pictures, and I don't believe a good fair-use argument can be made for the book covers in this article at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In the US, everything published pre-1923 is public domain. --Carnildo 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding the "career" section, we can merge it back (see above), but what section title do you propose?
• Regarding the references, I'll see what I can do (but help is appreciated of course).
• dab (ᛏ) 09:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I do not want to object, but the lack of anything on how he made his bread and his importance to philology is startling. There are books both on the influences of Anglo-Saxon literature on his work and, of course, Tolkein's own Anglo-Saxon and mythographic writings. Tolkein earned his bread as a don of Anglo-Saxon literature and language. I'm not competent to go into it, as I only minored in medieval literature, but there are others who can give a summary of his linguistic career. He was important there, as most Greatest Generation Oxford dons were, and having a biography that doesn't mention it is not comprehensive. The coverage of Tolkein as fiction writer is fine, but there is the rest of his work to consider. Geogre 11:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (this should maybe go to the article talklpage) -- well, Tolkien fans tend to exaggerate JRRT's importance as a medievalist/philologist. We give a full list of his academic writings. Sure, he was a professor of medieval literature at a prestigious University. But considering that, his contributions are not outstanding, and I doubt we would even have a stub about him if it wasn't for his legendarium (there would maybe be a citation on the Beowulf article, but that's about it). In his letters, his professional work is most prominently mentioned in his complaints that the yearly exams are tedious and boring. His academic output is, as is mentioned in the article, remarkably meagre. We know why this is the case, it is because he preferred to spend time working on his legendarium. So there you have it, you are welcome to add professional details, of course, but the fact of the matter is that the account is about balanced as it is. dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You're being slightly unfair; Tolkien's Ancrene Wisse is one of the major entries in the EETS series of AW/AR texts, and Norman Davis' revision of the Tolkien/Gordon Gawain is the standard edition at Oxford. Sure, we probably wouldn't have an article for him just for those, but they may deserve a mention in the prose as well as the list... Gawain in particular. — Haeleth Talk 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I might be mixing some facts here, but didn't he write an actual annotated version of Beowulf that was only recently discovered/published (I think this is a different work from "The monsters and the critics")? In any case, I do think the actual influence of Tolkien's work on the study of Beowulf deserves to be extended beyond the passing mention in the "1920s to 1950s" section. I do believe there is enough evidence that he is considered a prominent Beowulf scholar. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• I hate to say this, but while the content is great, the style is letting it down in places. For example, the paragraph beginning "In 1911, while they were at King Edward's School, Birmingham" opens with a gargantuan sentence, that spans several lines, with numerous clauses, separated by commas, which could beneficially be split up, into three or four shorter sentences. The next paragraph then switches back and forth between past and present tense as it moves between quoting Tolkien's letters and describing a holiday he took - the effect is confusing and difficult to follow. Similar shortcomings are found throughout. So basically I have to say that I think this article needs a bit of copy-editing before I can happily support the nomination. That's my only concern, though, and if it really doesn't strike anyone else as an issue, I won't hold up the process with a formal objection. — Haeleth Talk 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This really needs inline citations. Use inote or noteref or whatever system you want, but please give us an indication of where the info is coming from (book and page, etc.) --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• SUPPORT, I personally don't care for inline citations in a non-research paper. The toast is TO THE PROFESSOR! Take the Oxford Tolkien Quiz HERE--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object as per Spangineer. We DO need a mechanism for readers to readily vet/verify the article's statements and claims. Saravask 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • as a reply to those wanting inline citations, the entire "Biography" section is a summary of one single reference, Carpenter's Biography, now listed under "References" rather than stashed away under "Further reading". Imho it would be silly to give page numbers every other sentence. I will try to reference all statements that are not in Carpenter's biography. dab (ᛏ) 14:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not asking for a page reference after every sentence, but perhaps a page range after every paragraph or two. Normally books are fairly well organized, so I would expect that the info on Tolkien's childhood would be all together and thus it would be fairly easy to give a range of say 10 pages within which all the info in the first two paragraphs of the section is contained. Thanks for working with us on this; I know it's a pain to have to retroactively add these things, but especially in light of all the criticisms of Wikipedia accuracy and such, it's really important. --Spangineer 22:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, conditional on the lead being shined up. Congratulations to dab on a masterful article, and I'd like to support, but the lead section is supposed to summarize the article as a whole and bring out its most salient points, and I don't think it lives up to this. Even though skimpy for the length of the article, it contains less-than-essential details (a reference to C. S. Lewis, who is by no means extensively treated below), and one long, difficult-to-parse sentence: How are the posthumous books about a legendarium, rather than being a legendarium? Is the earth called Arda, or is it called Arda and Middle-earth, and why does this bit of terminology, out of all others, deserve to be in the Lead anyway? The last sentence of the lead is sadly misplaced, ruining the roundedness that the previous sentence had nicely imparted—committee editing? An improvement drive please, and a plumping-up, too. Bishonen|talk 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support'. Great article to put it simply.--Wiglaf 00:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

'Neutral/comment. Very good, but not great. Fix it up, tweak it, get it perfect. One thing I did notice was that the pictures seemed to stop abruptly about half way down. Could you remedy this? Overall, though, not bad...not bad at all. HereToHelp|talk 00:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support'. Brilliant article. The see also seems repetitive. I feel it can be replaced by {{Lotr}} & {{Middle-earth}}. --Pamri • Talk 13:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Evan Mecham

Self-nom. Biography of one of the more unusual political figures of the 1980's. Has been through peer review, and I believe that all issues raised have been addressed. --Allen3 ^talk 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Awkward writing in a number of spots, including poorly-written passages like "calls for Mecham's resignation were made from a variety of state political leaders" and "served only to strengthen allegations of Mecham's racism allegations." Also still a rather one-sided presentation, with heavy emphasis on his public perception (racist buffoon) and almost nothing on his substantive political agenda. Case in point, the "Economic impact" section, which in one sentence lists some accomplishments and then spends two paragraphs on the fallout from the Martin Luther King Day controversy. Apparently he resolved a sizable budget deficit, which is rather interesting from somebody who campaigned to reduce taxes, but that's all the information we get. How did he do this (and for that matter, how much of it did he do as opposed to state legislators)? Did he end up raising taxes after all, or cutting services, or did the revenue picture change, or what? This is the sort of thing that would provide a more complete picture of his career; the caricatured version we already know about, even if the caricature was well-earned. --Michael Snow 22:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have copy edited the text and added more information on Mecham's positive accomplishments. Hopefully what I have been able to find will satisfy your concerns. There are more details about the governor's time in office, but the items I have left out tend to just add to the common caricature without exploring any new territory. --Allen3 ^talk 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. And I thought Bob Taft was a bad governor. I'd recommend that you define some of the people and groups you mention -- the ultraconservative John Birch Society, Republican U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater. A lot of readers will be unfamiliar with American politics, and you can't expect them to click on every bluelink. -- Mwalcoff 04:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I believe that all such links have now been better defined. --Allen3 ^talk 01:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. PedanticallySpeaking 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I wondered what had happened to him. Only thing, fix some of your sentences like,"The 1992 election also saw the passing of an initiative that created a paid Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday in the state of Arizona.".Daniel Case 03:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Much of the content is good, but it reads like a history of Mecham's controversies, as opposed to a more complete biography. The governorship section could do with a serious rewrite for structure, and I wonder if the early life, political career, and after office sections could all be exapnded slightly. The "efforts to remove him" section, however, is great. Ambi 00:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Bayreuth Festival

recreated incorrectly archived nom from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bayreuth Festival

Article is complete with references (bibliography) and links to supporting data and information. The primary source for my contributions to the article was the book by Prof. Spotts of Harvard University. The aticle features an event that has played an important role in western culture. Dtaw2001 16:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This article has not yet been peer reviewed. I have thus created a request, Peer_review/Bayreuth_Festival. This nomination should perhaps be considered static until the peer review is completed. Dottore So 17:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Do articles now have to be peer reviewed before coming here - If so since when? Giano | talk 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• What was the purpose of the books included in the bibliography section (now renamed to references)? Where they used to write the article (in that case they should be called references) or are they just "recommended reading material"? A bibliography is most commonly a list of books written by an article subject as in "the bibliography of Shakespear includes Romeo and Juliet". To avoid any ambiguity on what the word means, it's best to name it differently if the books were not written by the festival, which is clearly the case. Also, how can a festival have a discography? Doesn't that belong to some orchestra who played there? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, they are references. As for the discography, the festival has its own orchestra, and these are the more significant recordings from the festival. Dtaw2001 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

• I think more is needed on the early history of the festival. The following should be addressed:

(1) Why did Wagner feel he needed a special festival to showcase his own works?

(2) How was the Festival conceived, planned, and the money raised?

(3) What were the particulars behind the selection of Bayreuth?

(4) Possibly a note about the designer of the Festspielhaus (Gottfried Semper) & how he arrived at his designs.

(5) Some point should be made about how unusual a Festival devoted a to a sole composer was for the time. (Still is, really.)

• Additionally, the period between 1890 and 1920 should be fleshed out a little bit. Perhaps some mention of

the role of figures such as Strauss;

the influence of the Festival's performances of Wagner operas elsewhere (e.g. New York);

the transition after Wagner's death. Dottore So 10:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to make the additions you suggest, although the note about the designer of the Festspielhaus (Gottfried Semper) properly belongs to the Festspielhaus article. Perhaps the influence on operas elsewhere may be too much also. The rewrite of the introduction looks good. Dtaw2001 12:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know the answers to most of these, otherwise I would have gone ahead and added it in. If no one can provide expertise, sobeit. But on thinking aboutit, I believe the origins of the Festival really should be covered. As for Gottfried Semper, I am in the middle of translating the German entry on him into English, so that should cover it. As you say it more properly belongs on the Festspielhaus page anyway. Dottore So 16:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Object: What is written is interesting and good. However, the page seems to me to be incomplete, there is far too little about various performances and who sang them. In fact there is very little about opera at all. Is the festival a show case for new interpretation etc? What keeps the festival fresh each year to attract the crowds. Does it continue to make a profit, if so how much. Why can't the director be forcibly removed. To little at the moment, but it has great potential. Giano | talk 18:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valence electron

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Self-nomination. --218.102.227.98 13:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Without in-depth reading: the lead is too short, too many single-sentence paragraphs, no explicit references section. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. No references.
  2. Lead section is too short.
  3. Too many short, one-line paragraphs.
  4. The description page for Image:PresidentLuladaSilva.jpg reads "Copyright status unknown", and also needs fair use rationale.

Extraordinary Machine 13:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Xanadu House

3rd self-nomination. Since it was last in FAC, it has been copy-edited and greatly improved based on previous suggestions. It has been through FAC twice before, and has been through peer review once. Archives: Peer review, FAC 1, FAC 2. Your comments are always appreciated. Thanks — Wackymacs 11:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Four of the nine main sections are one paragraph long; two more are a very short two paragraphs. Sections should be at least three paragraphs long in general. There are a number of short one-sentence paragraphs as well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've fixed these issues, hopefully, is it any better now? — Wackymacs 07:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Objection struck, the structure looks a lot better now. (Some might still have a problem with the "Xanadu book" section; I don't.) I don't have the time to do a full review right now to decide on support or not. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now, great subject but there are a few things missing or that need clarification. Why does the History section begin with Before creating Xanadu House, Bob Masters designed and created inflatable balloons to be used in the construction of the house.- shouldn't we first be introduced to Masters and how he came up with the idea? How did Mason get involved? There is no explaination - he just appears and helps Bob out.

This section confuses me The Kissimmee house did not endure the elements well, suffering greatly from mold and mildew throughout the interior. The basement flooded with brownish water approximately a foot deep; in the basement were the utilities which controlled the electric and microcomputers.; were these problems common thoughout the time it existed, or only after 2001? If they were ongoing problms this section should go in the disadvantages part of the article (I was going to move it there- but its not clear when these were a problem)

There are also some other queries in the text.--nixie 02:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• It does say how Mason got involved in the 5th paragraph of the History section Disney opened the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow to compete with the Xanadu attraction. As a result Bob Masters found architect Roy Mason in 1980 at a futures conference in Toronto, to design the second Xanadu, I have changed the start of the History section text slightly based on what you have said. Thanks — Wackymacs 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think that the number of fair use images should be reduced too- all those interior shots seem excessive. Otherwise I Support the article.--nixie 12:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I think there should be a little bit more on the end of the History section about why and how these were shut down. I don't understand what "storage use" means, or if it needs to be mentioned. Also, the day-by-day updates (on October 6 this happened, and October 10th this happened) should be removed and summarized. All in all, great article though! —Cleared as filed. 03:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• It already says why they were shut down, because the technology was obsolete and they were losing popularity. I have slightly changed the wording in the end of the History section based on what you have said. Thanks. — Wackymacs 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I also think now that the Bob Masters link should either be removed, unless we think he's notable enough in his own right aside from his participation in the Xanadu House project. No need to have a red-link that's very unlikely to ever become an article. —Cleared as filed. 12:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment- in the history section, more context of modern and contemporary architecture would be helpful. As for influences on this project, I've highlighted your link to Kisho Kurokawa-- but discussion of more, and better known architects than Jacques Beufs Jacques Rougerie like Buckminster Fuller, Peter Cook & Archigram, even Frank Lloyd Wright the Bauhaus school and Le Corbusier-- all obvious and direct influences, might make a featured article. Also, your closing statement of the introduction, "The Xanadu Houses were some of the last experimental houses ever built,...", is prediction. See Frank Gehry, Greg Lynn and many others for the continuity of experimental houses and architecture after the 80's. -Davidrowe 05:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam

Great article, I learned a lot from it. There's certainly enough information, even if it's a topic some people won't like, not to mention a magnet for vandals. --Jibbajabba 22:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• (withdrawing support vote - changed to no opinion) - featured articles desperately needs more non-western articles.Bwithh 23:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You gave that reason for something else, plus it's not really much of a reason in the first place... Can you please say something about the quality so it sounds credible? No offense. --Jibbajabba 23:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Masjidnabawi.jpg has no source or copyright information.

     Image has been replaced with a Common Creative Licensed image.

  2. What do the two different shades of green in Image:Islam by country.png mean?

     Sunnite vs. Shiite distribution, have a look at the Image page dab (ᛏ)

     Does it say that in the German description? The English description doesn't. --Carnildo 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  3. There's a "citation needed" note in "Symbols of Islam". This needs to be taken care of.

  --Carnildo 00:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. People in general could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam! --Striver 00:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• The article lacks inline citations, and the introduction is unacceptable. →Raul654 01:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Lead is far too short; several one-paragraph (and one sentence) subsections. As an aside, the FAC process should be, I think, totally agnostic toward such arguments as "we need more non-western FAs" and "people could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam". Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article. That said, I don't think this article is all that far from the goal, and with supporters like those here, I look forward to seeing it as an FA soon. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article. - AMEN, brother. →Raul654 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object Sadly, article is not stable. At least 18 vandalisms and one linkspam in the past 3 days. I believe the lead should be 3 paragraphs, not one sentence. Contents are too long and ungainly, it could use better referencing, and there's a number of red links. Proto t c 12:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalism does not an unstable article make. →Raul654 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, but incessant POV edit wars (q.v. this morning) do.Timothy Usher 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• comment, the introduction needs some work. I give it a {{GA}} at the very least, though. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment I feel as one of the regular editors on the article that it could use some more work, but it is definitely a good article at least. Maybe in a month it can be renominated for FAC. Also the article faces vandalism problems just like every other religion article, but that shouldn't affect it's FAC. Editors should list some of their concerns here, so that the article can be improved. I added the demographics picture description after Carnildo's concern and I also think that the introduction can be expanded. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment. i don't think the article is professional and encyclopedic enough yet. --Juan Muslim 02:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• object for purely selfish reasons. If we make it a featured article the already ridiculous levels of vandalism will increase, as will the partisan sniping, of which we already have quite enough. I think. Other people who work on the article regularly may feel differently, of course. Want to take this opportunity to point out that there is certainly much to be proud of in this article, and that credit for this is due in large measure to User:Zora. She's just done a superb job. BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That objection probably falls afoul of WP:FAC's "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." If it's any consolation, I don't think being featured usually has much effect on vandalism levels, except for the day it's on the front page. Its effect on partisan sniping is harder to guess at. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This objection is invalid. →Raul654 17:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I hear what you're saying, and I understand that this objection of mine is off base. BrandonYusufToropov 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Bob McEwen

Self nom. Profile of a former six-term Ohio congressman in the news this year. PedanticallySpeaking 17:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good at first sight - but is a (fair use?) picture out of the question? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Support, provided that at least one proper and fair use eligible image is put into the introduction (this should be relatively easy to obtain from his official congressional website), the references are somehow organized either alphabetically or numerically, and the introduction is reformatted into the recommended three paragraphs. Otherwise, the article is well-referenced and comprehensive (as it appears from a newcomer's perspective). Personally, I may not agree with his conservative politics, but that is entirely irrelevant for purposes of evaluating the article itself. Kudos. Saravask 19:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC) It does not seem anyone is addressing the below concerns, so I will retract my vote. I agree with the need to convert the raw HTML links to footnotes. Saravask 06:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object. Remove external links from mainbody, move to refernces, link with mainbody via Wikipedia:Footnotes. Image(s) would also be very useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Great article, but why no images? Any U.S. government figure should have some PD photos available of them. - SimonP 22:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

McEwen does not have an "official Congressional website" as he has not been a Member of Congress since 1993. I don't understand the objection to external links. Why is that an issue. PedanticallySpeaking

Shoe polish

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 "...now 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)

• Image:KiwiExpress.jpg has been removed for a few days now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:23, 14 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 http://www.design-technology.org/ 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 —s and  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)

• Support—jiy (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 Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 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)

Turku

Partial self-nom. This article about the oldest city in Finland has been through peer review and had a previous FAC nomination. The only objection that remained was that the article should be copyedited slightly, and that has been done now by numerous editors. - ulayiti (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Turku coat of arms.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 06:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. -EnSamulili 13:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object – Lead is short, needs to be expanded. Sports should be merged with culture since both are rather thin. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mormonism and Judaism

• Support (Self-nom) VChapman (Oct 29, 2005)

• Started as a stub, and being worked on heavily since Jan 05, this article has grown. There has been great effort into making the article NPOV, and sometimes painful. Often disagreements, all settled without arbitration. The result, in my opinion is the purpose of wikipedia.
• Response to Concerns The Break out of Mormonism and Judaism topics is a result of individuals of both faiths working on the issue. This allowed individuals contributing to the Jewish or Mormon sections to not inadvertantly change the POV of the other faith and thus inadvertantly affecting the NPOV. Maintaining a NPOV is EXTREMELY difficult in this article. This article is the work of many individuals. Vchapman (04 Nov 05 UTC)
• Correction Bolding of Nouns, which were bolded in original stub I found have been un-bolded. Thanks pointing it out. VChapman (5 Nov 05)
• More Pictures Added but have been unable to locate a Wiki picture of a statue or painting of Moses, except for one Pegan statue with HORNS. I am asking for help in locating a more approperiate picture of a painting.
• Concern here Some Individuals oppose saying paragraphs need to be merged and expanded, others object saying the ToC is to large and the articel needs to be shorter. It can't go both ways?!?!? VChapman (08 Nov 05 UTC)

• Object, no references. Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object This is a very good article on a fascinating subject but I think the presentation is too messy. This article really needs to go through peer review before coming back here. Besides Kirill's concerns on the lack of references, I would add the following:

• The TOC is really overwhelming. Part of the problem is that most sections are divided into Judaism/Mormanism sections. In addition to giving a more unwieldy appearance to the article it also divides the article into many short (sometimes one sentence) paragraphs.
• Short paragraphs a found throughout. These should either be merged or expanded.
• This article cries out for inline citations!
• A few more images would make this article much nicer, how about pics of Joseph Smith, Abraham (a nice painting of him would do), Moses, the Main Temple in Salt Lake City, a picture of a synogogue, perhaps? The images aren't required for FA but they do add to the aesthetic appeal of the article. If you need any help locating images, I'm willing to help, just leave a note on my talk page.
• The introduction should summerize the article and should be around three paragraphs for an article of this size.

As I've said, this is a fine article on a great subject! It just needs some work before it goes on to FA. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 21:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for now I agree with all that Ganymead said, and also wonder why all the nouns have been bolded in the lead instead of bolding what should be the article's title or something very similar? Harro5 04:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Please see WP:CITE and WP:MOS. WP:NPOV alone does not a featured article make. Jkelly 17:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think this would be a good idea for a featured article, comparing and discussing two Strict, Controversial, and highly populated religions. --Z.Spy 06:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Adam1213 Talk+ 09:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. ToC is a monster and should be reduced (consider also moving parts of the article into a separate subarticles). There are external links in main article's body. No references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. My large problem with this article is its significance and meaning is unclear, resulting in a number of issues to this reader informed about Judaism, but not necessarily the details of Mormonism. It seems to be drawing parallels between Mormonism and Judaism, mostly to support the one-way special relationship that Mormonism seems to have with Judaism, or at least that is the impression I get. The result is a strange article, in my view, that emphasizes parts of Judaism that are not particularly relevant -- starting with the first section "Tribal Affiliations." The idea of tribal affiliation is certainly not a major point in modern Jewish practice, but the article certainly gives that impression. Similarly, quoting the Jewish view of God directly from the Ten Commandments doesn't really recognize the 3,000 years of religious thought on the subject, such as the development of Jewish principles of faith. Again, nothing is horribly factually wrong, but the article's reason for being is not clear, and the emphasis, from the Jewish perspective, are strange. This needs to be clarified before I would support. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Response Modern Rabbinical Judaism has less in common with Mormonism than Ancient or Hebrew Judaism. The sections on the Jewish Perspective were actually contributed by other members, I only presume to have an extensive knowledge of the Jewish belief system. I myself am LDS and do not make changes under any heading labeled Judaism. (Except for the Section on Jewish Mormons) VChapman 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your response. The article then, should perhaps be "Mormon views of Judaism" or "Mormonism's relationship to Judaism." The compare-and-contrast is clearly from a Mormon perspective, since it doesn't really cover Judaism coherently, instead focusing on areas of interest to Mormonism, presumably. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, no references (needs inline citations as well, please). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, just stylistically it needs a better referencing system. It also needs better / more references. It borders on original research when you juxtapose two ideas in comparison with citations from different contexts in order to make a point. As a result the amount / quality of citations is very important. It just seems really fragmented and scattered to me. gren グレン 09:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fox River Grove level crossing accident

Self-nom, and my first attempt to raise the bar for Wikipedia articles and entries. I have tried to highlight the importance of the event while still respecting the community, the memory of the victims, while maintaining a level of journalistic accuracy that I would expect to read in either a newspaper or a magazine. Possible objections: top image has no source, middle image has attributions to another company, bottom image is OK. I was assuming that if they were in the NTSB report, they were considered works of the government. --Rob 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• While I'd love to see more rail transport related articles reach featured status, I must object right now because 1) Cite your sources in a References section; 2) "... Metra train number 624 ... slammed into the back of a school bus ..." sounds too sensationalistic and makes it sound like Metra was at fault when further down it's stated "[t]he primary cause of the accident was the failure of the bus driver, Patricia Catencamp, to properly judge the distance ..."; 3) There is no mention of any recommendations by NTSB, FRA or any other agency on how to prevent a similar accident from occurring in the future except for one sentence in the lead; what legislation was proposed and what actions were taken? slambo 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Noted — they're all in External links at the moment.
  2. This is just a matter of word choice in my opinion... "hit" sounds like an understatement, while "impacted" sounds odd. What about "crashed into"?
  3. There is a little bit of a mention in Consequences, but it can afford to be expanded. --Rob 21:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  On point 2, how about "collided with"? I usually use this for the timeline pages in Category:Timeline of rail transport. For point 3, my ideal solution would be a section like in Graniteville train disaster#Recommendations or Bourbonnais train accident#NTSB recommendations. As a minimum, something like the last two paragraphs of Clapham Junction rail crash should be included. slambo 22:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, fixed wording on the article. Points 1 and 3, I'll try to deal with later today. :-) --Rob 11:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding NTSB recommendations, they're a good idea, but I want to do more than paste them word-for-word into the article (unless it's in a sidebar). Sometimes they're confusing even then, because the recommendations require the context of the entire report. It's definitely possible, however. --Rob 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Added NTSB recommendations. It's a bit rough around the edges—further edits will help clean this up. It will be difficult, but not impossible, to find resulting legislation. Also, going back helped uncover another cause of the accident, which I must add later, if not tonight (inability of the driver to hear audible warnings). --Rob 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you see anything further on the legislation that's mentioned in the lead? slambo 18:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• One other thing before I forget. The CNW was known for running "left-hand main" similar to British practice, rather than "right-hand main", which is more common on US railroads. UP continues this practice on former CNW lines such as the one involved in this accident. That means that the Metra train in the accident was travelling eastbound, and probably was well loaded with commuters bound for Chicago. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article too, but I'm not sure where at the moment. slambo 23:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object: It's not bad at all, but it needs some more work:
  • There are a lot of short (1-2 sentence) paragraphs. Could they be expanded? If not, merge them into an adjacent paragraph.
  • The timeline should probably be converted into prose, rather than being presented as a list. Ditto for the list of victims, although since that would be such a short section on its own I'd probably move the victims to the lead.
  • Make sure that all figures are connected to their unit by a non-breaking space (  click Edit to see an example of the code you need to use), so that the figure is on the same line as the unit.

Good luck! If I can help out, just let me know. PacknCanes | say something! 22:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • I would personally rather keep the timeline the way it is, for clarity. Lists are bad when they're really just a method of outlining that should be turned into prose. However, I believe the timeline would lose clarity if presented as paragraphs of prose. As to the list of victims, it would equally be a list if presented separated by commas or semicolons in a paragraph, rather than a bulleted list as present. I'm not sure I see the value of that, myself. It concerns me that 'remove all lists' is becoming a de-facto FAC requirement. —Morven 23:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I really believe that a featured article should have excellent prose from start to finish. Featured Lists combine good prose with a thorough list, and I think that's why you're seeing "remove all lists" become a standard objection in FACs. If Featured Lists didn't exist, then I don't think you'd see the number of remove-list objections. I'm willing to reconsider, but at least in my opinion a featured article should do everything possible to avoid listing information. PacknCanes | say something! 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think an article should present information in whatever way is most effective. Sometimes that is in list form. Featured Lists would not take an article like this: it is for articles that ARE lists, not that CONTAIN lists. I don't think the creation of Featured Lists was intended to bar list markup from ever being used in other articles seeking featured status.

That said, in many cases, lists are not the best way to present information. My main disagreement was in presenting the timeline as paragraphs, which I do not think could be easily done without reducing readability or removing information. It could be that the timeline contains a level of detail which is not needed in an article (as opposed to an accident report) - what do you think? As to the list of victims, I have no serious objection to them being listed in a paragraph rather than with bullets, but I simply feel the article neither gains nor loses thereby. —Morven 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'll come around to where I can take it or leave it. I'd still rather see it as prose, but I see your point and it's well taken. If that's the only thing remaining on my objection, I'll withdraw it. PacknCanes | say something! 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reconsidered my objection to listing the victims as a list, and tried your suggestion of placing them in the lead. Do you think that looks better? Reason for my reconsideration was unhappiness with that too-short section. I also reworded as 'killed', not 'victims' - since the wounded also count as 'victims'. —Morven 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good. I combined the list of those killed with the notation about the renaming of the crossing, since they seemed to go well together. Thanks -- PacknCanes | say something! 23:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I like it - that flows a lot better. —Morven 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll just note my agreement that the timeline as it is now looks fine. The presence of complete lists in articles is usually less of a problem than incomplete lists, and the timeline format helps with a time sequence that would be painful to visualize as prose. No vote. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Placed non-breaking spaces between numbers and units, except for seconds - do we do those too if 'seconds' is a word, not abbreviation? —Morven 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, you'd might as well. You don't really lose anything by making it a nbsp, except a little time to convert the spaces. PacknCanes | say something! 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Done that. —Morven 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you want those in between the 7:xx and the AM parts too? --Rob 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, might as well. Only thing you'll lose is a little time. PacknCanes | say something! 23:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object, although it has much potential. The diagrams add a lot to the article. However, the lead mentions that this was a "watershed moment," but the "Consequences" section is very sparse. The article should go into more detail about the coverage of the accident in the media, the reaction of politicians and other influential figures, and the specifics of what sort of legislation and regulations were handed down as a result of the tragedy. Was there any reaction on the national level? This sort of detail would flesh out the claim made in the lead, and also provide the reader with a lot more context about the accident's importance. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is an interesting and mostly well-written article. Here are some things I think need attention:

1) I would rewrite the first sentence as, "The Fox River Grove level-crossing accident refers to a collision between a school bus and a commuter train that killed seven students in Fox River Grove, Illinois."

2) You do not define the following terms: crossing processor, thumbwheel, EMT and sound attenuation materials.

3) I question the appropriateness of the first graphic, since it is hard to decipher. You might want to redraw it to make it simpler.

4) From what I gather, the intersection is a T, with the train tracks running parallel to US 14. Presumably, the bus was traveling northeast, on Algonquin, but I don't think you say that in the text.

5) This sentence is very confusing:

"The primary cause of the accident was the failure of the bus driver, Patricia Catencamp, to properly judge the distance between the railroad tracks and the vehicle stopped at a traffic signal across the tracks."

Does "the vehicle" mean the bus? And does "across the tracks" mean north of the tracks?

6) AASHTO should be spelled out in the first reference, or you should create an article on it.

7) There are no references in the text, only a collection of links at the bottom. Mwalcoff 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object:This is a very good brief account and report of a tragedy, and that is the problem - it is just a factual report. It is not a featured article. It is too short, there must have been many after effects of such an occurrence, was the driver prosecuted, how experienced was she, what happened to her, and the many other survivors. I don't like the lack of a proper reference section, but I suppose links to official reports will do in a case like this. Giano | talk 09:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't deny that it's definitely a brief account and report, but at what point does information get included that belongs in another article? Some things I considered including in the article were background information, such as 1.) why Illinois has a history of being one of the leading states in grade-level crossings, and 2.) the accident history of the intersection. More information is better than none, but some of it may not be appropriate. The references section will be refined as I have free time. --Rob 18:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I agree with Giano. Bwithh 22:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• A lot better than it was recently, but object for now. (1) it needs a References section and (2) I'd like to see a bit more about the bus driver (e.g. in the timeline you mention a substitute bus driver, but is that the same person as Patricia Catencamp? Had she ever driven the route before? Was she disciplined for her error in judgement? etc.). JYolkowski // talk 02:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Time to completion

These are all very good comments and will be addressed. I will keep referring to this page in the next week as I try to address each concern. --Rob 09:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

H5N1

A successful WP:AID article, I think this is of great significance just now. -Litefantastic 18:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone should convert all of the external links that are in the body of the article into numbered references. At the very least, people have to stop inserting new external links that disrupt the existing numbered references. --JWSchmidt 18:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this really stable? KingTT 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the following need to be addressed:

1. The lead needs to mention why H5N1 is a concern.
2. html links should be converted to footnotes and full details of source included (this seems to be in progress)
3. By my understanding 2004/05 isn't the first time HN51 has been recorded, can some information on the first occurence and subsequent identificaion of the virus be added.
4. The Asia and beyond section reads like the current events page, please try and incorporte this information into cohesive paragraphs.
5. Merge pig cases and big cat cases into a sectional called HN51 in other animals.
6. The worst case scenario section should probably be L2 heading and notably this is the only unsourced section, it would be useful for the reader to know which agencies are concerned about a pandemic. Information on planning for a pandemic and government responses would also be valuable addtions.
7. Remove see alsos that are already mentioed in the text.

--nixie 23:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment the cleanup taskforce have been looking at this and have yet to decide it is "clean" - I don't know what that means but we should remember that. Andreww 09:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, just looking at the lead section:

1. Third paragraph. "Usually these flu viruses " which flu viruses - N5H1 or bird flu in general? The Spanish flu was H1N1 so I guess bird flu in general but it's not clear.
2. Is this about one particular H5N1 virus or about H5N1 viruses in general? I think H5N1 existed before 1997 but it only became so dangerous then.

Andreww 09:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support: extensive, thorough, very well researched, structured and illustrated, this is the quintessential featured article. Furthermore, it is currently of high relevance and interest and will attract kudos and lots of traffic to Wikipedia once again. I suggest we focus on this one for rapid approval. --R.Sabbatini 10:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong object Will not meet stability criterion until the current scare goes away. Has many short subsections and paragraphs. Inline external links should probably be converted to footnotes. The "Asia and beyond" section is far from being brilliant prose. Poor layout by the end of the article. "Worst case scenario section" should be far longer and include current research. There is absolutely no info on the 1997 outbreak beyond a passing mention on the lead... and the list goes on. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I have this page on my watchlist and I haven't seen any stability problems at all, there doesn't seem to be any sort of popularity of the article among vandals, and there don't seem to be any edit wars due to content disputes. But I don't think it matters, shouldn't this of been closed months ago? Homestarmy 15:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:

1. Infobox should be at the top of the article, instead of pushed down by an image.
2. Image #1841 (the colorized transmission electron micrograph of H5N1) is displayed twice, this is redundant.
3. The Wikinews template seems to be placed in an odd section in the middle of the article. --Hetar 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As Hetar pointed out, H5N1 is a regular hotbed of dispute over where to place images. In no way ready for Featured Article status. Move on, nothing to see here. WAS 4.250 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have delisted this nomination. It seems to be a mix of several old noms--look at the dates of the comments! Please follow the instructions for re-nominations at the top of WP:FAC. Move any old noms to archives (separate archives!). Start the new nom from scratch with a new header (not one dated October 2005), which contains links to these archives, and without any old comments, and post it at the top (not the foot) of WP:FAC. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but a nomination that conflates at least three different discussions just won't work. And how about the comments from April 6 (day before yesterday..?) Don't just put this back, please. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC).
• Comment. Since this is a WP:GACo, I suggest holding this off till monday when it'll be rotated out. I'll re-nominate it at that point myself if no one else has. (I think that most if not all of the above objections have been adressed either before, or during the improvement drive.) --Barberio 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Guitar

Partly self-nom (I have expanded the Inlays section, but the rest of the article isn't mine.) (However, this could be 'improved' by removing some of the too many external links.)

• Object Very far from FA status. Should make a peer review. For the following reasons
  • The article is missing 'national guitar'
  • The lists Significant Guitarists, Guitar makers and Guitar technique should be transferred to daughter articles and a summary with overview should replace them.
  • Guitar etc. is not an encyclopedic style
  • Acoustic and electric guitars should be change into something like Types of guitars
  • Expand Guitar amplifier
  • Expand Guitar festivals
  • Reduce the number of external links
  • I think the article could be improved by linking the different style of acoustic and electric guitars with significant guitarists who used them.

Vb 13:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Super400.jpg has no source information. --Carnildo 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object the article is too much of a list, lead should be longer and consist of only 2-3 paragraphs. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object I cannot see including an article as featured when it doesn't meet the three pillars, namely Verifiability. Alan.ca 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Atlantis

Self-nom, Saw it as Article Improvement Drive article of the week. Saw it improve as the week progressed. It really deserves featured article status as it was improveds substantally. It deserves featured article status because it can show what we can really do!!! Tarret 01:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support This article certainly went from one with entrenched myth and non NPOV to one that has far more factual content. Congrats to those that put the effort in to make it a very good article.Steers82 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object Any references? An article can't be featured if there are no lists of references used for this article. Pentawing 04:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I like how the article has improved with the help of the Article Improvement Drive. But this needs resources, and should probally undergo a peer review as well. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – Expand the lead and smaller sections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Can you go through it and chop up some of the overly long, complicated sentence? (E.g., 'Emanuel Velikovsky discovered many records of lands that had become submerged in middle east areas around the mediterranean and also new islands that had risen out of the sea in historic times, the myths of Atlantis may in part be true or they may be the figment of a wild imagination but of the fact that these changes in land and sea did happen is certain from the records of witnesses to the facts.') Grammar here and elsewhere needs fixing. Reference numbers tied to a few of your more important, specific assertions, would increase the credibility. Allow the interested reader to locate the sources by page number—at least in a few instances. Tony 02:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object Thgere is no link to Stargate Atlantis Tobyk777 17:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You're joking, right? BrianSmithson 20:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think Tobyk777 is confusing this article with the one at Atlantis (Stargate). — Wackymacs 19:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object Needs references, and the see also section could be expanded. It has improved a lot since before the Article Improvement Drive, but its still not quite there yet. — Wackymacs 16:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I'm not sure if its important, but Jacques Cousteau did some research into Atlantis concluding that the Santorini volcano destroyed it. I think there's a good deal more out there on the subject and this article is only the tip of the iceberg. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 18:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Sources, sources, sources. — mark ✎ 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

1997 Pacific hurricane season

Self nom. It has PD images, detailed information on every cyclone, and over 70 inline cites. Way better than any other Pacific season article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Pretty good, but can you deal with these issues.
  • Severly ration the use of 'ibid' reference citations. Some sentences have three reference numbers, all to the same source. One at the end of the sentence should be enough. You might go further by allowing us to assume that most or all of the info in a whole paragraph comes from the one source, with a single citation at the end of the para. That's your call; it depends on each case. Consistently one space or none before each reference number.
  • Rather than opening with a bland statement of the dates of the season, can you engage the readers more effectively by characterising the season—was it a particularly bad one? Was it unusual in other ways? (I'd like to know right at the start why you chose this particular season, and I'd like to be able to place the Pacific hurricanes in the larger context. Some big statements would capture our attention at the start: major climatic phenomenon for a number of countries in Central and North America??? Maybe introduce the scale before you cite a Category 5 storm. Many readers won't be familiar with these categories. I wonder whether there are some graphical representations of the number of storms and their severity for each season, for example. That might be good after the lead, before we focus on this particular season.
  • The subtitles for each storm: they're kind of big and black, and break up the flow. Can you experiment with less dramatic formatting for them? (Try one level lower in the hierarchy of headings?) Tony 06:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I toned down the use of inline cites. There are now a lot fewer.
    • The bland opening is the same one used for every other article on every other hurricane (Atlantic or East Pacific) season. If you insist, I could change it, but it would be different from every other season article. I also removed the first reference to the scale. The map in the infobox colour-codes storm tracks in the East Pacific based on whether they are remnants, depressions, storms, or hurricanes.
    • The subtitles for each storm are the same size as in other season articles. For the sake of consistency and standardization, I am not going to change their size. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object – this is a list. Nominate it in WP:FLC instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It is sort of hard to write an article about a tropical cyclone season without having a list of storms and names. If other people insist this is a list, I will remove this nomination and nominate it there, even though I think it is better as a featured article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It is a list, and there's hardly any prose to justify its inclusion here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Unsure why you keep justifying things by comparing this article to others on hurricanes. This is an improvement process, and might set new standards for the others too.Tony 02:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I rearranged the lead to make it more attention grabbing.
  • I changed the headings to use four equals signs.Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 19:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Coffee

Not a self-nom; I haven't been involved in the editing or writing of this article in any way. I simply encountered it today while looking for some information on coffee. I found it to be detailed, informative, well-illustrated, and professional. It is, to me, exemplary of the encyclopedic quality to which all of Wikipedia should aspire. So, therefore, I'm nominating it. Nandesuka 14:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I have looked at this article before (in fact, I recently copyedited its lead) and thought it needed a lot of work to get to FA. Based on a brief new look:
  • The section structure is disorganized, with a number of small sections and a poor overall organizational scheme.
  • The footnotes are in disarray, with a number of broken or misnumbered links. Inline references need to be converted to footnotes as well.
  • The lead is too short for an article of this size.
  • It needs a lot of copyediting; it would be nice if that were done before submitting articles as FACs.
  • Too many raw lists in the brewing and presentation sections.
  • Someone needs to fact-check this baby. I spent about an hour, before, trying to find a primary source for "In monetary terms, coffee is the second most-traded commodity in the world, trailing only petroleum." All I ever turned up was the repetition of this fact in one news article after another; nobody pointed to the data supporting this, or any hard numbers.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Comment re: second most-traded commodity -- I find data to suggest it is not true. See for example UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics (caution: large PDF), specifically section 4.2A, beginning on page 156 (print page number)/182 (PDF page number). The interpretation depends a bit on what one considers a commodity, but it's hard to make coffee number two under any definition. --Tabor 21:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object – 1) At 53kb, the article needs to be written in Wikipedia:summary style. 2) ToC is bulky and should have less sections. 3) History is incomplete. Nothing on the International Coffee Agreement of 1962, and so on 4) Lead size should be doubled. 5) ==The cafe== is unrelated 5) the commons & quote links should be under =external links= 6) In 1997 the "c" price of coffee in New York broke US$3.00/lb but by late 2001 it had fallen to US$0.43/lb. Why NY prices? 7) Too much of a list. Please convert to prose. 8) TransFair USA is it an for them? 9) ' In the United States, major national coffee suppliers tailor their product to tastes in particular regions of the country; for instance, a can of ground coffee purchased in the Northeast or Northwest will contain a darker roast than an identically appearing can purchased in the central United States not needed. ; impossible to find whole beans in American stores, ' another instance of US specific practices. Please remove. 10) Inline links are all mixed up. 11) External links should not have subsections 13) NOTE: Health benefits of decaffeinated coffee have not been found. What's this? 13) Maps of the coffee producing & consumption nations should be useful. Chart of the coffee producers also useful. Paused reviewing; Will continue after the above obj are fixed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The image Image:Coffee cup.JPG has no source information.
  2. The images Image:Cofffeebeans aging a.jpg, Image:Coffeebeans aging b.jpg, Image:Coffeeroasting woodfired.jpg have no source or copyright information.
  3. The image Image:A small cup of coffee.JPG is under the Creative Commons Sharealike-Attribution license, but does not indicate the creator.
  4. The image Image:Frappe.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 20:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object for many of the reasons cited above. I've made a number of contributions to the article, but it plainly needs a lot of work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Has potential, but needs work. Tony 07:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Question is there any information on eating the actual roasted coffee beans? Someone has said that you can purchase chocolate coffee beans for consumption.
  • The place for this question is probably the talk page for the article. This is for discussion FA status, not article content as such. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hatshepsut

Self-nom. The article is over the 18th dynasty Egyptian ruler, Hatshepsut. The article has been reviewed, at my request by others so it has under gone a peer review. If featured this article will become Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt example article. It has been nominated before in a somewhat confusing FAC. -JCarriker 08:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to support this nom, as featured articles desperately needs non-western, non-modern articles, but I think this article still needs a bit of work - some of the writing needs better expression (e.g. "As women gained more equality with men, women in history were sought out and reclaimed." - this doesn't quite make sense). Also Civilization IV has already been released in the US market - the "known" part of that sentence should be taken out, and perhaps "AI" should be wikified. Anyway, after some cleanup, I would vote Support, as featured articles desperately needs more articles like this. Bwithh 07:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object, as before: The image Image:Hatshepsut.jpg is claimed as GFDL, but it's described as a cropped scan of a book cover. The only terms it can be used under are {{fairuse}}, and that only on an article about the book. Use of the image in Hatshepsut is no more fair use than using an album cover with a dog on it to illustrate dog. --Carnildo 23:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa

This article exemplifies User:Geo Swan's very best work. I nominate it for FAC!!!Joaquin Murietta 05:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we just get rid of this off the FAC page, please? PacknCanes | say something! 05:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It is off [3]

Sleepy Lagoon Murder

I would like to self-nominate this article. If the article is not appropriate, would you please make comments on how to improve it? Thanks Joaquin Murietta 02:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious oppose. This article is nowhere near FA standards, but we can give you some advice on how to start it on the way. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article and most importantly Wikipedia:How to write a great article for how to develop the article at present. Then when you feel it's ready, refer the article to peer review and see what others think. Hope that helps. Harro5 02:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Thank you! I will withdraw the self-nom and go over to peer review. Much obliged. Joaquin Murietta 06:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

October 2005

Intelligent design

[Sonam Yeshe] Not sure where it would fit in, but there *are* other angles which should be explored, IMHO, in this 'origin myth debate'. After all, Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" might be considered a story about "intelligent design". But all such explanations suffer from the problem of infinite regress: who (or what) created the [Cc]reator(s)?

[comment] Infinite regress would be "The Creator" then. [/comment]

Or intelligence (or any factors that produce this phenomena) is simply just a basic property with reality, an "absolute" (something without cause). There must exist one or more absolutes in order for reality as we know it to "work". That can be deduced logically. [/comment]. In fact, infinite regress

"Micro"evolution is clearly an irrefutable fact: regardless of one's belief system, bacteria & viruses adapt to everything we throw at them (and they are ahead of us at the moment!) Yet the "holes" in evolutionary theory, eg, "How can a leg become a wing, when the intermediate forms are clearly maladaptive?" deserve exploration. Such "gaps" in evolutionary theory are not a convincing argument for the existence of some form of Cosmic Designer, however. I believe there is a Hindu saying, "God is not proved", which would seem to apply here... (Yogananda, "Autobiography of a Yogi")

[comment] Microevolution: Is adaptation actually evolution? Where is the borderline between adaptation and evolution? [/comment]

All in all, I found it to be a very good article. Kudos!

I was just surfing Wikipedia when I found this article. This article is in my opinion worthy of being featured. I haven't worked on it myself. --Maitch 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• ITs pretty good a little bit excessive with the criticism but overall very good. My only worry is that it is a controversial topic, and therfore will have stability issues. It seems to be going ok right now so I will go ahead and Support.Falphin 01:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, please do work on it yourself, rather than shoving it straight onto this page, unedited. I was pleasantly surprised that it's not full of self-justifying religious hype; so it would be nice to see this article promoted, but it's not there yet. I've only looked properly at the lead; all of the text needs work. Here are a few things you can do to warm to the editing task:
  • Standardise the spacing of the numerical reference citations. (Best no space before, I think, but if you do retain a single space, insert   to avoid line overhang.
  • 'Despite ID sometimes being referred to'—ungrammatical.
  • Comma before 'which'.
  • Remove 'As has been argued before' as redundant; sift through every phrase looking for redundancies.
  • Some sentences are rather long and need to be divided.
  • Use a simpler word than 'putative', or remove it.

Why not alert the contributors to such articles as 'Evolution', 'Darwin', 'Evolutionary psychology', 'Richard Dawkins', to this nomination; I'm sure some of them would be pleased to assist. Tony 05:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll fix those grammatical problems and dividing the sentences won't be to hard. How exactly would I standardize the reference citations? Falphin 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• It wasn't exactly shoved, the article has already been through Peer Review. Really most of the problems in the article are gramatical. I don't believe alerting them here is the best because along with the good editors will come more POV pushers. Perhaps alerting them on individual basis. But thats just my opinion. Falphin 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I thought it was getting closer, and working toward consensus and clear representation of both sides of the issue. But nearly every discussion on the Talk page gets side tracked into name-calling debate, and the long-term contributors jump right into the fray. Modest attempts to tone down the rhetoric and "hot-button" language have been thwarted. It seems too many contributors are concerned with winning the debate, rather than dispassionately summarizing it.--Gandalf2000 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's getting closer, but I don't thinks it's yet up to par as one of Wikipedia's best. I say give it a while to develop some more clarity, and it would be a good candidate.Gandalf2000 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • What specifically can be done? This article seems close to FA and I might work on it a bit if there are some specific things suggested. Thanks Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Gandalf. Please do go ahead improving it; I'm keen to see it become a FA, whether sooner or later. Tony 02:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article presently violates "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of Wikipedia NPOV policy, as I've previously pointed out and explained on it's discussion page. Also, it should be noted in the article that the particular claim "that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally" is false.--Johnstone 11:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have a suggestion on how both views can be acommadated? Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • A few things that would help toward making the article follow the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of the Wikipedia NPOV policy, which state, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." (I realize that this is not the only guideline for NPOV. None of the following suggestions implies otherwise.):

- Criticisms should be consolidated into a single section.

- The amount of criticism of ID greatly exceeds (by about 3 to 1) the positive presentation of ID. This is simply excessive. Reduce the ratio.

- The "Additional criticisms" section of the intelligent design article presents criticisms of things that are related to ID ("[Accusations of lack of] Scientific peer review", "Who designed the designer?", and "Argument from ignorance"). Since these issues are not directly related to actual ID concepts, but originate from critics, it would be only fair to present ID responses to them. For example, Dembski's book The Design Revolution has chapters (41, 27 and 30, respectively) dedicated to answering each of the above criticisms. Summaries from each could be added (in a single "Replies to additional criticisms section, of course).Johnstone 00:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • There's a reason criticism exceeds positive representation - an overwhelming majority of experts in the fields ID affects dispute it vehemently. You'd find an equal disparate ratio in an article on, say, whether Stalin was a nice guy or not. — ceejayoz ^talk 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• I don't agree with previous comment; the article appears to be based on sound, scientific principles; I have no problem with the idea that computer simulations demonstrate the mechanisms of evolution—that's pretty basic. Tony 12:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Falphin, just insert   between the previous character and the reference number, in all cases, with no intervening spaces; or better still, just jam the number up to the stop. Tony 01:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• As I suggested, Falphin, you'll need to enlist a few other people here. While some of the criticisms here are careful to avoid the appearance of religious ideology, I have no wish to have to defend the scientific view in such a basic way. Only to say to Johnstone that of course there are more criticisms than defence of ID—it's a pretty silly ideology. Keep the article purely in scientific terms. Tony 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Object This article is not even about the philosophical concept of intelligent design. It is a discussion about Theists. Intelligent design has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The article is completely off-topic and looks more like a rant about not just Theists, which would at least make some sense, but about Christian Creationists.--Ben 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a section on Religion and ID but I'm not really sure on the philosophy infact I've read books by Idists and even they don't talk about philosophy. Read Michael Behes Black Box for example. The article clearly shows that ID is not science but an attempt at it. If you can guide me on how to add a philosophy section I will. And note to the others, I probably won't get done with Intelligent Design before this FAC is up, but I'll probably renominate it later. Falphin 20:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the problem here is that "intelligent design" means different things to different people. Taken on its face in the context of philosophy or religion, it means simply that "an intelligent being designed the universe." However, it is often used differently. As a result, the talk pages are often filled with people (including me; I am trying to at least get a disambiguation link to Theism), who say things like "ID has nothing to do with creationism" or "ID is about complexity, not God" etc. etc. etc..... etc. This is because the article is more like a personal essay on the this Dembski guy's book, rather than an encyclopedic topic. It almost cannot be an encyclopedic topic. It would be very helpful to readers to have an article which can sort out the mish-mash of religion, science, pseudoscience, philosophy, and all that, but instead the article treats them as if this mash is a subject unto itself. The result is a lot of argument and a lot of dissatisfaction. There's not much reason for controversy when everything is in its proper place. Either you believe in God or you don't. Either you think evolutionary theory is sound or you don't. Either you think the existence of God can be proven with Dembski's "complexity theory", or you don't. Instead, people are arguing all over the place, and to me that doesn't even warrant a nomination for featured status, let alone receiving featured status. --Ben 03:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Shows Wikipedia At Its Worst Much too long. Readers will want to know what Intelligent Design is. The Introduction and Summary are quite adequate to explain that. The rest of the article is confusing and often incomprehensible. If it was translated into plain words some of it might be worth retaining but a lot would be clearly seen as meaningless. The article is not suitable for Featured Aticle status. It makes Wikipedia look like a home for self-indulgent contributors. --82.38.97.206 20:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)mikeL

• Object It's very difficult to talk about "Intelligent Design" without mentioning creationism. This article is way too long and should be merged into Creationism. 67.103.32.20 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Creationism represents a field of very specific ideas, while this article presents a theory in more general terms of scientific merit. However, I believe the tone in which it is written sacrifices professional objectivity. Doctor Love 07:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Object Who nominated this diatribe? It's awful. Here's an example from the second paragraph: "...ID does not constitute serious research in biology." What is this phrase supposed to mean? And who wants to try to straighten it out, with the incessant and mean-spirited revert wars going on? This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. ô¿ô 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Violates NPOV and frequently (albeit probably unintentionally) distorts ID Johnstone made some good points here, but there's something else that troubles me. The article often does not accurately represent the ID position it criticizes. For instance, the ID claim for the fine-tuning of the universe is that certain physical constants being changed would prevent any form of physical life, not just life as we know it (see Mere Creation or this article). Even if the view is wrong, it should at least be accurately represented. Whatever its faults, ID is also not an “argument from ignorance.” It isn't the mere fact that evolution doesn't have a means, it’s also the alleged barriers (e.g. irreducible complexity, chemical problems of abiogenesis) that exist in the natural world that allegedly require artificial intervention to overcome. Even if such views are wrong, they should be accurately represented. The claim, “By ID's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex” is a bit fishy, and the author provides no references (the same is true with "fundamental assumption of ID that every complex object requires a designer"). Behe himself (the guy who introduced irreducible complexity in Darwin's Black Box) concedes in Darwin's Black Box that maybe the designer is composed of something which could have come about naturally. Again, even if such views are wrong, they should at least be presented accurately. Until such matters are cleared up, I do not think this article should be a featured article. --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/26/2005)
  • That's the spirit! Throw a bunch of walls up and run for cover. The problem is, those walls are made of toothpicks, and you built them in quicksand... and you're not a particularly good builder to begin with. I call it intellectual filibustering. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 01:32
    • Why do you claim my “walls” are made of toothpicks built on quicksand? That the article puts forth a badly distorted version intelligent design theory is a very legitimate criticism. --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/27/2005)
• Article is too long, much ado about nothing, not unlike like the subject itself.

November 1, 2005 This article makes Wikipedia look bad; it's that simple. It is not doing justice to this site. I was dissapointed in reading this article on ID. It is not the standard objective type of writing in Wikipedia and I think it should be changed to read neutral. It's obviously written by someone with very strong feelings against ID and that comes across too clearly. ID is accepted by the scientific community because ID is made of scientists. That's why it's so controversial -the scientists are fighting the scientists. That the 'other', older, larger scientific community does not accept ID is true. In any case, please be neutral. It doesn't need to advocate ID anymore than it needs to say it's bologna. Inform your reader; don't push your views down our throats. (unsigned by 207.200.116.131 (talk · contribs))

What is this based on? No scientist in the world would advocate a theory that cannot ever be disproven. That's rule one of science.--Xiaphias 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Object, needs focus Intelligent design is presented as it is without the hype, duplicity, and sophistry (most likely a result of peer review). It is well-referenced and thorough. But it's still sloppy. It blurs the assertion and the movement too much. The crux of the "science" of ID is the assertion that intelligent design, the conscious arrangement of parts by an intelligent entity, is empirically observable. Other concepts have been proposed to elaborate/demonstrate this idea (most notably by Dembski). But the page is so mucked up switching between that mythology's meager (if even existent) evidence and its adherents (which when discussing ideas, is ad hominem) without demarcation it could very easily be accused of being a strawman and it is consistently accused of violating NPOV. It's somewhat of an unstable article, and thankfully its regular contributors are stubborn, but this is a double-edged sword. When I pointed out that its adherents have zeal is not reflective of the "theory" itself, my edits were reverted. My point is that cleanup probably won't be easy. - JustSomeKid

Support and with two notes:
1. Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article has received positive endorsements as being accurate and complete from several neutral sources:

• [4] Librarian in the Middle - Resources and News for Middle School Librarians: "IF there were an equivalent article to Wikepedia’s in an online or paper encyclopedia, we could expect expertise in choice of links, neutrality of language, balance in POV. But, especially in the case of ID, that article hasn’t been writen or is given only a cursory treatment (and sometimes in unsigned articles)."
• [5] Librarian and Information Science News: "The Wikipedia ID article [wikipedia.org] is fairly neutral."
• [6] Talk of the Nation. 2 November 2005 National Public Radio: "the Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design... it is a good entry, perhaps even an excellent entry..."

2. At least 3 or 4 of those objecting here have had POV issues at the article. Their objections given here reflect the nature of their earlier issues there. The former point validates the article's content, whether it becomes a featured article or not. The latter point does not. FeloniousMonk 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Mild object. IMHO the amount and detail of criticism of ID burdens the article and indeed makes it (slightly) bloated, and subject to (in small part mind you) POV skirmishes. Needs to be trimmed down, made more succinct and in so doing creates a win-draw for everyone involved. (a win-win would simply be too optimistic at this point, maybe after the trial we can make further progress... what the heck is going on with that thing anyway) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that exhausting battles with PoV-pushers have made this article longer than it needs to be, as with just about any article in this general area (and FM is clearly right that objecting here is a continuation of many of those pushers' battle), but I don't think that it's seriously bloated (look at Human for an example of real bloat, for the same reasons). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Article lacks knowledge of all the facts. Evolution is not science it's a theory or an idea developed by someone's thoughts to arrive to their conclusion, but it's not conclusive nor supported by solid scientific data. The said fact is we're teaching our kids to have faith in a theory that has yet to be proven. This unbiased opinion has skewed millions of children's thoughts in the United States. Let's get faith based ideas out of our schools!! Or at least be honest with the kids and teach them ALL the theories. What are you afraid of? Evolutionists that use the excuse of "Religion" to not have to teach all theories reminds me of Castro in Cuba. "Communism works!" Carl Marx wrote it in a book so it must be true... Think about it; 99.9% of Americans will never take the time to evaluate or study the facts of this debate. They're sheep. Even the people who read the article, and commented positively below, have been brain washed. What conclusive studies have they done? Where they there? How many carbon dating theory machines do we see in an average American's living room? They are kept by the few, and the true theory of how they work is known by less. Don't let a few people fill your mind with their theoretical ideas without asking questions. Don't kid your self evolution is a theory! Let your mind be open to all ideas. Let our children see the facts and hear the huge lies and mistakes that fill our history books. We do live in the United States? We don't live in a society that forces beliefs down ones throat? Let Freedom Ring! Let all the theories be studied!! NER --24.123.44.195 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from top of page; new comments at the bottom. I'm glad this was posted, as it is fairly representative of some of the editors and their objections and methods we've had to deal with in writing the ID article. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a good example of why articles should not be written and policed by the bitter opponents of the subject of the article. User:Stuckerj hit the nail on the head with his parody of FeloniousMonk's attitude here. Yes, the article has to be defended from creationists who are ignorant of science and who don't get or care for NPOV. But this fact should not keep us from writing for the enemy, which hasn't even been accomplished in the intro. The article has made progress since bad old days of when creationists were freely editing the page, but we can do better, and a featured article should be better. It should provide an account of ID from the perspective of its proponents. Making this a featured article would give right-wingers authentic ammunition in their claims that Wikipedia exhibits left-wing bias. Wikipedia has set some very high ideals for itself, and this article does not yet meet them. — goethean ॐ 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Should this article be given Featured status, I predict that a lot of (onesided) disccusion will forever go into removing that status. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is so often vandalised, that little energy is left to actually edit the article. I'm not sure it is at Featured quality. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Most of the oppose votes above mean nothing to me. They complain of POV, but are unable or unwilling to present a fairly rewritten section we could insert into the article. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This page highlights the fundamental problem with Wikipedia. At the bottom of this obvious war lies one tense argument: Does God exist? Some people insist that he must, and some cannot stand any implication that he might. Both sides push the evidence and arguments in their preferred direction with all their might, striving not for consensus but for victory, and because of the depth of the implications, this war will never end until God is proved or disproved. Therefore editing this page is a waste of time. It will never settle into a uniform consensus.

I must add that it is certainly currently biased against ID. All the one-sided references would be better left out and summed up by mentioning the conflict as a whole without taking sides, and letting the reader pursue it further if interested. This article has come a long, long way from simply and objectively explaining what ID is and the associated history. Just one detailed example of bias: it is stated flatly - in spite of many intelligent scientist adherents - that ID is based upon circular logic [by virtue of the fact that if the complexity proves a designer, that designer must be more complex, and herefore must itself have a designer, ad infinitum, which is not possible (reductio absurdem)]. This is a patently incorrect statement for two reasons: 1. As presented by the statement, the ID argument results in an INFINITE REGRESSION, not circular reasoning. The latter is an argument which logically depends upon one of its own conclusions. ID's conclusion that a designer must exist is not used as a premise in its argument. As presented above it only leads to a logical infinite recursion of the conclusion (a spiral, if you like). 2. It does not necessarily follow from the ID argument that the designer is only somewhat more complex than nature. Equally possible is that the designer is infinitely complex, and thus could not have been designed. Before any hasten to point out that an infinitely complex, undesigned designer is an absurd concept, it should be obvious that any theory whatsoever terminates finally at an infinite, uncreated existence. Take the Big Bang for example: where did the original point of condensed matter come from? Hopefully nobody is foolish enough to propose a cyclical Big Bang as a solution to this face-to-face clash with infinite existence.

These should be obvious points to anybody scientifically educated, mature and intelligent enough to take it upon themselves to edit a Wikipedia page. One could argue that perhaps the flaw of Wilkipedia's tolerance of all edits is that it allows faulty statements. However, there are many, many other examples of bias against ID in the current article. Rather than go through them painstakingly I will just name a few (and please note, I won't be back to waste my time further with this eternal argument): Constant references which carry negative overtones are made, such as ID being controversial (historically evolution has this role), being [neo-]creationism not accepted by the scientific community (should state the majority of), 'junk science' (argumentative and unfounded), not experimentally verifiable (Nobel Prize winner physicist and agnostic Leon Lederman does not believe this to be a requirement for a scientific theory, see 'The God Particle', page 389; furthermore macro-evolution is in the same camp), religious in nature and Christian specifically (false - it is purely scientific - of course a religion like Christianity would have major attraction, involvement and overlap with it, but this should not be presented as an attribute of ID itself; evolution and secularism have a similar relationship); and other simply incorrect statements concerning proofs and disproofs. I mention the above for the record, however, I do not expect any agreement from those whose POV is in line with the article, because ultimately this is about whether one can face the fact the God exists or does not exist, and proponents will hold to their camp with a tenacity as great as they hold to life itself. ant 14:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that this was User:Antandcharmi's ("Ant") very first edit to Wikipedia[7]. This is represents another tactic those working on the article have faced.

Much of Antandcharmi's criticism of the article arises from not understanding WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, the policy governing how pseudoscience is covered at Wikipedia. The article's content is compliant with the policy. FeloniousMonk 16:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object. I have no reason to think that any article in which claims of pseudoscience are inherent can ever achieve Featured Article status. It is too difficult to distinguish NPOV (essential) from SPOV (which is actually a POV). Any such article, such as this one or Creation science, will involve too much hostility and uncivil editing, and so is not likely to get to Featured Article status. Also, any article that is the subject of a user conduct RfC or an RfAr (even if a badly filed one) probably is too far from consensus to be worth trying to get consensus by FA process. Robert McClenon 17:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though I still support the article for FA, sadly, I must admit Robert McClenon makes some very valid points and is likely right. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article, in my view, has too many problems to be a featured article, although the work that has gone into it is admirably comprehensive and well-sourced. However, the problems are essentially threefold:

First, it is much too long. In an effort to accommodate the many arguments that whirl within the debate the article has ballooned to an unreasonable length; this makes it hard to get through and a cumbersome presentation of the central ideas.

Second, it is important to note that ID is, at the moment, essentially an American issue, insofar as school boards, religious and scientific communities, not to mention political leaders, outside of the US are not implicated in the debate. Unfortunately, I cannot think of how to rectify this particularly, but the fact remains that for a project of international scope, this article is addressing concerns that have surfaced in a public debate almost solely in the US. That should be of central importance, since it highlights the lively debate about the role of religion, and religious derived thinking, in US public and scholastic life. As it stands, this article reads like a painstaking attempt to provide an NPOV description of ID as it exists within its US context. I think that the Amero-centrism of the article further makes its FA status problematic. I speak only for myself here, but as I see it, ID's importance is less the raiments of the theory/hypothesis, as much as the way it is illustrative of current US politico-religious life. I invite other non-US editors, of course, to disagree and smack down this reservation. But ID is not taken seriously anywhere else in the world. That should be central.

Finally, as noted above, the ongoing polemicising and casuistry suggest the article is currently too unstable to make FA.

All that said, I wish to salute the amazing efforts of all the editors who have contributed to this effort. Politics, not competence, intervenes to make this currently not FA level. Dottore So 17:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The ID debate is not a solely U.S. (not American) issue. Because it is not about ID versus Natural Selection. It is about a bunch of people whose faith is challenged by discoveries of fact.

In places where facts intersect with their opinon, it isnecessary for the facts to give way, so these people have designed an attack using a mixture of religion and debate. Please understand that it is not theology. It is no more fostered by theology than the young men who blow themselves and others to pieces. They are unhappy and they can't reconcile themselves to their surroundings. They may mistake it for religion as a man mistakes lust for a nobler emotion. Howard Ahmanson, the man who funded the Center for Science and Culture, appears to favor the establishment of Biblical Law. This is similar to movements in other countries whether established or recent. Yes, ID is an "American" cancer, but examine the similar "turn the clock back" cancers. If we can't unite over this, we are a hopeless bunch.

The fact that the article is as stable as it is says much for the Wikipedia model. This is not just a run-of-the-mill bitching session. This article reaches across national boundaries because we keep our workers ignorant in every country. Wikipedia can do something about it. b_calder 00:00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Support.There are so many people in the scientific community who are against Intelligent Design that I think comments on this topic would be overwhelmingly representative of the Community hired to teach and do research in public institutions. Not every ID supporter is going to rebuttal every point made (Personal comment: Unfortunately). Therefore, why would this article not be placed on Wikipedia's home page. I think this topic is vital to put forward since it is a hot-button issue to Americans. Americans who have knowledge on the topic also want to jump on the bandwagon and display what they know, so I support this article's advancement. --MEGOP, 2:58 (UTC) 13 June 06

OBJECT - Highly anti-ID with severe distortions Heavily edited against ID by those who do not understand how origin theories are modeled or how to disprove them. DLH 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT: The above is yet one more example of bad faith attempts by pro-ID edtiors to scuttle the FA candidacy of any ID article that presents both sides of the topic fairly and in a balanced manner. DLH, a largely single topic, single viewpoint contributor [8], has a history of using Wikipedia to promote an aggressively partisan pro-ID viewpoint, and has consisently violated WP:NPOV in so doing. Objections in the same manner as his scuttled the last FA attempt, and his comments above serve to illustrate how those not dedicated to NPOV but to a particular POV will always try to derail any FA status for this article. I'm afraid until a method is adopted to properly weigh and deal with bad faith or just clueless objections, hot button topics like ID will always be vulnerable to such acts of partisan activism. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: FeloniousMonk accuses of "bad faith" with no evidence. He is one of the primary causes of the anti-ID bias in this article. I have been working for many months to correct these biases by summarizing both sides. Overview ID & Conventional Science. Peer Review However, FeloniousMonk and those working with him systematically revert, refusing to allow any changes.DLH 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to FeloniousMonk's caricaturization of "single topic single viewpoint" contributor, I have participated in at least 63 pages. He accuses me of being "aggressively partisan" and having "consistently violated WP:NPOV". I have worked at providing objective cited material, correcting FelonousMonks overtly anti-ID editorials. This diatribe is another example where FeloniousMonk appears to be following WP:ABF.DLH 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) There have been at least a dozen explicit wholesale reversions with no effort at editing or seriously pointing out what the objections are. I have worked with constructive criticism to revise the and improve the statements and citations.DLH

Support as featured (although given how much vandalism and junk I've had to deal with on previous occasions that I had an FA on my watchlist I'm almost inclined to oppose. This article is going to make many other articles seem like a cakewalk. ) JoshuaZ 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a great shame that this article has been rejected due, frankly, to partisan ID supporters. It's an excellent article, and no less NPOV than an article on flat-earth science. Shame on the nay-sayers, and shame on wikipedia for allowing it to happen. Tomandlu 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Eleanor Rigby (song)

I know, another Beatles article. At this rate, we'll have their whole repetoire. But I think it's FAC quality. Self-nom. Failed its first FAC. It's also been in peer review. It's come a long way in its FACness, and the issues the first time around have been resolved. Thanks! --The PNM 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Although I like the song, it's OBJECT for me sorry, Too short, not enough pics for FA, not very informative, not the best overall. Aren't I a meany? Spawn Man 08:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs. Those need to either be expanded or merged into an adjacent paragraph.
    • Taken care of! Thanks to help from Johnleemk. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • External links should go in the references section at the bottom, not within the article itself. Footnote them using {{ref|name of reference}} in the article, and {{note|name of reference}} in the references.
    • Done with one thing, at least. Thanks! --The PNM 02:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The parenthetical asides throughout the article interrupt the flow of the prose. See if you can work those into the actual prose without setting them off in parentheses.
    • They're gone. --The PNM 20:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry much about finding additional pictures; there's not much else that you could add. If you stumbled across a licensed or uncopyrighted picture of the Beatles performing the song, then include that, but otherwise I think the pictures are fine as they are.

Good luck! Let me know if you need any help. PacknCanes | say something! 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of my concerns. I don't think it's fair to pile on more stuff to do after you've already met most of my objections, but this article badly needs a copyedit and the prose needs to flow better. I'll withdraw my objection on the grounds that the objection specifically has been addressed, but I'll have to abstain until it comes up to a better level of writing. Also, as Johnleemk notes below, be on the lookout for POV writing. PacknCanes | say something! 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• While I would love to support a Beatles song article that I didn't work on much, right now, I have to object. The length and pictures are fine, but there are far too many instances of unencyclopedic writing; to just cite one from the lead itself: "The songwriting credit is Lennon-McCartney, though it was originally written by just Paul McCartney and all the Beatles contributed bits of lyrics." The second paragraph of Significance, in particular, is full of such writing. I also dislike the incredibly short sections near the end, and would merge them if I could find an arrangement that would work. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the offending lines; is there anything else that is awkward? --The PNM 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I still had to make some minor changes, but after delving into the Signifance section more, I'm quite convinced I can't support until it is rewritten. I find the section rather overt in its POV (when it shouldn't even have one in the first place). If we could cite the opinion as that of a Beatles biographer or some of a music reviewer (or someone like that), then it would be great. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Johnleemk, the opinion actually IS from Ian MacDonald, the Beatles' biographer and author of "Revolution in the Head" (just had a new edition this year). Specifically, his entry on Eleanor Rigby -- practically the whole entry is about its signficance. Is it okay now? I put a reference, but should I make some inline reference? (like: According to Beatles' biographer Ian MacDonald...).--The PNM 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
        • A textual reference would probably be best, but it seems a bit odd to me if we devote two paragraphs to the opinion of one Beatles biographer alone — that itself can appear biased. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'd like to see a lot more referencing. There are two inline links, and four "references", but I have no idea what fact is referenced by what. I'd also agree with Johnleemk that the writing is a little uneven. Some of it is quite good, while in other places it is awkward. I don't agree that any more images are necessary. Jkelly 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article and my sources and done all in-line references. I added one more that I had forgotten (when I added the significance section) and removed one, since the section that that referenced is now deleted. Is that good now? Thanks. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice that something from the first peer review hasn't been addressed: Why is it at Eleanor Rigby (song) when Eleanor Rigby is a redirect there? — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done a request for move to Eleanor Rigby. --The PNM 03:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC). It's on Talk:Eleanor Rigby (song).

Comment: It just seems like you are going in to too much detail on such a narrow area. I can't deinatively say yay or nay, but the premise is awfully small here. HereToHelp 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The long quoted passages should probably be re-written into prose. The sources should be in APA or MLA format, with a short description/excerpt of what is available at each site in case those sites ever go down.

Also:

• "a score by George Martin". A score for a song? Was Martin the song's arranger as well as the producer; did he write any of the instrumental?
• "the Shangri-Las...a Motown rendition". That should probably be "Motown-style", since the Shangri-Las weren't Motown artists.
• In general, the article is a bit on the short side to be about such an important song. There has to be a bit more that can be said about its impact on pop culture.
• A few POV problems, like "striking lyrics" (in the lead).

It has potential; it just needs some work to ge it there. --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corinth Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giuseppe Verdi Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Boys High School Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cooperative Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virtual band

About-Picard law

(Largely self-nom) What do you think? It's a dry legal topic, on a somewhat controversial issue, but I think all points of view are reflected. There's a single picture, but I don't quite see what kind of pictures could illustrate the article better (this is about a legal text, after all). David.Monniaux 08:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The Bibliography section should be named "References" according to common practice and guidelines. And what's with the "Opinions"-section? If the internet links are relevant, then thy should go under "External links". The books cited under this section should either go under a "Further reading"-section or be removed if they've not actually been used to reference the article. The external links section is also very large. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I reorganized the section. The external links section is very large because people used to scream bloody murder and censorship if any link criticizing the French government was removed! What do you think about the issue? David.Monniaux 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'd say that we're not a link repository. Any notable criticism should be described in the article. If it's not notable, it shouldn't be snuck in by adding criticism-links. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  Agreed, with the article size 10-15 links is really over doing it but that would be the goal. The article is good but could Main points be changed to prose? Falphin 02:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. David, you do good stuff (such interesting topics), but I can't cope with the torrent. Although your English is better than that of many native speakers, you need a trusted native collaborator to review your texts before nominating them. There's also a certain looseness in some of your prose, which weakens the clarity and precision of the meaning. Your topics seem to demand great clarity and precision. Here are some examples from the lead.
  • 'parliament' should be 'parliamentary'.
  • 'makes it possible to act against organisations (legal entities) when these organisations have been involved in certain crimes'
    • Consider using this: 'makes it possible for the state to act against organisations that have been involved in certain crimes', relocating mention of 'legal entities' to later in the article.
  • 'The law was, in its own words, aimed at cultic movements (mouvements sectaires) that, "undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms". The law does not define new crimes, except in association with existing crimes. It never mentions religion.'
    • You use terminology that is not explained until the reader gets to the next section. The four words and parentheses make it a complicated sentence; can you find a simple, translated expression here that won't beg further questions? Then you can go into the details later.
    • 'Was'—you mean the law has been extinguished? And when was it enacted? Tell us at the start.
    • 'Never' should be 'does not'.
  • 'Proponents of the law allege, on the contrary, that it reinforces religious freedom, since it aims at protecting people who are in a weak position, including children, from being forced into religious and other activities by criminal organizations.'
    • Consider instead: 'On the contrary, proponents of the law allege that it reinforces religious freedom, because it aims to protect people who are in a weak position, including school children, from being forced by criminal organizations into religious and other activities.' But what are these 'other activities'? Homework? ' ...and activities that the legislators regarded as being a threat to ...'?

Dungeons & Dragons

Self nom. This article was formerly nominated as a FAC and, rightfully, failed. Since then I and several people have worked hard to whip the article into shape. The article has also been peer reviewed recently. The primary objections to the previous FAC were: (1) A lack of references. (2) Poor copyediting. (3) Size of the article. (4) Lack of organization. (5) Failure to cover certain subjects (such as related products) in sufficient detail. These problems have been fixed and the article polished up above-and-beyond. I think it's ready to become a featured article. Justin Bacon 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support it passes now... last time it just wasnt ready for the prime time.  ALKIVAR™ 06:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I have tried to re-edit the page but my English is quite poor so that I fear the page (or at least my contribtutions) should be re-edited. I have tried to change the following points:
  1. The article provides the impression to the reader that D&D is a simple tabletop game requiring some items which can be purchased and not a role-playing game. One does not need to have the v3.5 to be able to play in the D&D universe with D&D rules! One can also invent one's own rules and settings! This is said in the article but should be said in the game overview or in the lead.
  2. One should remove all standard D&D abbreviation (DM, RPG,... except D&D, AD&D when clear)
  3. Criticisms should be expanded with comparision with other RPGs
  4. The tone is sometimes condescendant with earlier versions. See caption of the cover of the D&D 4th edition printing.
  5. Many lists and very short (1 or 2 sentence) paragraphs should be merged into prose
  6. What are Game Board (Cloth?) and computer programs (in the Play overview section)?

I think I am not finished yet and that someone should continue this in order improve the article. Vb 09:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a substantial article that might come up to scratch with four or five hours of intensive work. Here are a few problems that I notice without yet having read it properly.
  • Lots of stop-start paragraphing. One solution might be to insert more bullets, which will require rewording and proper punctuation. Another may be to merge paragraphs. At the moment, the flow is adversely affected.
  • I see that you assume women don't/can't/shouldn't play the game. Please change the sexist language. A common way of avoiding the generic male pronoun is to pluralise ('When players choose to have their character attempt an action' rather than 'When a player chooses to have his character attempt an action').
  • The prose needs a BIG clean up—in many places there's a looseness or awkwardness. For example:
    • 'a random die roll' might be clearer as 'a random roll of the die';
    • 'The results of those actions are determined using the game's rules, which govern almost everything from combat to social interaction. However, the Dungeon Master is responsible for interpreting the rules and most simple actions can be resolved from simple logic without referring to the rules.' The logic of 'However' escapes me; then there's a statement that seems to flow better straight from the first sentence. And try 'responsible for interpreting the rules, and most simple actions can be resolved using simple logic without reference to the rules.' It will confuse readers, this shunting from A1 to B and then back to A2.
    • 'Races include elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings among others.' But 'include' does mean 'among others'—you don't need both.
    • 'They help the master to create some story and backgrounds.'—'some story' is not idiomatic English.

Now, it's all like this, so you need to enlist a language-nerd who hasn't seen the text yet. It will be worth it to make it read smoothly—then you'll be proud of it, and frankly, nothing less will do for a FA. (Mind you, I haven't looked at the content; others may have suggestions there.) Tony 09:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've made a pass through the article and changed the language to be gender-neutral. It looks to me like other editors have addressed some of your other constructive critiques as well. Nandesuka 12:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This FA nomination seems to have gone off track rather rapidly. We have one person with poor English skills complaining about the presence of imaginary material that never appeared in the article (a caption mentioning a "4th edition" of the game which doesn't exist) and the lack of material which aleady appeared in the article (an explanation of game boards that can be used with the game). He introduces clumsy language into the article... which is then cited by the next person as a reason to object before the problem can be corrected. Oh, plus a push to make the Wikipedia article on D&D the best place to push an agenda on revising the English language.
  • Reply I had mistaken edition with printing. I am sorry. I think my clumsy language is better than nothing. I still believe some important elements were and (to some extend still are) missing in the article. However I am happy the editors of the article have not reversed my edits but make copyedit instead. The article mentioned game boards and computer programs without explaining at all what they are. I am sorry also for my misunderstanding of notoriety my mother tongue is French and in French notoriété can be positive as well as negative. I have looked in a dictionary. Thanks. Vb 20:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-native speakers can often make valuable contributions to the eng.WP; there's a case for arranging a pairing system with native-speakers so that we can express information and views from outside anglophonia in good English. Over to the Board on that. Will the reviewer who complained of a 'push' please explain what s/he meant? Tony 08:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I was guessing they were referring to your comments on sexist language, making a rather uncivil and unclear defense of the position that English allows "he" to be used as the generic third-person pronoun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object. There's quite a bit of abbreviation used that demands that the reader makes the connection between the introduction of the terms and their acronyms. Also, the prose needs a little polishing. What is the difference between a "random die roll" and a "die roll"? The sentence "Much of the potential for parody in Dungeons & Dragons may exist because, with its heroic millieu and imagination-based gameplay, it exaggerates the visibility of the gap between the actuality of the players' self-image and the personas they adopt when interacting with others" is laboured. Having said that, the article is quite good at explaining what the game is, so long as the reader is willing to follow the wikilinks to important terms like "roleplaying game". Jkelly 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. (Full disclosure: I've done quite a bit of editing on this article in the past couple of months). I concur with Justin Bacon. I think it's ready. I'll make a pass through again to address some of the specific grammar concerns raised by some editors. Nandesuka 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

Nominating for a featured article. Article length to some people will be a drawback, and having wrote the great majority of the article, I take responsibility for the length. Nevertheless, I believe the article is quite comprehensive. Whether or not this is a featured article, I would recommend and encourage a separate article on Babe Ruth that is much shorter for the reader who do not want this much information. It would also be much easier writing a separate article than cutting this one down. --LibraryLion 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's pretty well written, although the prose needs a little tweaking throughout. One particularly annoying aspect is the wholesale linking of common nouns. Here's an example:

'Young George was known for mischievous behavior. He skipped school, ran the streets, and committed petty crime. By age seven, he was drinking, chewing tobacco ...'

WP is not a dictionary, and there's a bunch of reasons that common words—and for that matter, low-value years and decades—should not clutter the appearance of the text. If your readers don't know what these words mean, they should take lessons in basic English. If they do know what these words mean, I fail to see how hitting the links will help them to understand/enjoy reading your article. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. Overall, well done. Tony 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do claim to getting carried away linking everything, although I admit I was not aware of Wikipedia's preference to link only subjects that relate directly to the text. In a couple of days, I'll try to have this fixed. --LibraryLion 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken out numerous links, although honestly I'm not sure why this really is an issue as it seems rather trivial when judging the quality of the article. --LibraryLion 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images need work:
  • Image:Ruthbatting.jpg, if it was indeed taken in 1923 and was published in the same year (that's very important; it's the publication date that determines public domain, not the date the picture was taken), is public domain as indicated. However, without a source, the year of publication can't be verified.
  • Image:RuthStMary's.jpg has a good justification for fair use, but are you claiming that it's fair use or public domain? Rather hard to tell; make sure to tag the picture with the appropriate tag.
  • Image:Ruthsoxdk.jpg has no source or copyright-status information.
  • Image:Ruth1918.jpg and Image:Ruth1920.jpg have no source information, which makes a public-domain claim rather dubious without knowing for certain the publication date of the photos.
  • Image:FrazeeRedsox.JPG, Image:BRuth1921-2.jpg, Image:RuthMcgraw1922.jpg, Image:Yankeestad2.jpg, Image:3BRuth1925.jpg, Image:Ruth1926-3.jpg, Image:1927NYYankees5.jpg, Image:Ruth1927.jpg, Image:RuthGehrig.jpg, Image:Ruthcharity.jpg, Image:Ruth1929.jpg, Image:RuthClaire1930.jpg, Image:Ruth1930-2.jpg, Image:Ruth1932.jpg, Image:Ruth1935.jpg, Image:Ruth1938.jpg, Image:Ruth1948.jpg, and Image:Ruthfuneral.jpg are all (properly) claimed as fair use, but they need to be tagged as such. I'd recommend using the tag {{fairusein|Babe Ruth}} to tag them.
  • Also, make sure you stay away from anything that isn't NPOV. Be on the lookout for copy like the caption of "the greatest slugging duo" under the picture of Ruth and Gehrig; either qualify it with something like "statistically", or don't use it. But the copy is excellent, and even given the length -- which, admittedly, is VERY long, but just as good -- I'd be happy to support as long as the image concerns are cleared up. Good luck! PacknCanes | say something! 14:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Not tagging the photos was an oversight on my part. I have tagged every picture and gave sources on the Ruth 1918 photo and the 1920 photo. I did not download the pictures Image:Ruthbatting.jpg nor Image:Ruthsoxdk.jpg. Since I do not know their sources, I will replace these two photos with ones where I know their specific references. --LibraryLion 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

All photographs have been tagged. --LibraryLion 22:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see it. The article is still a bit long, but it's certainly comprehensive, so I can't really argue with the length. Weak support on the condition that Tony's concerns about over-linking are addressed. (Rule of thumb: if it's already been linked, don't link it again, especially for things like years and positions..."pitcher", for example, only needs one or maybe two links.) Good job! PacknCanes | say something! 06:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object at 80+ kb the page size is massive. Please summarise the text so that it is cut by more than half. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Please also reduce the image width and cut the numerous headings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Summary style would be completely incompatible with this article. To do this, I would have to make seperate articles on sections by themselves that do not warrant seperate articles. If I did this, none of these seperated sections would even be a full page. I know Wikipedia touts summary style, and it has its uses, but I admit I generally do not like it. It often diverts the reader from the main article, and it fragments your article and interferes with the pace. Summary style is also often distracting and cumbersome to read, even when reading some featured articles. Sorry, but summary style is not is a good option for this article. --LibraryLion 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support- I took out info about the other teams rosters in those world series that Ruth which is irrelavent played trimming the article from 88kb to 85kb but still long. Why not create a few subpages --JAranda | watz sup 19:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain (previous nomination)

When I came to this article it had already been largely developed by WikiProject Science. I have simply been chunking out some important parts (so it is a partial self-nomination). This article has been through Peer Review and meets all of the featured article criteria. --Oldak Quill 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --Oldak Quill 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the references need to be tidied up. I would like to see some merging of the "Notes" and "references" sections so that a single "References" section referenced inline from the page arises. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations and Wikipedia:Footnotes. Alex.tan 16:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it not be easier to keep the references section as it is (apart from templatising them) and just move all the notes links inline [http://...etc.? All of the references are relevent to the whole article.--Oldak Quill 16:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: I have now cleaned these up. --159.92.101.18 08:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Rabbit brain pl.png has no source or copyright information, and no, "From Polish Wikipedia" doesn't cut it. --Carnildo 20:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • image removed. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have verified that all images in the article are free - I have added some more at relevent points. --Oldak Quill 08:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• ObjectSupport The article is great. I have however some objections.
  • It should be clear already in the head that the article is not only about the anatomy the brain of animals but about the brain in more general sense (food, artificial intelligence)
  • The titles are funny but not explicit enough. I suggest to change "A smart device" and "Inside brains" with something more telling like "the functions of the brain" and "Anatomy of the brain". The same for the title "Brains in medicine" and "Brains in nature": they sound a bit strange to me. Why not "Brains of animals" and "Brains of human beings"?
  • Myths. I like very much the two first myths and their explanations. Why aren't there any explanations following the next ones. A short comment about why those a myths would improve the article.
  • Food. The article is missing many French food based on the brain like the calf head (tête de veau).

Vb 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I believe I have sorted out all of your objections: I have expanded to lead section to consider the study for artificial intelligence and use as food; I have renamed "inside the brain" to "The biology of the brain", do you have any suggestions as to what "A smart device" could be changed to?; I have moved the "Myths" section to the human brain article as it was not general enough; and I have expanded food to include tête de veau and a couple of other foods. --Oldak Quill 12:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK It's now better but the titles "A smart device", "Brains in medicine" and "Brains in nature" are really too odd to me. You should really change this. What belong to human brain and brain is not made clear. Maybe should you make a subsection called "human brain" with main article "human brain". Vb 15:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I can see your point over "A smart device" but am not sure why there is anything wrong with "...in medicine" and "...in nature"? --Oldak Quill 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC) EDIT: I have now changed all of the titles you suggest should be changed and then some for greater uniformity and sense. I have also added a "human brain" section which is linked to the main article. --Oldak Quill 00:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support OmegaWikipedia 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object—Very poorly written. I've edited the opening, but I'm finding that there's a looseness in more than the use of language; it's deeper than that, involving scientific looseness.

For example:

Why is psychology 'less direct' than neuroscience in its study of the brain? This needs to be worded carefully to be credible.

'There have also been attempts and research into simulating it (artificial intelligence) to achieve a new, more efficent, generation of computing'—please remove most of the occurrences of 'also', which are redundant. 'Attempts into simulating'? Doesn't make sense. 'Attempts and research'? 'it (artificial intelligence)' is clumsy. Would this research produce an old generation of computing?

'Humans have also put the brain to use as an ingredient in various world cuisines and tribal rituals.' Suddenly we're talking about cannibalism, at the end of a leading paragraph that covers the related scientific fields ....

'neural control is executed by collections of ganglia'—'control is executed' is awkward.

'usually used'—come on, you shouldn't be writing jingles like that.

'information about the human brain in specific'—do you mean 'specifically'?

'Functions of the brain are responsible for cognition'—Do you mean 'The brain is responsible ...'?

Every sentence needs surgery. Withdraw and find collaborators to tighten the whole thing up. We need a FA on the brain. (PS If you want more examples, I'll just go through and pick out some more shockers. But you get the thrust of what I'm saying, don't you?) Tony 14:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments concerning the article - you certainly seem qualified to make them :). I will be going through the article tonight and tomorrow to thoroughly clean up the English. I'll leave you a message when I'm done. --Oldak Quill 09:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Update: I and several others have now significantly copyedited the article, I will be making some finishing touches after my train journey home.
    • The article has now been extensively copyedited, I hope you consider it in a better state. --Oldak Quill 14:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - As said above, needs improvements in writing style. --WS 15:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Tentative Support, I would like to see the writing style improved but there is no such thing as a perfect article. Falphin 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I'm not going to say why i object because 1, I have the right to, & 2, Everyone would try & berate me into supporting, which I don't need. Mainly cause it's too short. Spawn Man 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an inactionable objection, so is ignored. --87.80.42.198 09:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • See what I mean?.... If you read closely you would see that I put the words MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S TOO SHORT, did you see it now? My objection is because it is too short mr. I'm Going To Ignore It. You can't ignore it. It is actionable & is correct. SO THERE..... *Some people get my blood boiling...........* Spawn Man 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • In what way is this article too short?! In no way is it too short. Perhaps you are referring to particular sections? If so, please say which ones. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "Too short" is an inactionable objection because it does not indicate how the article could be fixed. The article could be made longer by thesaurusizing it. It could be made longer by adding lorem ipsum in strategic locations. It could be made longer by using a larger font, or wider margins, or by double-spacing the lines. What do you want? --Carnildo 23:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Also keep in mind that the article is already 34 kB, over the recommended size. I will expand the "Function" section as suggested below today. --Oldak Quill 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's looking better now; I've gone through down to the end of 'animal brains'—please see my inline comments. Plus: 'compare with' for contrasts, 'compare to' for similarities. Tony 02:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The section on fuction is still too short for me. Scientists are still unlocking mysteries of the brain & all we have is a small little section on function? Watch some BBC, Human Body, episodes then come back to it.... Spawn Man 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Still needs lots of work. Can you retitle the section 'Importance of the brain'? This implies that the following section 'Biology of the brain' is not important. Can you do something about the caption for the mouse brain (which I reworded—now it's visually awkward). Tony 04:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'll be making amendments today. --Oldak Quill 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: seems OK, only the following needs a source: "Humans enjoy unique neural capacities, but much of the human neuroarchitecture is shared with ancient species" - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Weak object This does need to be rewriten, but when that's done, you're good. So when these complaints stop, so does mine.

• Weak Object- I think it needs an evolutionary history (a paragraph or so- when did brains first evolve). Also, "Other matters" is a poor name for a section (a broader discussion of philosophical and computer science would be nice and that section seems to aproximate that, but isn't named so and isn't sufficiently fleshed out). This is a really broad subject and such large topics are hard to feature. The "brain as food" section seems random, but i guess it isn't bad. Broken S 22:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Half-Life 2

Self-nomination and also re-nom. Originally submitted by me back in June of this year, the article has come a long way, and many changes have been made to fix it up. A very interesting and notable computer game. Thunderbrand 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, although I have made considerable contributions to this article, I do feel the article is comprehensive and a good all-around article. For whatever it is worth. K1Bond007 06:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object the lead has to be double the current size. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it now? I think its summarized a bit better. Thunderbrand 14:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object: Overuse of screenshots. The images Image:Breen1HL2.jpg, Image:Antlions1HL2.jpg, Image:City17HL2.jpg, and Image:ManhacksHL2.jpg are not discussed in the article, and should probably be removed. --Carnildo 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually the first three are discussed, the last one isn't though (at least specifically, it is in a section talking about the character - allies & enemies in the game. I think that's fair enough) Definitely not overuse and the screenshots add greatly to the article. K1Bond007 19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with K1Bond007. The screenshots help greatly and aren't overused. Thunderbrand 20:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Of the four, Image:Breen1HL2.jpg doesn't appear show anything significant about the game. Image:Antlions1HL2.jpg, Image:City17HL2.jpg, and Image:ManhacksHL2.jpg are all used to illustrate combat, so all but one of them should be removed. --Carnildo 05:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Breen1HL2.jpg shows a signifcant part of the storyline. Thunderbrand 16:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, yet again. It is an important moment in the game and is illustrated in the plot summary. There's absolutely no reason to remove it. K1Bond007 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—No mention of platforms: Mac and Windows, when/if? No mention of releases in countries other than what I presume is the US, as though that's the only country in the world. Prose not 'compeling, even brilliant'. Things like:

'1998's'

'leaked TO the internet'? This is not the right preposition. Upper-case I for Internet, still.

'advancements'—hello?

'during the course of conducting an experiment'—which four words are redundant here?

dot after 'Dr' is now very old-fashioned.

'Two distinctive elements from the original Half-Life are preserved:

Freeman is a silent protagonist

The entire game is viewed through Freeman's eyes (i.e. there are no cut scenes)'—comma after 'e,g.', and format this as the single sentence that you apparently intended it to be.

The whole text needs a thorough edit. Tony 14:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I addressed most of your concerns. However, you need to clarify a couple so I know what is wrong:

What is wrong with using "1998's"?

"advancements" - same as above. "hello?" doesn't give me much to go by. Thunderbrand 15:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

1998s doesn't need an apostrophe and advancements is a confused word that means the same as the more simple - advances (grammatically it doesn't seem correct, but I can't work out why). In general the text has improved since my last read though, but it feels odd being dropped straight into the plot, neutral.--nixie 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Support The article does a good job of summing up both the game, its development, and the issues surrounding it. InvictaHOG 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Object First there are several minor issues, the Plot gets way too detailed in some places (ex: there is no reason to mention a detail like "breifly transporting Gordon to the office of Doctor Breen twice"). Also in Narration the use of "it" when describing speculation is inappropriate, and should be rewritten. (Ex. "In Half-Life it could be said" What is "it"?, who is saying "it"?) The article is also missing a Reception and awards section. Except for a brief mention in the intro, the article does not describe how the game was recieved and if the game won any awards. (Didn't Half-Life 2 win a Game Developer's Choice Award?) MechBrowman 03:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't get that detailed, and when it does, it is necessary. When Gordon gets transported to Dr. Breen's office in the beginning, it basically sets off the whole game. The Combine, and even Breen, don't even know of his existence in the city up until that point, hence it is a major part of the story, which is why the screenshot is included. Thunderbrand 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Except that isn't necessary at all to the summary. Of course that is important to make the story make sense, but only when your playing it. When you are summarizing the game keep it simple. Remove some of the detail and just say something similar to "Alerted to Gordan's presence, Breen sends the combine after him." MechBrowman 18:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Object There's no information about the leak at all. Nothing about the hacker who stole the entire source code then released it on the net. There's nothing about the extended release dates, the stories cooked up by Valve or any of the actual interesting prose regarding its development at all. Nothing about its fan support either. James Pinnell 09:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you read the lead paragraph, it mentions the source code leak, which directs you to the Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms page. The Half-Life 2 page was getting to large and most of the stuff was moved to that page, as well as others. Thunderbrand 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

New England Patriots

Nomination (not self-nom). I am disappointed that that there is no NFL franchise as a featured article, and after studying all the franchise pages, i chose what i believe to be the best one, after deliberating between the Philadelphia Eagles and this article, i decided this was the best one. Expertly written with attention to detail. I will be happy to attempt to adress any criticisms of the article, however, please, do not object with the argument of "Pats SUCK!" or the like. Thethinredline 17:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lacks a References sections to cite the sources used for this article as required by criteria 2 of the featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A clear mistake on my part, and will attempt to rectify. Is there any specific area where a refernece is especially lacking?Thethinredline

The Franchise history section needs some references. Outside of the newly added references for individual players such as Jim Nance and Jim Plunket, there are no citations for anything but the 1970 season and 1971 draft. --Allen3 ^talk 01:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I am concerned that some portions of the article might not be "stable" as per featured article criteria #2. An example of this concern is what is expressed on Talk:New England Patriots#Game by game; a number of users have been entering summaries for each game for the 2005 season, which is still currently ongoing. Until the season ends in February, I feel that this section of the article will change significantly from day to day. My other current concern is that the lead section still needs work. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. Pats SUCK! ;-)
  2. The image Image:McGinestLawSeymour.jpg is tagged as a "promotional photo". However, this tag is only for press kit and other official promotional images, while this image appears to be from a news report. It needs a different fair use tag and a rationale, or it needs to be removed.
  3. The navbox at the bottom contains the restricted-license image Image:NationalFootballLeague.png. Navboxes and other templates should never use non-free images.

  --Carnildo 04:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object lead should summarise the article. The article at 54 kb is long and winding. It should be written in summary form and details moved to subarticles. Inline links should be collected using the footnote style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I fear that this article will be long and winding for some time. As with Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants, St. Louis Rams, and some of the other National Football League team articles, it is completely out of control. It seems that users are trying to stuff every single detail they can in them with out even looking into the sub-cats of Category:National Football League. I feel like I have to wait until the season ends in February to clean it all up. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not a sportsfan and I'm not particularl interested in sports article, but I'm very sympathetic to your plight, Zzyzx, and I understand the problems you're having. I don't know what the best course of action is, but I encourage you to be absolutely merciless (yet polite) in removing trivia and other unencyclopedic material. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have done quite a bit of work in this article. (I also did some work on the Rams and Patriots articles) Just so you see from where I'm working, I am trying to focus on summaries and high points in seasons. I am not trying to put stuff in, for the sake of putting it in; but at the same time, I think it is good to be as detailed as possible. Indeed, it seems to be working, as this has been nominated for an award.

I also will agree that details about individual games in 2005 probably don't belong; however details about the seasons, and conflicts, and certain milestone games over the years make the article more useful.--Seadog1611 04:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I've been working on the New Orleans Saints article and I think it's necessary to spin the history section off into a subpage: History of the New Orleans Saints. Also, it was mentioned, I think, at the NFL Wikiproject talk page, but someone discussed cutting out the stuff in the lead section that is already in the infobox--which obviously needs to be done--and maybe expanding the infobox to make sure all the pertinent information is there. My first suggestion would be to move all that history onto a History of the New England Patriots article; then summarize it briefly for the main article (see IFK Goteborg for an example).Kevin M Marshall 22:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Big Brother (TV series)

I stumbled upon this article back in May of 2005. It was the first article I read on Wikipedia, and happens to be one of the most informative and well written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireSpike (talk • contribs) 21:39, October 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lacks a References section to cite the sources used by this article as required by criteria 2 of the featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 23:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I don't think it's informative or well written, and the lead paragraph is particularly weak. "While any pretences to be a cultural experiment are dubious" is an example of POV, but there are others. "On the other hand, other versions have involved plotting in the vein of the most cruel soap opera. Some versions have been filled with sex-crazed housemates ...." is not encycopedic. The article itself is very short, and only appears long because of the lists. Big Brother around the world - I'm not sure it's needed. I don't think it is. Some pecularities needs to be absorbed into the main text. As stated above - there are no references and that is absolutely mandatory. Rossrs 09:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth. I think naming the countries around the world that have broadcasted their own version of Big Brother is certainly encyclopedic and relevant to this article. How it should be included is up to debate. - 131.211.51.34 12:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - lacks an encyclopedic tone. See popular culture studies or try looking at material from this google scholar search. TreveX^talk 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Dinosaur

I'm astonished such an incredible article hasn't been a featured article already. This is such a popular topic & would be great on the main page. Spawn Man 01:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Major Support. As per above. Spawn Man 01:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, a good article, but it still needs some work. A couple sections like =Behaviour= and =In popular culture= need to be rewritten. The history section ends around 1900, and needs to be expanded. The references also need to be redone. There are a mix of parenthetical and external link style references, in general both should be replaced with footnotes. The external links section is also overly long. With so many links, do we really need to include sites only available in German? Or ones on obscure theories, such as the "gravity killed the dinosaurs" ones? Also why is so much of the article quotes from other sources? The entirety of the =Lungs=, =Heart=, and =Care of young= sections are quotes from other sources. The second section also contains a not terribly enlightening quote from something called DinoBuzz. Also Image:Falcarius utahensis.jpg and Image:Dino tissue.jpg are claimed as fair use, but give no justification. - SimonP 03:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think German language links should stay if they were used as reference to write parts of the article, unless an English language reference can be found to replace it. Has anyone got an idea why the German links were added? - Mgm|^(talk) 14:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Falcarius utahensis.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but there doesn't appear to be anything special about it. It should be removed.
  2. The image Image:Dino tissue.jpg is claimed as fair use, but doesn't indicate either the source (presumably an article in Science) or a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what is needed.

  --Carnildo 06:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object: 1) The ToC is granulated. Please reduce the heading and sub headings. 2) The page size is increasing, please start summarising sections. 3) Collect all those inline links as footnotes. There are still more issues with the article, but I hope you address these first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Just as a note everybody: I was requested to put dinosaur up for FA by a friend. I didn't actually know I would have to actually fix the article. So don't complain to me, my friend wanted to know if dinosaurs would get anywhere... Spawn Man 02:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

    Please read the text on the top of this page: It says: If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised.
    

If you wanted a general review and suggestions from the community please add it to Wikipedia:Peer review instead of WP:FAC. Please decide on what you want to do now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Those instructions should be tweaked to also apply to objectors. Pcb21| Pete 17:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. That would only serve as an unmerited deterrent for objections. Unactionable objections are not a problem since they're ignored by Raul and not making it "in time" isn't a problem either, since the comments are archived and can easily be addressed at a later date. It's certainly helpful if objectors help out and the practice should be encouraged, but under no circumstances should it be expected. The comments of those who aren't deeply involved in the nominated article should be encouraged, and not seen as some sort of burden. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Articles shouldn't be promoted just because people who'd otherwise object can't fix things themselves. If I notice a large gap in an article's coverage I must be able to object even though I don't have the knowledge to fill the gap myself. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • It is a great shame that only "self-nominations" are possible. Pcb21| Pete 09:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I could fix the objections I raise, but I'm fairly sure people would rather I didn't -- if an image is unsourced or has no copyright info, I'd just speedy-delete it, whereas the person nominating the article for FAC might know the information in question. --Carnildo 19:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Coeliac disease

I've not had anything to do with this article - just had reason to read it and thought it was very informative. A doctor or two has read it and approved the content (see talk page). Pcb21| Pete 17:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) Are the references under the =external links=? 2) Picture? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It is chaotic and lacks crucial information (e.g. rate of occurrence). It is thin on references. I added the discovery of anti-tTG2 and its cross-reactivity with gluten, but there are many more crucial papers that could be cited, such as the review in The Lancet 2 years ago. A picture will be hard - unless someone can arrange a microscopy photo of villous atrophy. JFW | T@lk 19:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Perhaps a picture of related nutrients would be appropriate?

1. Lead needs to be tightened.
2. Please seperate the external links and the references.
3. It needs a copyedit for overly academic terms. Some are bound to be neccesary, but I think some of them cane be pruned or replaced.

Templates and categorization appears to be fully in order. I think it's an FA in the making. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone else that has doubts about this disease? It just seems to me that mankind evolved with wheat. Any links to medical journals or discussions?

Doubts about the disease? there are chapters and entire books about it! S Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 21:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is not correct on a number of details regarding celiac disease. It is an admirable effort by what appears to be motivated and well read non-physicians about the disease, and is very good in the big picture. A lot of details, however, are incorrect. Also, the thinking on pathophysiology needs to reworked. The sections on treatment are missing a number of comments about dieticians and resources. Well, I said a while ago I was going to work on this. That will happen over the next few months. Kd4ttc 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sleep

Fantastic article! Satisfies all FAC criteria (neutral, well researched, factual, referenced). I really believe that it covers the topic sleep very well. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. Request opinion of sleep experts.Jclerman 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears I was premature here. This should be sent to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review.

1. A lot of unexplained jargon.
2. Lead is too short.
3. Has numerous (too) short sections.
4. Should have a summary of the article on dreaming in a section with a link to the main article.
5. A lot of the terms in the "see also" section need to be discussed in the article itself; not comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• The Medicine Collobaration of the Week might be interested in taking this one on.--nixie 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This article isn't there yet, by any means. But please take another look. Substantial changes have been made since this (premature) nomination was entered. Except perhaps for the back-and-forth on the caffeine issue, which may have been resolved already, I don't see that it needs peer review at this point. Sfahey 09:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The caffeine issue has not a verifiable peer-reviewed reference. Jclerman 12:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

See the Discussion page. Jclerman 03:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I see how contentious that seemingly minor point had become. I rewrote the claim in perhaps a more palatable way, and put it in a footnote, which I believe is appropriate in the English wikipedia. Parenthetically, there IS some rationale for serving coffee at bedtime(the use of caffeine in infants) and while it for sure wouldn't work for me I see no reason to question that it is done. My efforts to translate the relevant paper myself were unsuccessful. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As above, request reviewers to give this article another look. I believe the objections have largely been addressed. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• The objections I had 3 days ago have not been addressed. I still think this would benefit peer review. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, the lead has been rewritten, over half of the old "see also" list is now eliminated and incorporated into the article, and the only "short" section is the one on "measuring sleep." This could be merged with the "Physiology" section, but since I was the only critic who chose to work on, rather than simply disparage, this nomination I didn't get as far as doing that, or writing a new section on "Dreams". Sfahey 01:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• More comments:
• If the Caffeine Note refers to: <<(CoffeeInElderlyDe In verbatim, this source states under "Sonstiges": "Coffee: Helps in many elderly people because of the decrease in respiratory rate". German text: "Evtl. Kaffee: hilft bei vielen älteren Menschen wegen des nächtlichen RR-Abfalls")>>, the German quotation is NEITHER from what is understood to be a "paper" NOR it has been peer-reviewed: it is just a list of points without references, thus not a "verifiable source." See numerous entries in the Discussion page.Jclerman 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The need for a close scrutiny of the verifiability and reliability of sources on which the article is based has been emphasized by the comments on an edit by "user 80.129.140.252" who stated: "(→Notes - german 'RR' is Riva-Rocci (method of measuring blood pressure, used as synonym with blood pressure), not respiratory resistance!)". See full discussion of this point in the article's discussion page which contains numerous exchanges about the caffeine issue and its repercussion on other web articles. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, to reach a consensus text a detailed verification of its statements, based on reliable sources, and the opinion of sleep experts will be needed. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought that is what I have been doing for the last few months. I have been working on a grant for the last couple of weeks... So I have been busy, but I have put a lot of effort into this article. When I found it, this article was a shambles. I have added properly referenced materials, and useful information. Unfortunately, whenever I remove less relevant information, it turns into an edit war (just look at the discussion page). While some of the "fat" on this page does need to be trimmed, that is almost an impossibility in this format. It is difficult to keep a page like this clean when people start posting their own unsubstantiated pet theories, and hold on to them until the bitter end.However, I will continue adding and subtracting based on what is happening in the field (which I am a part of) because of the time I have already invested. Sleep is an issue that few people know much about, and, as a sleep researcher, I feel it's part of my job as a responsible scientist to direct the public to information that reflects the popular consensus in the field.

MrSandman 03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment re above issues: I still do not understand why this point seems so controversial. This is a tempest in a teapot. User "Keimzelle" has presented:

1. A (sloppily) translated quotation supported coffee at bedtime.

2. A personal report from a German nursing home confirming this.

Additionally, there is a physiological rationale (caffeine's demonstrable ability to stimulate respiration) for this unusual practice. As for a documented source, how about the German wikipedia article on Sleep. In its "Pharmacology" section the authors describe the paradoxical benefit of caffeine in the elderly:

Es klingt paradox – in der Pflege wird Kaffee manchmal gebraucht, um das Ein- und Durchschlafen zu fördern. Besonders bei älteren Menschen hilft das Koffein, den Abfall der Atemfrequenz zu bekämpfen.

This German translation is affected by the loss in translation pointed out above under "more comments"; plainly stated: the original German cited means "blood pressure" incorrectly translated as "Atemfrequenz = respiratory rate".Jclerman 15:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not to suggest that this article is up to "F.A." quality. But it is a lot closer than the current flock of naysayers insist. Sfahey 02:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Daily Show

Removal from the Order of Canada

Self-renom. I had two attempts before, but since the last one, I had it spell and grammar checked and the images have not changed a bit. Zach (Sound Off) 02:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Since the book depicted in Image:AlanEaglesonbookcover.jpg is not discussed in the article, use of the image is not "fair use". --Carnildo 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure it really makes sense to me to have an article about removal from the order as a standalone. Should this not be merged into Order of Canada? It seems to me on reading it that the prose is far from concise and could be condensed substantially in any case. There are also numerous spelling errors at the moment. Worldtraveller 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There was an AFD that asked for this article to be merged into the main Order of Canada (also an FA), but after I beefed it up, many who voted merge said to vote keep instead. I still believe this can stand out on its own. I also fixed the spelling errors and I also made the article into British English. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would change anything, but shouldn't this be in Canadian English? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will get the Firefox spell check add in for the Canadian EN and run that through all Order of Canada related articles. Zach (Sound Off) 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The only word that seems to have issues is "criticised," but I am not sure how it is spelt in Canada EN. Other than that, the article is fine on the "spelling" front, unless something is added to it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian spelling typically uses -ize over -ise. — mendel ☎ 20:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—prose not good enough. Here's just one example:

'though the removal process is started by individual Canadians or by various groups inside of Canada'.

It's a false contrast to use 'though' (better 'although') here. 'Initiated' rather than 'started'. Remove redundant 'of'. 'Inside Canada', in any case, is another false contrast, because the institution is also that. Needs thorough editing to be considered for nomination. I agree with the comments above about the need to merge this with the related article. Tony 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I fixed the above statement, but I had the article copyedited before I sent it here. I am still against the idea of a merge, since the AFD I pointed out earlier called for a merge, but was defeated. I personally believe this article can stand out on its own. Tony, if you think my grammar is not that great (which you said this at other FAC's I started/worked on), then I welcome you to come in and fix it yourself. Zach (Sound Off) 02:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose The process of removal may be interesting, but it has only been successfully applied against two OoC recipients (Alan Eagleson and David Ahenakew) and is therefore not significant enough (i.e., there are other worthy candidate articles) for nomination. As well, more of Eagleson's situation should be described (being the first inductee removed), and the syntax and content of the article can be improved upon (e.g., Christie or Christy)? E Pluribus Anthony 07:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sinclair Research Ltd

self-nomination, I worked a lot on this article, it's very detailed and includes lots of pictures, and has a good lead paragraph (might need expanding though). It went through peer review and got some good comments. Includes references, further reading, external links and see also section. — Wackymacs 08:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good article, but it just not sufficiently comprehensive and detailed, therefore object. Also the only reference is from 1985 - I should like to know where the post-1985 stuff comes from. Basically everything Sinclair did after 1983 was a failure (and in some cases was very dodgy), there are underlying reasons for this that need mentioning. (Sinclair got lucky with a good design team for the Spectrum and then thought he was the one responsible for its success). The failure of QL is attributed here due to "it's strong competition", and not the nearly total loss of confidence in Sinclair after his actions "launching" it before they even had a prototype.

There's an online exposé of the downfall of Sinclair that I'll try to find. Morwen - Talk

*Most of the post 1985 information is from the 'Planet Sinclair' website (linked in the external links section), a very informative website all about Sinclair himself, and all the products the company ever made. I'll see how I can improve it, if you can help it'd be very useful in getting this closer to FA status. — Wackymacs 15:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The images Image:Tv1a.jpg, Image:Sinclairblackwatch.jpg, Image:SinclairStereo25.jpg, Image:SinclairC5.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but it should be possible to create or find free-use replacements, so there's no reason to use "fair use" images here.
  2. The image Image:SinclairC5.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution license, but does not indicate the creator. This needs to be fixed, or the image needs to be deleted.

  --Carnildo 19:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Image sources have been added to all the images you mentioned, and the SinclairC5.jpg image was tagged wrong, it has been replaced with the promotional tag. — Wackymacs 20:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, good work but some improvements could still be made. The lead should be longer and more than one section. There should be more descriptive section headings for the history section than simply date ranges. The long and thin financial data column needs to be better placed. I would suggest having it as a side bar to the history section. See for instance how I did this with a long thin table at voter turnout. The article also seems lacking in some areas. It needs to be more on the company today, how many employees, what it is working on etc. The article is too focused on the company's products with very little on corporate structure, leading figures, or facilities. Specific figures, such as most of the financial figures, should be sourced with footnotes. The table especially needs a source. - SimonP 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion of putting the finance table as a sidebar to the history section, this has now been done. — Wackymacs 15:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Lots of prose problems. Just a FEW examples at the top:
  • 'founded Sinclair Radionics, a company developing hi-fi products'—so the company was already developing these products WHEN it was founded?
  • Is a calculator a hi-fi product?
  • 'In 1965 the "Micro-FM" debuted as "the world"s first pocket-size FM tuner-receiver", but was poorly acclaimed due to technical difficulties, though in the far-east illegal clones of the product were being produced'—many problems:
    • why 'but'? Are you contradicting the first clause in some way?
    • better to insert 'it' after 'but'
    • punctuation needs a thorough audit for clarity and ease of reading
    • 'though' (better 'although') comes after 'but', and I can't see why it's yet another contradiction of what precedes it—you need to spell out why 'poorly acclaimed' (better 'reviewed'?) somehow makes the illegal cloning surprising. Or break up the sentence to avoid these false contrasts.

How did this ever find its way straight into the FAC list? Withdraw, rewrite, possibly resubmit. Tony 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - A company information box should be added to the article. Cedars 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• A company information box has been added, and I'm working on the prose problems and other grammar issues. I'm also trying to add more info about the company itself, and will look into moving the financial data table to the side of the article rather than in it's own section. Some more references are going to be added too.— Wackymacs 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Good work. Though the company type field is very important and still not filled in yet. The revenue field should also be filled in but because the success of this company was largely in past years you may want to use historical data. "N/A" could also be used if you so desired. Cedars 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I put N/A in the company type entry, because it is almost impossible to find out if they are LTD, PLC or sole trader. For the revenue entry I added the data for 1984, Sinclair's best financial year, with a revenue of £77.69 million. I think the company infobox is now done. — Wackymacs 17:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team

Although I have contributed to this article, most of it has been developed by others. I'm happy to make any positive changes that are needed for this to become a featured article, jguk 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Jguk back to FAC after a long hiatus! Ok, Object 1) The west Indies flag should be a .png type. 2) Lead should be doubled and summarise the article. 3) Other theorists point out; It is theorised would like to know the source. 4) ToC granulated. Please shorten it and remove those ugly subheadings. 5) This needs a grammar check. Found missing full stops, play against side 6) Wikify Busta Cup and mention what it is. 7) The first sentence of =Early tours= should mention the year when WI first played. 8) Scarborough festival? 9) I think this needs a copyedit before I review further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object too, I'm afraid. Much as I like to see lots of cricket featured articles, this one just isn't up to scratch yet. I found sentences like "The bowlers to follow had big shoes to fill, and ultimately, have not responded to nowhere near the level that Ambrose and Walsh have set". Also no mention of England's last tour (Harmison 7/12, Lara 400*). And somehow the statistics at the bottom are ugly and disconnected from the rest of the page. I didn't do a thorough review, but I can't support it at the moment. Stephen Turner 19:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate the difficulty of finding pictures, but in this case, a few more would vastly improve the dry look of the page. Candidates: Headley, Worrell, the 3W's, Ramadhin&Valentine, the Tied Test shot, Lloyd, Viv Richards, the 70s pace quartet, Greenidge&Haynes, Lara. --Peripatetic 23:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.PNG and Image:WI shirt.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but no source information is provided, making it impossible to evaluate fair use. Further, it seems to me that it should be quite possible to make free-licensed replacements for those images. --Carnildo 06:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • May I ask how? The logo will be a trade mark and the design of the shirt is what has copyright (the photo of it won't). These rights will belong to the West Indies Cricket Board. We have to rely on free use to use them, don't we? jguk 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Jet Database Engine

A Ta bu shi da yu-driven article. He did a heck of a lot of work during and after the first FAC, and I went ahead and added another paragraph to the intro and delistified a list. It seems readable even to a layman. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Supported it the first time, and think it is even better now. WegianWarrior 07:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Still not accessible to a non-computer bod like myself. The explanation of a database engine as being "...the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS." might as well be in Greek to me. I don't think the article needs to expand greatly to explain this to everyone - just a bit - but it is essential that it can be understood by a layman if it is to be an example of WP's best work, jguk 15:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... not sure the best way of rephrasing that. There are wikilinks to the terms, but was wondering if you want a short explanation of each of those terms? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I asked on his talk page a while ago too... he's still actively editing so hopefully we'll get a response :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The lead is now updated - hopefully it satisfies the objection. - 203.134.166.99 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Apologies for not getting back earlier (I was unfortunately distracted onto less enjoyable things). I still can't understand the sentence "A database engine is the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS (an RDBMS generally consists of a component that manages the data itself and a component that allows a user to manipulate the data that resides in the database)." Can it really not be explained to a layman? Without using jargon, what does a database engine do, and why is it important? I appreciate explaining a technical subject to a layman is difficult, and if you are patient with me and see me on IRC, feel free to page me and I'll help, jguk 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm disappointed. Many of the questions I had asked in the first FAC are still unanswered, in particular my questions #1 (locking/data integrity/transaction processing are standard, nothing unusual, and should be treated in their own articles), #2 (the optimistic/pessimistic locking paragraph needs to be rewritten by an expert and outsourced to its own article, see 1), #3 (2PL?), #4 (read locks? Only write locks makes no sense at all!), #6 (what is a "user"?), #7 (on SQL queries), and #8 (when was is phased out?). Lupo 07:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ya, I didn't resubmit it however. The truth on this matter is... I'm not rightly sure how to action the stuff (I'm not saying they shouldn't be actioned, I'm just saying I don't rightly know the best way of doing it). I'm still not sure about 2PL - the article, regrettably, is pretty unclear! I think we should move this to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Seems perfectly readable to me. If they want a definition, they can click the interwiki links (one of the great advantages to an online encyclopedia). This is well-written and researched, but it could definitely use a defining picture (I like the idea of putting the manual up.) -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)}

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:45, 21 March 2009 [9].

---

Surrender of Japan

Nominator(s): User:Raul654

previous FAC (Nov 2005)

This is an article I previously nominated here on the FAC. It was written by user:Wwoods, and heavily edited by me. (It's a topic that's both contentious and complicated, as history topics go - hence the use of a lot of quotes.) I think it's good enough to be promoted to FA. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Nom restarted - old nom Raul654 (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Images and sources reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SupportComments A very interesting article, but I found a few problems:

1. The lead should be expanded, in my opinion. The current lead does not fully summarize the article. For instance, the information from the three first sections is mentioned. Per WP:LEAD it should be 4 paragraph long.

   Done (See below). Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

2. By 1945, the war was going very badly for Japan. Is this sentence really necessary?

   Yes - That's the thesis of the background section. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

   I removed the offending clause myself. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

3. In 'August 13–14' subsection the last sentence in the first paragraph: President Truman ordered a resumption of military operations. duplicates what is said in the last paragraph of the same section. It should be removed.

   Good catch - I've merged the two. Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Please, fix links to dab pages.

   Done. Raul654 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is all. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd respectfully disagree with the lead comment; I think that it should be a little longer (maybe three paras), but not four; that would make it too long IMHO. Plus, what are you going to talk about? The topic is the surrender; are you going to go through all of the end of the war in the lead? I hope not :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead to 3 paragraphs. It now broadly covers everything in the rest of the article. Raul654 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am satisfied with 3 paragraph lead. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Stupid question, shouldn't the article's title be dated or otherwise specified? (1945 Surrender of Japan) (Surrender of Imperial Japan)--Tznkai (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This came up before the restart. The answer is no, because Japan has only lost one war in its 2000+ year existence. The title is concise and uniquely identifying, and we don't disambiguate needlessly. It's also linked using that name from *a lot* of pages. Raul654 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Further thoughts: Divisions in Japanese Leadership section has confusing prose. First seven paragraphs (Japanese policy-making centered on... to Because of its ambiguity) all read like bullet points and don't get to the point in a clear way, in addition to the actual bullet list. "Japanese leaders had always envisioned...." reads like an additional thesis and is unclear on what negotiated settlement means in this context
  • The first paragraphs in that section ("Japanese policy-making centered on ... collapse of an existing government") are necessary because it's impossible to meaningfully discuss the Japanese government's decision to surrender without talking about the decision-making apparatus of the Japanese government.
  • Everything after that discusses Japan's ideas regarding the end of the war. From the first day of the war they planned to end the war by negotiating with the Allies on favorable terms that let them keep some of their conquests, but by 1945 things were going badly enough that, for the first time, they finally started to reconsider peace on less-than-favorable terms. (That is the thesis of the rest of the section).
  • I've split that section to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

Dabs and external links (checker tools)

• ...are found up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• There are refs that are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, a ref name can be used instead. (the citation content is pasted below)

• Hasegawa, 244
• Hoyt, 409

• The following ref name is used to name more than one different ref, when it should only be used to name 1 specific ref.

• Wainstock, 115--₮RUCӨ 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• ...are up to speed as well.--₮RUCӨ 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. 14 red links, 14 links are dead ends, isn't cool nor perfect to a FA. MachoCarioca (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That's totally spurious. They're all valid redlinks (place names and significant political and military figures); the only reason there are a lot of them is because our coverage of 1940s Japanese politics is incomplete. This is precisely the kind of situation for which redlinks were intended. – iridescent 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • This is not a valid oppose: see WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I counted only 8 red links in the article. I've removed two of them, as they were went to colonels who were did not play significant roles in the coup (e.g, people who were not notable because of either their rank or actions). The rest of them, IMO, are significant enough to merit articles. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Spurious is your POV, sorry, iridescent. This is not an ordinary article, but one intended to be EXCELLENT, FEATURED, right? My criteria is higher than WP:RED, it s not my fault if it is lower. This is not an encyclopedia but Wikipedia, made with wikifications; an excellent article must have a perfect wikification to be featured, without dead ends. Users must go to somewhere in ANY link they click, to be EXCELLENT, FEATURED. *****This is not just about writtings. But I can support Aude views, waht about that, is it valid now?. As you see, reasons everybody has some. I don't agree in supporting 'excellent' articles by low standards. I can´t oppose it with lower standards than showed in politics, but higher?? Thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I strongly oppose the same star to be given to 'all-blue' articles and to articles with 5, 10, 25 or 50 (the number doesn't matter) dead links. Excellence here, in my view, is not just about the writtings. Sorry Raul, best wishes .. and ....what about complete the job? MachoCarioca (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Judge this article on its own merits, not by the fact that it links to ones that don't exist. That's the whole point of WP:RED policy. I do not have the time, resources, or inclination to write articles on some fairly obscure Japanese people from that period - my interest is this article up to FA status. Raul654 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not ready to support. I think the article needs to provide more context for use of the atomic bombs, though per WP:SUMMARY, it need not go into excess detail either. But there is no mention of the decision and deliberations about using the atomic bombs.

I'm enough satisfied with the changes in response to my concerns, and those in response to Ferrylodge, to withdraw my oppose. I do think there is some room for improvement, such as mentioning the "Committee of Three". But, I don't have time right now to do further detailed review or help with editing myself. Overall, I think the article is quite good and well-written. --Aude (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• In light of discussion in the article about how the Japanese had some willingness to surrender and were looking for ways they could do so, then why the atomic bombs?
  • This is already covered extensively. The article explicitly says that the Japanese were not seeking peace on terms acceptable to the Allies. (See the first quote in the 'Divisions within the Japanese leadership' section). And they were seeking it through a the USSR, which wanted the war to continue and did their best to scuttle negotiations. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Why were the terms not acceptable to the Allies? (see my comments below, regarding political consequences and the American public opinion at the time) I think that is the missing piece. This article should shed some light on that question. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Even after the events of August 9, the military half of the cabinet favored a four-condition peace -- preservation of the emperor, self-disarmament, Japanese control of war crimes trials, and no occupation of Japan. - Frank, 291. Other than the first, none of these terms would have been acceptable to the allies. They contravene several explicit points of the Potsdam declaration. And all of that is already listed in the August 8–9 : Soviet invasion and Nagasaki section. Raul654 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Can you please discuss the other terms (in addition to the monarchy) earlier in the article, such as the "Divisions within the Japanese leadership". Maybe I missed them, but I don't see them, but only see discussion of retaining the emperor. --Aude (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Done. Raul654 (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• As well, there was a lack of unanimity within the Truman administration on the decision to use the atomic bombs. The article could use some discussion about that. Here are some basic summary details that provide more context:

The "Committee of Three", consisting of his Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, and Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew, advocated for an alternative approach for getting the Japanese to surrender, other than use of the atomic bomb. They suggested language for the Potsdam Declaration that would allow Japan to maintain its emperor as a "constitutional monarchy." Truman's adviser, James F. Byrnes, showed concern about political consequences of changing the unconditional surrender policy which was popular among Americans. He also thought that use of the atomic bomb would give the Soviets pause in their supposed expansionist plans. Truman remained committed to a unconditional surrender, and use of the atomic bomb.

It might be worth adding a note to the "Potsdam declaration" section discussing dissent in the Allied governments about the status of the emperor. I'll see about addressing this.

Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues surrounding the atomic bomb are long-winded and contentious (so much so that the bombings article was split into two articles - one describing the bombings and the other the decision to use the bomb). The scope of this article should (at most) include to the bomb's influence of Japan's decision to surrender, but not more than that. As such, I don't think a discussion of the use of the atomic bomb from the American perspective is in the scope of this article. Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How the U.S. came to the decision to use the atomic bombs (versus other options) in order to get Japan to surrender is very much pertinent to an article on the "Surrender of Japan". Something should definitely be mentioned about Joseph Grew, James Forrestal, and Henry L. Stimson (the "Committee of Three"), and other aspects of the decision. I suggest 1-2 paragraphs summarizing the issues and decision regarding the bomb, and the debate within the Truman administration at the time. To do otherwise, I think means there is insufficient context and possibly POV issues. I think material about this aspect of the Japanese surrender can be done concisely and well, per summary style. Also, in terms of sourcing, Gar Alperovitz has written extensively (and his work has been extensively cited) on the decision of using the bomb and the Japanese surrender. If you can get his book (along with other sources to provide balance) and use it for filling in this part of the story, that would help address my concerns. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The article does discuss about the Japanese reaction and were discussion the possibility of surrender after Hiroshima, which begs the question... Why the second bomb? Why so soon after the first? The timespan of four days really didn't give the Japanese much time to react and try to surrender. But, the U.S. decided to use the second one anyway.
  • The short answer is that the Japanese (a) did not believe they had been hit by an atomic bomb, or (b) believed the US did not have a large supply of them. (Both of these points are already covered in the article) The article does not state that American planners correctly anticipated both of these reactions, and used the second atomic bomb shortly after the first in order to disprove both of these positions (and to give the Japanese the impression that the US could keep dropping atomic bombs every few days). Raul654 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is adequately addressed. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• A "main article" link to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be useful in that section. I'm not so thrilled with the easter egg "blinding flash and violent blast" link, but wouldn't mind it as much if there was a main article link at the top of the section.
  • I've made that link more explicit. Raul654 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The link is much better now, but a main article link might still help. Though, I know the section also is about the Soviet invasion, so perhaps two main article links would be needed at the top of the section. These help people who are skimming pages, which is how a lot of people read material on the Internet. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Very minor issue... the Hiroshima and Nagasaki links currently go to redirect pages. They could be directly linked.--Aude (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I believe all above issues have been addressed. Raul654 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments from Aude:

Looking at the prose, I think some copyediting is needed.

• "By 1945, for nearly two years, " - this could be reworded, and also change "had suffered" to the active tense, "suffered". Perhaps something like, "From [Month] 1943 to 1945, Japan suffered an unbroken string ..."?
  • It's impossible to put an exact date on the point at which the war turned decisively against the Japanese. Rewriting it as you suggest would make it less accurate. Raul654 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought that might be the case. The current wording is okay. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• "Japanese shipyard at Kure, Japan" -> "Kure Naval Arsenal" (this change also eliminates the easter egg).
  • fixed. Raul654 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I also see a lot more redirect links, some having to do with Japanese spelling (my personal css is set to show redirect links in a different color, so these are quite obvious to me). This isn't such a big deal and I don't care too much if it's fixed but would be nice.

I don't have time right now to fix redirects throughout the article, nor comment fully on prose. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. For most people, the issue of primary interest regarding Japan's surrender is whether dropping the atomic bombs was justified. So, it seems kind of curious that this article doesn't wikilink to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What's the reason for that?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that that's the primary interest, but I've added a link in the lead to the debate article. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Also, the lead mentions that the USSR invaded Manchuria on August 9. But it was more than just an invasion of Manchuria, right? The bigger picture is that the USSR declared war on Japan at that time, so I would think that belongs in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You're talking about the Sakahlin and Kuriles invasions, I believe. I don't think they're significant enough to merit a mention in the lead. The lead sentence explicitly dates the Soviet invasion (August 9), while those two did not begin until several days later. Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean that the USSR and Japan went from a relationship of peace to a relationship of war on August 9, 1945 and that is not clear from the lead. Just saying that the USSR invaded Japan on that date does not convey the message, IMO. The Normandy Invasion did not signify the start of a war between two countries, but the Manchuria invasion did.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good point. I've updated the lead accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Groves is mentioned as the leader of the Manhattan Project, and Oppenheimer is only mentioned later in conjunction with a bunch of other scientists. Perhaps Oppenheimer also ought to be mentioned in conjunction with Groves? Groves was the administrator, but Oppenheimer directed all of the scientific research.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's mentioned that Stimson struck Kyoto from the target list, but it seems from the current text of the article that it was some kind of personal nostalgic decision by Stimson, since he honeymooned there. In fact, Stimson knew that Kyoto was of great historical and cultural significance, it was the greatest religious center in Japan, and preserving it was necessary for a stable and friendly postwar Japan.[10] Maybe we could briefly clarify that Stimson made the decision for larger than personal sentimental reasons?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here are a couple nitpicks....Can you modify the icon for the audio of Truman's announcement of the Hiroshima bombing? The icon indicates lovely music. Also, it seems odd to have an image of the Nagasaki mushroom, but not the Hiroshima mushroom.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The speaker icon is part of the standardized listen template. The Hiroshima picture is redundant with the Nagasaki one, and it would go in the same place as the Truman speech (leading to more image stack up). Raul654 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's reasonable. The tech folks someday ought to make a different standardized listen template for non-music.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the blockquotes in this article are disconcerting because they do not indicate who is being quoted, unless you go to the footnote. For example: "Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either." Maybe such a blockquote could be prefaced by something like, "According to historian so-and-so:"Ferrylodge (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The capitalization in this heading seems odd: "Imperial Intervention, Allied response, and Japanese Reply." For example, why capitalize "Reply" but not "response"?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The heading "Soviet approach" is kind of vague (perhaps signifying something physically approaching the USSR, or a physical approach by the Soviet military, et cetera). How about something like "Soviet intentions"?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Good idea -- done. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• At some point, the Americans initially told Hirohito unambiguously that he could remain as emperor. Does this article say when that point occurred? If so, I missed it. There's a lot of discussion in this article about whether the Americans would let that happen, but no indication of when the final decision was made, or when it was communicated to the Japanese.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Presumably this happened eventually, but if it did, I am not aware of it. It almost certainly would not have happened until after the occupation and started but before the list of class A war criminals was released (which would put it somewhere between September 1945 and spring 1946). Raul654 (talk)

• A nitpick....Do any other featured articles have huge multi-sentence parentheticals? "(The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. He knew nothing of the Manhattan project, and simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear in order to end the torture. The lie, which caused him to be classified as a high-priority prisoner, probably saved him from beheading.[74] In reality, the United States would have had the third bomb ready for use around August 19, and a fourth in September 1945.[75] The third bomb would probably have been used against Tokyo.[76])" I would urge either removing the parentheses here, or moving the whole thing to a footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think a typical reader would probably be curious to know whether the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9, and the Nagasaki bombing on August 9, happened by coincidence or not on the same day. My understanding from Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) is that the Soviet invasion began precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8, as promised at Yalta, and that news of the nuclear attacks on the two cities played no role in the timing of the Soviet attack. How about vice versa: were the nuclear attacks timed to deliver a double-whammy to Japan, or were they just delivered as soon as possible?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The bombs were intentionally dropped close together in order to give the Japanese the false impression that the United States possessed a large supply of them. (This is already covered in the article -- "American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda's, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, in order to demonstrate to the Japanese that the US had a large supply of them") That the second one and the Soviet invasion happened on the same day is a coincidence -- the Allies and the Soviets never shared that kind of tactical information (and, in fact, there would have been no point, since the anticipated dates for both the invasion and the bombs changed frequently). Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• It was mentioned earlier on this FA page that this was the only time in its 2000+ year history that Japan ever surrendered. That's a good explanation for the generality of the article title, but is this fact metnioned in the article itself? It's interesting, plus including it would help prevent efforts to re-name the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Potsdam Conference is described this way: "High ranking officials of the major Allied powers met at the Potsdam Conference...." That sounds like a ministerial meeting. How about briefly mentioning that it was a top-level meeting of the allied leaders, including Truman and Stalin? And wasn't it at Potsdam (or en route) that Truman learned of the success of the bomb in New Mexico? That seems worth mentioning (plus that Truman therefore no longer really needed the help of the USSR to defeat Japan).Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the beginning of that section to make the participants more accurate.
  • The trinity test is mentioned in the previous section discussing the Manhattan project. You're right that the test occurred while Truman was at Potsdam, and that he was elated about it, but I don't think this point is sigifnicant enough to merit a mention here. You're incorrect that he no longer needed Soviet help to defeat the Japanese (the JCS would, to the time Japan surrendered, advise him that Soviet intervention was likely to shorten the war and reduce American casualties, which was his primary objective) Raul654 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that we don't have to mention Truman's elation, but it seems like the overall chronology wuold be clearer and more cohesive if the Potsdam section would very briefly mention that that's when Truman learned of the trinity explosion. Incidentally, though I disagree with them, some historians claim that Truman's main motive in dropping the bombs "was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia."[11] Truman at least must have realized that dropping the bombs would limit the Soviet advance onto Japanese-held territory. This article already makes very clear that the Soviets wanted “to prolong the war” so they could transfer troops to the Pacific theatre and snatch up Japanese-held territory. Dropping the bombs thwarted that process, even if that wasn’t Truman’s intended result. Anyway, if we could briefly mention that Truman learned of trinity at Potsdam, that might help readers to keep track of all these inter-related events and how they fit together chronologically.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Raul654 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• What's the policy on quote marks at the beginning and end of a blockquote? I thought they were deprecated.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks - Wikipedia:Manual of Style. As such, I've removed them. Raul654 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the military details, this article says in one section, "The search [of the coup plotters for the recording by Hirohito] was made more difficult by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings, and by the archaic organization and layout of the Imperial House Ministry." In another section, this article says, "B-29s from the 315 Bombardment Wing flew 3,800 miles to destroy the Nippon Oil Company refinery at Tsuchizaki on the northern tip of Honshu." But weren't these two things actually very closely related; the blackout was in response to the incoming B-29s, according to the following unreliable source: "The Japanese early radar warning system picked up the approach of the 315th Wing. Since the B-29Bs would be flying just east of Tokyo, the city responded with a blackout."[12] Thus, it seems like serendipity that the bombing mission to the Nippon Oil Company triggered a blackout that foiled the coup.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the blackout was caused by 143 incoming bombers of the 315th bombardment wing, which were en route to the refinery. (Smith, 215) I'm not sure if all or just some of them were en route to bomb the refinery. The connection between the bombing and the blackout is the thesis of Smith's book. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Whether to mention the connection in this Wikipedia article is not something I'm very concerned about (it's not currently mentioned). However, I am concerned that the present language seems misleading: "The search was made more difficult by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings...." The blackout wasn't caused by any bombing, but rather by a mistaken belief that bombers were on the way.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is mistaken. The refinery bombing was one of many taking place that night. It's eminently possible that Tokyo was hit. Even if Toyko was not hit, it's still accurate - the Allies *were* bombing Japan, and the major cities turned out their lights in response. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Regardless of what parts of Japan were bombed that night, the blackout was a preventive measure due to the threat of incoming, rather than a result of bombs having knocked out the lights. This seems like a significant difference, but it's no huge deal if you think the current language is okay.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, I didn't realize you wanted to distinguish between a voluntary and involuntary blackout. I've tweaked the wording accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. From what I've seen the article is very well-written, and all of my concerns have been addressed, except one which I haven't mentioned and don't feel very emphatic about: the lead sentence says that Japan surrendered in August, but actually it's not so clear that they did. The official surrender was on September 2. I wish I had more time to go over this with a fine-tooth comb, but what I've seen is top-notch. Plus I'm not a cricket. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I made some time to go through the article with my fine-tooth comb, which hopefully was not too aggravating for the authors of the article. I made a lot of tiny changes, and am all done now (for today). It still looks like an excellent article that deserves to be featured.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a pic of War Minister Anami. Regarding the pic of MacArthur at the bottom, do we really need it? It seems kind of anomalous. It's the only color photo, it's facing away from the text, and it is not near any pertinent text. There's already a pic at the top of the article showing the ceremony on the Missouri.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I moved the MacArthur pic up.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally all through tweaking the article until it gets featured.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment The entire article is important and it looks very good, - at the end of the intro the lead says: "up into the 1970s" I think "into the 1970s" sounds simpler...and better, otherwise Support...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion (I didn't care for the phrasing either). Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

lostprophets

self-nom

More and more depth has been added to the article over time and any PoV issues have been sorted out through the peer reviewed process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.242.68 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 September 2005

• Object. The images Image:Lostprophets-start.jpg and Image:Lostprophets-fsop.jpg have no source information. --Carnildo 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The three things that can be done to improve this article (and I mentioned some of them in Peer Review) are:

1. Add a source for who credits them with popularizing studded belts, low-slung jeans, etc. If they really are "largely credited with popularising [these] items" it shouldn't be difficult to find at least one source.
2. Highlight the literal themes of the album(s). I have deleted the "apathy of their detractors" comment but apathy is a valid theme of the album and probably should be readded somewhere.
3. Add the Infobox_band template.

Cedars 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- 1) image size too large (under 300px plz), 2) skewed heading (images push them to the right or force a wrap), 3) =members= and =Discography= need not have subheadings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The references section needs to be improved. Currently much of the material is apparently referenced with the citation: Interviews and features from Kerrang!, NME, Metal Hammer, Rock Sound and other music publications. This needs to be improved to the point were a person not familiar with the subject is able to find the magazine articles used as sources without resorting to an exhaustive search of back issues. Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style for examples on the level of detail typically used for citations. --Allen3 ^talk 17:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey

95% non-self nom - just painstakingly referenced it. --PopUpPirate 22:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object

1. Lead too short
2. Too many short paragraphs (combine or make longer)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Had a go at fixing it --PopUpPirate 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The lead looks better - thanks. The paragraphs are still short though - and there is at least one one-sentence paragraph. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Actioned. --PopUpPirate 19:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Why are there two lists of external links? Notes to editors, like that in the first caption should be commented out, and the image caption should come before the source acknowledgement. To link to main artiles use {{main}}. Try and work some of those see alsos into the text since they seem to be relevant, and remove others like UK topics. The Ordnance Survey working in 60 countries seems like it would be worth expanding on in the article - but there is no other mention of it beyond on the lead.--nixie 23:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Another editor has kindly fixed the external links thing - I agree with your comment about the 60 countries and will try to add to it. Pity it didn't appear in Peer Review but then these things never do! (wasnt directed at you btw!!) --PopUpPirate 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object due to the two unfree images. Not sure what they add to the article, could they just be removed? JYolkowski // talk 02:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The 2 map images are imo crucial to the article, and could in no way be obtained in any other way. --PopUpPirate 11:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, an alternate suggestion might be to get rid of one of the images, and write up a fair use rationale for the other one. It seems like there might be a plausible fair use claim. JYolkowski // talk 23:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm happy to go with that - do people think the article would be better with only 1 OS image (all things considered) - I think the 2 images make a good comparison but I understand the counterclaim. --PopUpPirate 00:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object

Why does the lead mention only the 18th century? An overview is required.

A 'one inch' map?

Lots of short paragraphs inhibit the flow.

Lacks depth and is not comprehensive. For example, what were the economic/social circumstances that led to the establishment of the OS? Do the maps have distinctive features? Have they played a role in historical research? Have they made a significant contribution in the history of map-making? Tony 12:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment – please reduce the size of those images. In lower resolutions, 600x800 it squeezes the text alongside. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Width reduced by 100px --PopUpPirate 14:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I notice some inline comments. Please convert them to {{inote}}. Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Actioned. --PopUpPirate 19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • The first time it says 'one-inch', 'six-inch' etc it should explain that this means 'one inch to the mile' (at least I assume it does).
  • What year did the fire at the tower of London take place? How severely did it affect their work?
  • The footnote contradicts the bit about the OS doing maps abroad during WWI. Maybe it just needs 'currently' inserting into it?
  • Something showing what one inch to the mile is as a ratio would be useful.
  • I'd like to know which countries the OS prepared maps in during WWI. Is this the only overseas work they've done?
• CTOAGN 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comments actioned. --PopUpPirate 19:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object Title of this article needs to be changed to reflect the fact that it is about the British OS rather than the OS services of other countries or OS type services in general. --Sf 12:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The name of the organisation is Ordnance Survey, the only other OS's are called Ordnance Survey Ireland and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland. --PopUpPirate 19:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

American popular music

previous FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic Party (United States)

Gettysburg Address

self-nom. I conducted research and then substantially rewrote this article earlier this year. I'm rather new to Wikipedia and would welcome constructive advice on this article's further improvement. Ideally, I would like this article to be the Featured Article on or about November 19th, the 142nd anniversary of the speech. BartBenjamin 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I've only glanced at the article so far, but the thing that jumps out at me is all the external links in the text. These need to be turned into footnotes. The actual address set in bold is rather jarring. Since it is already set off from the rest of the text, the use of bold is unnecessary, IMHO. —Wayward 02:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. References need to be put in a seperate section even if they are external links. And this article is also quite quote-heavy. If you're looking for constructive criticism, it might be a good idea to try peer review first. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looking good. OmegaWikipedia 12:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I did not know about peer review status. I have changed the designation of the article to reflect standard practice. BartBenjamin 15:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamburger Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicken soup Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Citybus (Hong Kong) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magic: The Gathering

Schabir Shaik Trial

Self-nom. What I think is a well-written and researched article on one of the most divisive court trials in South African history. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 04:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, and comprehensive, although a few more pictures might be helpful. However i support. Thethinredline

• Object to lead, which needs ruthless editing. "Chippy"?? 64.251.55.196 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, his name is Chippy. Would you tell me please what you object to in the lead? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The article appears to be well researched and written. The main complaint I have is that the article seems to be written more for South Africans who know about this case than for outsiders, like myself, who have not heard of it. In other words, too many things are not immediately explained such as who the gentlemen involved are--you give their names but not who they are and what they do--and I had to click on the links to the people before I began to understand. Try having someone who is not familiar with the case look at the article. Cheers! Ganymead 01:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I tried to address that in the second sentence. Does that work ebtter? 165.121.145.199 21:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• mild object deal with the red links. Borisblue 13:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Having red links is not a valid reason to object to an article. The questoin here is the quality of *this* article - not the (lack of) articles it links to. →Raul654 16:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment-are there any other similar cases that could be put under See also? I know there are a lot of online references, but could we have an external link section? Falphin 02:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Good article, but I'd like someone familiar with Floridian copyright law to confirm whether usage of those two piccis is ok. Support is conditional on that, jguk 18:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

Self-renom.

• Attempt 1
• Attempt 2

Ok, I had some minor edits on the article and added a few more things (a photo, a source and two awards), but the article has been pretty calm [13]. I think the main concern, most likely, is going to be the grammar of the article. I will check up on that every day, though that is a problem in every article I write on here. POV is not an issue, since I was pretty much the only guy who wrote it and tried to be as fair as possible. Zach (Sound Off) 02:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - OK... here's some of my own issues:

1. "The Belarusian Republican Youth Union (BRSM) (Russian: Белорусский республиканский союз молодежи, БРСМ) is a youth group that is organized in the Eastern European country of Belarus." I think this could be worded better....
2. "The goals of the BRSM are to promote patriotism and to instill moral values into the youth of Belarus." POV sentence - moral values are relative! Needs rewording.... maybe something like "The goals of the BRSM are to promote patriotism and to install their own brand of moral values into the youth of Belarus"... well that may be POV too but you get the idea :).
3. Writing style needs a bit of work and is in general too passive.... example:

   "President Lukashenko has said in the past that while membership in the BRSM is not required for advancing into the higher ranks of the government, a person who joins the BRSM has a possibility to increase their chances for success" try something like

   "In the past, President Lukashenko stated that while membership in the BRSM is not required for advancing into the higher ranks of the government, it is possible for a person who joins the BRSM to increase their chances for success"

   Also see my recent edit too. It's fine to use a lot of passive voice, but using too much makes it more dreary then neccessary

A very interesting and unique article - I commend the authors of it. Don't get discouraged! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I have added some of your changes, but the reason why most of the article sounds passive is that most of the information I have is around a few years old, and most of the current information is in Russian, and I was told not to use Babelfish unless I have to. Zach (Sound Off) 03:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - The article remains substandard as far as prose. You might consider adding it to "Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit". The "install" issue mentioned in my previous objection remains and the article begins with "is a organized youth group". See "A, an" for details of what is wrong with this. Don't let this nomination disenchant you though, English grammar is difficult to learn and the best way to master it is to learn by doing. That said, unfortunately good grammar is essential for a featured article. Cedars 04:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed that, and I will add the category soon. Zach (Sound Off) 05:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—this should be on the Peer Review list, not here. Prose needs fixing; not in enough depth. Tony 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, what do you mean by "depth." Am I missing stuff content wise? Zach (Sound Off) 17:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I think the prose could be tightened up quite a bit.

1. "The BRSM has been accused of using tactics of coercion and empty promises. . ." I don't think tactics of is needed here.
2. "Lukashenko not only issued a decree to call for. . ." is better written as "Lukashenko not only issued a decree calling for. . ."
3. "President Lukashenko stated in his 2003 address to the nation about the need for. . ." About is not needed.
4. "To be able to join the BRSM, the person must be between the ages of 14 and 31, be able to send a photo of themselves and if they are between the ages of 14 and 16, written permission from their parents or legal guardian must be granted." There are several problems here. First, Be able to is not needed. Second, person is singular, while themselves and their are plural.

There are more, but you get the idea. —Wayward 18:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I fixed those. But really, is the only issues for this article is grammar? If so, please, {{sofixit}}. If you think key information is missing, just let me know. Zach (Sound Off) 18:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• The previous reviewer was exemplifying problems in the prose, not identifying just a few things that need fixing to make it 'compelling, even brilliant' (see criteria for FACs). Saying that you've 'fixed those' is irrelevant; the whole text needs serious attention.
  • I mainly mentioned that I fixed whatever they specifically mentioned.

For an institution that appears to have controversial links with the highest levels of government, the article needs to treat the political and social context in much greater depth. Instead, towards the top, we're treated to trivia such as '... be able to send a photo of themselves and if they are between the ages of 14 and 16, written permission from their parents or legal guardian must be granted. A person must also pay a one time fee of 1,400 rubles (0.65 USD) and must pay a mid-year fee to continue their membership in the BRSM. The total amount of the fee is adjusted based on the person's working and living status and fee waivers are granted for children who are orphaned or disabled.' Wow, really?

This is how the people join the BRSM, and with other youth groups like the Boy Scouts of America, I need to have information on how one person can become a member.

There's not enough coverage of broader views to put Lukashenko's agenda into a NPOV perspective. Just a quote from the great leader at the top, as though this article is propaganda. Tony 03:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That is all I could find, since internet resources on this group is limited. Personally, I have no clue why Lukashenko created the group (I just knew how he done it) or to what extent is use by the Lukashenko Government (but his presence at the recent 29th Congress of the BRSM still shows government support). Zach (Sound Off) 03:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, this was moved by a page vandal, so if this came off your watchlist for a moment, that is what happened. Zach (Sound Off) 03:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• OK, then may I suggest that the nomination be postponed pending further investigation? There's currently a barrier to comprehensive treatment. Tony 04:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and I will let the grammar folks take a stab at it. I could do some more research in time. Zach (Sound Off) 04:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

September 2005

Houston, Texas

You may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Houston, Texas/Archive1 or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Houston, Texas/archive2, see here for corrections to old archives made in November 2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have had nothing to do with the writing of this article at all. I was simply thumbing through Wikipedia and discovered this nicely written article, which looks to me to be very close to FA status. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. References are totally inadequate. And unless the original writers are still around and have references handy, it will be a big job to source an article this size. Mark¹ 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Where should I get sources? I am one of the original writers. However, I may not have access after Rita. WhisperToMe 03:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What sources did you use when writing? Mark¹ 03:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, this article may or may not dramatically change following Rita. Phoenix2 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'd advise waiting a week or two to see if the city is substantially affected by the storm. If it is, then this article will undergo a lot of revisions so it would make sense to only vote on it after that. Everyking 04:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object – 1) History section should be continous, 2) No references 3) Page size too large. Summarise 4) ToC granulated. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The images Image:Houston.jpg, Image:Uptown Houston Skyline.jpg have no source or copyright information, and may vanish at any time.
  2. The image Image:Downtown Houston 2.jpg has no source information, and may vanish at any time.
  3. The image Image:Tropical Storm Allison.jpg has no source or copyright information, and is listed on WP:PUI.
  4. The images Image:Houston Panoramic.jpg, Image:Tranquility Park Houston.jpg, Image:HOU095.JPG, Image:HOU032.JPG, Image:Hobby Center.jpg, Image:Space Center Houston.jpg, Image:Bayou Place Houston.JPG, Image:Astroworld.jpg, Image:UH100.jpg, Image:Rice University.jpg, Image:HOU002.jpg, Image:HOU069.JPG, Image:Minute Maid Park.JPG have no source information, and are listed on WP:PUI.
  5. The images Image:Houston Industries Plaza.jpg, Image:WilliamsTower.jpg, Image:Houston City Hall.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but have no source information, making a "fair use" claim impossible to evaluate.
  6. The image Image:Texas state seal.png in the "State of Texas" navbox is tagged as {{coatofarms}}. This does not specify a copyright status.
  7. The image Image:CitySeal.PNG is tagged as fair use. Is there a more precise tag that can be used, that specifies why "fair use" is justified? If not, a fair-use rationale needs to be provided.

  --Carnildo 06:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, at the moment. The article is currently unstable due to Hurricane Rita (and let's hope it doesn't strike Houston directly as a Category 4 or 5 storm). The lack of references could easily be rectified with a visit to the local library (or Google Print). The fact that an article of this size (52 kB -- should be reduced to less than 40 kB) has not gone through peer review is, to me, a red flag unless someone is willing to spend a lot of time cleaning up the article and addressing other people's concerns while it is on FAC. Though I have spent time cleaning up the article's layout, I am not knowledgeable enough of Houston to vouch for the information in the article. Pentawing 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

• The page is protected due to constant reverts. Please someone close this nomination down. Marskell 09:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• The page is nominated based in its own merit, not that of troublemaker-editors. Please close the troublemakers down. We will not let them win on my watch.--GordonWatts 21:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Standard heading such as self-nom": Self-nomination per permission from Mark:

UPDATE: I reduced the size from 84Kb to 80 KB 79KB 46 KB in one small set of edits. We're making progress, and it would be sin to stop here.--GordonWatts 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He made the promise that it would be OK to renominate after a few weeks: discussed here and referenced, but here, Worldtraveller says in edit comments to "see FAC instructions - move old nomination to an archive, make fresh nomination; please don't re-insert old nomination discussion."

I took WT up on his offer, and, since I don't edit much in Terri Schiavo any more, I am more objective, and the edit war has disappeared, removing the last of the problems.

Renominate.

Remember, this vote is about the article, not controversial "I'm right a lot" Gordon:

Either vote for Terri or against her, but in the end, let's not have any hard feelings, OK?

--GordonWatts 12:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Bad faith nomination. Few, if any, of the objections from the last nomination have been amended, least of all the ones concerning article size. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments: My renom is not in bad faith; I'm not trying to "get revenge" on anybody, and my nomination, whether successful or not, will not harm anybody, so it is not in bad faith. If you carefully look at the links I provided, you will see that many, many objections were addressed. Maybe not all of them were addressed to your satisfaction, but we all tried our best.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's still hopelessly crufty and preoccupied with insignificant details relevant only to the truly obsessed. And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material. And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material. The article isn't stable either. Considering how hotly disputed the topic is, I'd like to see some relative peace and quiet for at least a few months and I can really recommend to those who are the most active with the article to try editing articles on completely different subjects for a change. Obsessing this much about one very narrow subject is hardly going to lessen the amount of disputes. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I went to special trouble today here to both fix the ref section AGAIN! and also avoid all "vanity" links -even to the point of not citing sources, and explain here why I am so stressed out (for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia). Yes, Peter, I want a totally stable article, but, like "consensus," this is an ideal -that is NEVER achieved in heaven. (Are we in heaven? No.) I moved the legal section to a sub-article to reduce the main article size, so I do not understand your objection here. "And what's up with section titles like "Notable court cases in the Terri Schiavo saga"? Definetly not serious material." Yes, of course the legal sage is important. Why should it not be? Also, if you don't like my title, then change it; I am not married to this title, and you are able to fix this "minor" problem, so I don't see why you don't. "Obsessing this much about one very narrow subject..." I'm not 'obsessing," but merely spending the proper time to fix all the important details -which is a "good" thing.--GordonWatts 20:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. Agree with above comments. In addition, why is this article being brought back for a vote so soon? Yes, the article was somewhat stable for the last week, but as has been stated before (endlessly stated), the article should be allowed to sit a month or two to show everyone how stable it is. The last four edits on the article are all rvs--this would indicate it is still not stable.--Alabamaboy 13:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "In addition, why is this article being brought back for a vote so soon? " I'm taking a Wikibreak, and will not be around for a while. I wanted to do something positive to get the ball rolling before I went on break. Your objections are well meant and thoughtful, as I recall in the past, and have some merit, but I disagree, AlabamaBoy, on the emphasis you have assigned to waiting.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. for the same reasons as before. GordonWatts, we do not vote "for Terri or against her", we are talking about an article. Rama 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your thoughts, Rama; I assume good faith on your part.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object – 1) its *not* stable. Look at the history of reverts between Sep 13 and 20. 2) 87 kb. I told you to reduce the page size. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Likewise, thank you, Nichalp. Whether I was right or wrong, I addressed that above.--GordonWatts 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object for all the reasons above and more. The page size seems excessive (I thought we'd pared it down already!) and one caption does not follow the standards of Wikipedia:Captions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. If you read all the links provided, you will see that Mark really did say it would be OK to renominate in a couple of weeks -and we see the page has experienced actual improvement in many areas; if you don't focus in on a few areas in need of improvement, then you can see the many strong areas of the article, which we had fixed.--GordonWatts 14:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'd like to see the article made more concise and the readibility improved. The introduction should be much stronger and more of a summary (too many details in the intro right now). I also agree with other comments that the article should be more stable before being nominated. Carbonite | Talk 14:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thx 4 your feedback, C; We had a slightly better intro, which is still preserved in the Chinese and Spanish wiki articles on Schiavo, but it was tossed out a while back after my 4-3 vote was forgotten or overridden on that matter. Since, as I've said, I'm taking a wiki break (too much time online! -not from any hard feelings or anything), I am editing there much less; We have a new crew of replacement editors (Marskell and admin Taxman). FuelWagon, Ann, and Patsw are all regular editors, very familiar with the ins and outs and still edit there regularily. If you'd like to help out, you are more than welcome. I've done the best I can with it as far as I can see. Thanks again for the feedback, even if it is not quite what I wanted.--GordonWatts 14:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object To be clear, this is a too-hasty nomination but it is not bad faith. I have discussed with Gordon extensively and edited myself—this is earnest and good faith, he is just pushing it forward too soon. Stability is almost there but length has still not been addressed. I agree completely with comment on intro. In fact, I think the second and third paragraph should be reduced to a single sentence. There are other parts which could similarly be made more readable. Marskell 15:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As above objectors. Why was this renominated with outstanding objections clearly unaddressed? In this light, nominator appears to lack understanding of requirements to be made a featured article. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Christopher, you raise good points. See the below in comments.--GordonWatts 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is the same length as it has always been. Thus, how you can claim that the objection that the article is too long has been addressed is beyond me. When the page is smaller, perhaps around 40-50 KB, renominate; until then, people will continue to object. If you keep renominating without fixing these problems, which have repeatedly been pointed out to you, you're just wasting your time. BTW, if you wish to reference the previous nominations it might be useful to link to them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "article is the same length ...how you can claim that the objection that the article is too long has been addressed is beyond me." I thought that when Mark scratched out the length objection and when I agreed, that this was sufficient proof, but apparently consensus disagrees, so I will try to address it; "BTW, if you wish to reference the previous nominations it might be useful to link to them." If you click on the links in that little paragraph below (the one I created especially for your concerns), it will lead you to links from both of the archives; I promise you. The sentence begins: "Comments: User:Christopherparham raises some good points..." Also, it has other links, and is best read chronologically, clicking on each link as you read.--GordonWatts 12:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral while I helped Gordon with the image issues, I am not sure if they meet the Fair use rules that Carnildo has and I believe that three nominations in three weeks is a bit too many. Zach (Sound Off) 20:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They do: See below, Zach.--GordonWatts 21:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User:Christopherparham raises some good points. Since it is the primary responsibility of the nominator to try and address them, here goes.

Here, an Aug. 26, 2005 nomination for Terri Schiavo, a stable article, was narrowly defeated by what looks to be a 6-11 or 7-10 margin, and it had problems, but Mark, the FA-editor says here that we fixed most of them, and suggest renominating in a few weeks. However, here, when it was renominated on Sept. 05, 2005, a few weeks later, after all his concerns were addressed, and then re-nominated, as Mark had suggested, it was rejected by Mark, who has the authority to make decisions: He went with concensus, instead of the policy, which (as others have repeatedly explained to me) states that he has the absolute power to promote if the actionable objections are addressed.

Since I addressed ALL of Mark's concerns (see below), this nom was a shoe in -a given -a certain to pass nomination.

However, since then, the edit war on that page (the only problem outstanding on my list) has calmed down, making it reeligible. Since he's a good editor, admin, bureaucrat, and have made many contributions, I expect he'll keep his word here -after an uncertain delay as his discretion.

However, was "my list" really the "correct list?"

Let's take a closer look at this diff. The speaker is Mark, aka Raul654, the FA editor, and, while he may not address *every* concern on your list, he was very representative of the groups views, and took me to town on many problems:

Mark says, in relevant part: "Object strongly. Here's the short list of what's wrong with the article: TOCright breaks the manual of style, the TOC (with its 37 sections) is quite overwhelming, the article has no introduction, it has no references section to complement the inline linking, it has a see also section (which should be converted to prose, inserted into the article, and the section deleted), every image used in the article is fair use, and it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles. →Raul654 04:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"

and

"OK, I've gone ahead and fixed most of the problems. However, the article still needs references (specifically, it has plenty of html commented references; people need to uncomment them into some acceptable inline style, and compile them into a references section) and add copyleft images. →Raul654 02:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)"

In plain English, that means that the only problems at his last pass then were "references' (which I built from scratch) and images (which I fixed in large part but not completely -by personally driving to Terri Schiavo's grave and taking pictures and GNU releasing them under GFDL).

Now, Mark thinks the article size is not too long, and I agree. Also, there are a few Fair Use pics in the article, but does this create a problem? Well, recently the September 10 Featured Article about Scientology had a picture here which is definitely Fair Use. (So, we see that a few Fair Use photos are acceptable if that's the best you can do -and it is.)

So, the only lingering problem was the recent, brief edit war. It is long over, the page has calmed way down, and so much so that I have "retired" and am now on a "wiki-break," and feel like an old man, being worked to death.

While I think all your concerns were addresses (assuming Mark correctly represented you and did a good job as FA-editor), then the page is ready for FA-status, but that raises another question: Why did I have to show you all this, when it is clearly in the archives of the 1st and 2nd failed nomination??

Thx!--GordonWatts 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"was narrowly defeated by what looks to be a 6-11 or 7-10 margin" - You don't seem to get it - if it had a hundred support votes, all it takes is one ectionable objection which is not properly addressed, and the FAC will fail.

"Since I addressed ALL of Mark's concerns (see below), this nom was a shoe in -a given -a certain to pass nomination." - Raul does not make unilateral decisions for or against promotion, he makes the decision based on the discussion for the FAC. Even if you fixed everything he points out, if editor A makes an actionable objection that Raul feels is not properly acted on, then the FAC will fail.

"Now, Mark thinks the article size is not too long, and I agree." - First, everybody thinks the article is too long. That you agree, yet still brought it to FAC, only betrays either your continued ignorance of the Criteria (and of wikipedia policies and community norms), or exposes what in essence is a bad faith nomination.

By the way, Object per all above. Though the nominator has good intentions, this article will not be ready until there is a complete overhaul by the nominator in line with the repeated objections raised throughout the past three FACs, or a different group of editors begin editing the article in line with the Criteria. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Jeffrey, as I mention below, another editor is actively working on getting the article length reduced and clutter removed; I may help out, but I've over-worked myself; I thought the length was not an issue, and that's why I renominated, but I will see what I can do to fix this.
• Object: this article is entirely over-detailed, not just in the verbatim extracts from the various court cases but also in the inclusion of such details as the name of the church where the Schiavo's married (ask yourself, is this really encyclopaedic?). In fact, it reads more like a chapter from a book on contentious medical cases rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I also note that the Fair Use tag for the lead image contains the phrase "use of this photo is not reccommended (sic) for articles", so why is it in this one? Indeed, why is it here at all if it should not be used in articles?. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Filiocht, We are working to reduce the length. Marskell, one of the newer editors is making good progress. I would help out mre, but I have over-worked myself in the past, and need time to rest a little, but I will help out if/when I can to get the article smaller -if I can find things that take up extra space -and delete (or shorten) them. You are welcome to help out, but it may be eye strain, lol.--GordonWatts 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Nominated 26th August, 5th September and now on the 21st September. Not excatly what I understand as a 'few weeks'... While I do realise there is no fixed time between a failed FAC and a renom, there was virtually no time between the first two, and jusat ten days between the second and this one. Wouldn't it be better to wait until people relax and also give the article time to _prove_ that it is indeed stable? WegianWarrior 09:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • WegianWarrior, see my answer to AlabamaBoy: I am going on (am on) wiki-break to address "real life" responsibilities, and want to get the process going before I leave. We are working on the length issue too.--GordonWatts 12:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, would it not make more sence to finish working on the lenght issue, take your wiki-break (we all need those from time to time) and then nominated it? That would also give the article time to prove stable? Anyhow, it is your choice to push it so soon after the last failed nomination, but I still don't think it was the best idea. Enjoy your wikibreak =) WegianWarrior 09:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too long and too much frivolous detail. This objection was brought up so many times before that saying previous objections have been dealt with is specious. The article also fails to give an overview of the importance of the case and what effects or impact it had on anything. The details of the case and day by day events need to be shrunk to less than half of what the article currently has and only detail important enough to be kept at all should be moved off to subarticles. Since that is directly in the criteria, and it has been pointed out so many times, ignoring that does border on bad faith. How long do we need to have this sit here before we remove it? Gordon, if the most important objections are not adressed, the article does not meet the criteria and will not be promoted. Please lets remove this nomination and not have more fuss over it. - Taxman ^Talk 12:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's still borderline too long, but the bigger issue is the lack of balance in the article. It fails to cover the various topics in relation to their importance, which is key for an article in proper summary style as the criteria call for. It still lacks overview and impact discussion. For ex I don't think anywhere it mentions the attention the case brought to living wills/medical powers of attorney, except the link to your article which is innapropriate by the way. The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go. Sorry, but as we told you, properly summarizing this article will take some time. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I get the picture: "Consensus" thinks this Terri is too long, and, as I speak, I am reviewing what can be cut out of the article. However, I did not nominate in bad faith. See Marskell's comment on that order; Further, Mark, the FA-editor (who will no doubt take heat for his statements) did indeed edit here that he was scratching out this statement: "it's 80 kilobytes long and should be shortened and/or broken into subarticles," meaninig it was OK by him, and then, he went on to say here "so if/when this nom fails, it might be a good idea to renominate it again in a couple weeks." That supports my claim that the article was not perceived to be too long, and that I acted in good faith; Nonetheless, Marskell and I are working on reducing the length to address your objection.
  • That being said, thank you for your work on the article; if you have time (and I know you are busy), your continued help wouold be appreciated.--GordonWatts 12:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • So now you see the picture? Why not the 23 other times people told you it was too long and therefore didn't meet the criteria? Even if he did scratch that out (and that is weak evidence that he doesn't think it is too long anymore), 2 or so editors thinking it is not too long and 20 thinking it is outweighs that. More than that, even one reasonable, actionable objection can keep an article from being featured. There must be consensus that the article meets the criteria, and not some percentage of rough consensus--full consensus is typically needed. So leaning on this one thing that Mark said is very weak. Also, when he said a few weeks, that is not a blanket endorsement to apply if the major objections to the article have not been fixed. Summarizing an article is not easy and it is not really possible for it to meet the stability criteria for a while after that. That's why so many people kept telling you not to renominate the article until it had been summarized and then still wait a bit. All these things added up mean that if the nomination wasn't in bad faith, you were unreasonably leaning on very weak reasons to renominate and being rude to the multiple editors that had valid objections that were ignored. So this nomination should be removed. - Taxman ^Talk 13:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • On the whole, I agree in principle with you Taxman, but given recent history on RfA, I'd suggest that this nomination should be allowed to run its course. Who knows, it may even produce a salutary lesson in how consensus emerges on Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I just noticed a lot of "hidden comments" that make the article look larger than it really is: <!--(Page 4 of 10 of Judge Greer's Order, 2nd Paragraph)--> -- a LOT of them -this might make the article look 5-10% larger than it reallt appears to the reader, the main point of importance. (We assume that it will load fast, even with extra HTML hidden comments.)--GordonWatts 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: I reduced the size from 84Kb to 80 KB 79KB 46 KB in one small set of edits. We're making progress, and it would be sin to stop here.--GordonWatts 13:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• While I applaud such efforts, I remain skeptical on the practicability of paring down the article in time for this nomination to succeed (although I do not endorse scrapping this nomination, as per Filiocht's comment). I recall around the last time, we made excellent progress, reaching about 50 or 60kb before people began accusing us of destroying the article and the consensus it reached. I feel this article is in a bit of a quandary. You see, it has to meet two (in this case) opposing criteria: ample length, and sufficient stability/consensus on the article's current state. However, the only way to satisfy the whims of every editor involved is to bloat the article beyond a reasonable size. To reduce it would lead to condemnation because detail X is not included, as occurred in the last nomination. (This conundrum reminds me of the messy Ashlee Simpson business, where one or two ardent Ashlee fans destabilised the article after it was pared due to comments on FAC, leading to not one but two major arbitration cases. Hopefully this article doesn't go so far.) Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see both conditions fulfilled, but alas, it seems the only way to pare down the article will be to ruffle the feathers of a sufficient number to block this FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the good analysis: Excellent point here, John: I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't: Notice that I've reduced it from 84 to 80 and then to 79 Kilobyters today (and now to 46 Kb), which addresses concern "A" -the length, but in a traditional catch 22, I might be accused of "destabilizing" the article, thus missing concern "B" --the stability issue. OK, I'm still making progress. Everybody can go take a lunck break now and relax.--GordonWatts 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• You're not in a catch-22, you were well informed of the fact that the article needed to be summarized and that it would take a while to reach stability and high quality after that. That's why you were told so many times to wait longer before nominating again. As it is the article suffers from some pretty severe issues. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • I wouldn't say that the length was really addressed. When a 500 lb person loses 50 lbs, they're still not considered to be fit. Yes, reducing the size of the article is an improvement, but there's still plenty more cutting that needs to be done. There's too much in the article right now, especially since there are multiple sub-articles to deal with many of the details. Carbonite | Talk 14:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Frankly, it makes me sad to be harsh while GordonWatts obviously works a great deal to improve the article, but I think it is important to understand that by saying "reduce the size", we do not mean "cut a few things here and there". For me, and apparently for some other contributors here, the point is that the article should be a summary of the whole affair, a condensed text. What we see here is just a collection of random facts taken here and there, without any global understanding of the whole topic. It is the very nature of the articele which is at odds with the status of featured article, and a complete re-work of it is, I fear, necessary before it achieves a featurable status. Rama 15:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Interim Update
      • OK, thank you for the kind words, Rama. Now, I did even more copyedit, and read the entire article, word-for-word (except the "reference section, which I wrote from scratch) --I conclude that every bit of "extra stuff" has been removed, and the article appears to be now 46KB (was 84 KB), and the only way to further reduce article size would be to remove stuff to sub-article.
      • Any suggestions?
      • Also, when looking through the article, I will again make an honest disclaimer: I think that several links (compilations, reference, advocacy, articles) go back to papers I once managed: Three of them are extras which can easily be replaced, if someone feels that I added links that were not of good quality (vanity links) -one is a reference to a court action, and it is one where no other news media showed up -it is (I think) irreplaceable -unless someone can find news coverage elsewhere of that item. I would not touch those sections, as they seem to have been accepted over the months by the other regular editors, but I am telling you to be honest.
      • That being said, if anyone has any ideas on moving stuff to sub-articles, I will be glad to hear it. (I personally would jam the article to FA status to set a new standard for article length: 79 or 80 KB is OK -but that's just my feeling here, that this would be OK. All the same, the article length is now 46 Kb; Everybody happy?) I may look again at the sub-article thing, but now, I'm going to take a break. Remember: I'm on a wiki-break and didn't expect to go into 3rd overtime.--GordonWatts 15:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment The move to split everything in to sub-articles was a touch unilateral. I certainly cannot change my vote as stability becomes an issue—other editors may not like it and while I knocked 5+ off myself this really required some talk discussion. Two things, since you are not responding on talk there Gordon:

• Cutting an article in half is NOT a minor edit. I guess some people get in the habit of hitting minor for everything but you should avoid it.
• 33 edits is impossible for others to wade through. Featured article requests are indeed a way to promote rapid improvement but having at it willy-nilly for three hours and then asking "everyone happy?" is just not the way to go. Marskell 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Answer Yes, it was unilateral, but I did not make any "substantive" changes, except to shorten things by replacing "words" with numbers (eg blah blah for 2 years...) and use of abbreviations (eg blah blah said Terri couldn't do this blah blah). Therefore, the "split" did not affect the stability. "Cutting an article in half is NOT a minor edit." Yes, it was, since the substance stayed the same. "33 edits is impossible for others to wade through. Featured article requests are indeed a way to promote rapid improvement but having at it willy-nilly for three hours and then asking "everyone happy?" is just not the way to go." No; 33 edits = 15 minutes (or less) if you have a fast connection. Page through the history. OK, I answered all your questions, and I made constructive improvements, so the "5 edit/day" aggreement can be waived under that exception. Your move. PS: Thanks for your assistance.--GordonWatts 18:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No no no. You've taken an established article and moved 40% of it to a side. This is not minor. It simply isn't. It shouldn't have even been done without discussion on talk, especially given how touchy this article is.

And 33 edits = 15 minutes indicates a lack of forethought more than a fast connection. The whole point of our agreement was to think about every change made. To put this in perspective, I was editing while you were: I read the full article and made two dozen minors in one edit—much easier for the next person coming along. Of course the edit conflict killed the changes. Marskell 18:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"and moved 40% of it to a side" 43.0378% to be (almost) exact (34/79=43%+change). "This is not minor." It is if the substance is not changed. It was not. It shouldn't have even been done without discussion on talk" It was discussed in talk: This talk, not the Talk:Terri Schiavo, which has been dormant and vacant for a little bit; The "Talk" said to reduce size, presumably by a split. This was the only way to do it without removing stuff and starting World War III. "especially given how touchy this article is" -or because the article is touchy, I acted to preserve the work done in the past. "think about every change made." I did. I think fast. If you don't believe me, then try and find even one error in my last several day's edits. OK? "two dozen minors in one edit—much easier for the next person coming along" I did one section at a time, to keep from overloading my brain. "Of course the edit conflict killed the changes" oh, and to preserve my changes, save your work; Even though they looked lost, you can hit "back" and get your work, copy it into Microsoft Word, save it, and introduce it later --or save it to Word (and spell-check it like I do) before you hit "save page."

PS: The job got done; I am sorry if you lost some work; please save your work next time. Did I do OK, all the same?--GordonWatts 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The massive reduction in article size was certainly needed and may prove to be very beneficial long-term. However, so many changes were made that this article can not possibly become an FA on this nomination. Other editors are undoubtedly going to spend time re-adding text that was moved out. In short, this article is currently as unstable as an article can be.

Unless there are objections, I suggest closing this nomination and letting the article stabilize over the next month or two. Discussion on how to improve the article should move to the talk page. I believe this will give the article its best chance at becoming a Featured Article. Carbonite | Talk 18:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Other editors are undoubtedly going to spend time re-adding text that was moved out" No text was lost. I merely moved it, and, in its place, added a small section summarizing the court cases. To add text would duplicate unnecessarily. Since no sustentative change was made, the article is stable, but I'd prefer someone review my work. "Discussion on how to improve the article should move to the talk page." We are quite happy, thus no major improvements are needed, which leads me to my last point: Unless there are objections, I suggest closing this nomination and letting the article stabilize over the next month or two." I object: I think the article is stable, except for one minor thing: Uncertainty on the reliability of the work Marskell and I did in reducing it; If others can review our work, that would offer confidence in the accuracy, hence stability. "I believe this [your suggestion to wait] will give the article its best chance at becoming a Featured Article." I disagree with your premise, because the underlying theory on which it was based (e.g., that things needed to be added to the article) was flawed, but thank you for the kind words. So, would someone please step up to the plate and do their part, namely a review of our work? (If we did not err, then the stability was not affected.)--GordonWatts 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether you or I think anything needs to be added to the article is basically irrelevant. Whenever an article goes through such a major change, it remains unstable for a period of time. Unstable articles are not suitable for being promoted to Featured Article.

There's really two ways to proceed on this:

1. Continue to argue that the article should be promoted on this nomination. With the unstability of the article and amount of opposition, this just isn't going to happen. However, continuing to press the issue does have the potential to generate enough ill will that the article's future chances are harmed. This needs to be avoided.
2. Let the nomination close and move discussion to the article talk page. Let other editors improve the article for a reasonable length of time (a month or two sounds about right). When the article is stable (no major changes for a while), find someone uninvolved with editing the article will nominate as a FAC. The objections at this point should be much easier to address.

Carbonite | Talk 19:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I may not agree with consensus, but I will accept it, in this case too. Now, I would like to point out that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Terri_Schiavo

is not updated to the most current version of this page -that is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

So, not all may have heard that the article split; and, some may agree with my assertion of stability, and change consensus. I am willing to let the nomination proceed as is, and accept the results of a few more days' discussion, with the hopes that our consensus can be actioned by Mark, in whatever way he deems appropriate. You don't mind letting this new development get reviewed do you, Carbonite? Your suggestions are for me to wait, and you seem thoughtful and reasonable, but I ask you to wait a few days before the hastily passed action one way or another. Is that cool?--GordonWatts 19:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove the nomination, nor will I demand that anyone else do so. My comments were advice and you're quite free to ignore it if you wish. However I would suggest that you remember what you hopefully learned from your RfA: Pushing the issue often ends up working against you. I'll leave you with a pertinent quote "The chief cause of failure and unhappiness is trading what you want most for what you want now." Carbonite | Talk 19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; this was essentially my concern.

[Note: Marskell was agreeing with Carbonie here, apparently, but I posted between their 2 posts.--GordonWatts 19:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)]

Gordon, by "killed the changes" I meant they had become redundant. I do of course do a copy before saving. As for whether it's a minor, you are wrong. Wikipedia:Minor edit: "A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely." Splitting 43% of it absolutely qualifies. It made me want to re-look at it and I can't imagine that wouldn't be true of anyone else who watches it. Put another way, you want people to change their votes based on the changes—how could they be minor? In any case, we have to wait and see if other involved editors approve of the split. And Carbonite is right—move it back to talk there. Marskell 19:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Simply look at the last version before I touched it, page through the history diffs, and if no error exists, then pass it. PS: Please note the "sub-article" is the exact information that was in the main article, except I had to make sure full names were used when introducing characters. In other words, the split was claen. "It made me want to re-look" Good; That's what I am requesting: A review of our work.--GordonWatts 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The article looks vastly better with the edits and the spinning off of the sections into their own article. The lead is also much improved. I think this article is on the right track. That said, I think the editing cut out something important. The article seems to be missing a section on the falling out between Michael and her parents. This missing section, which would come after the section titled "Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit," is needed. I can't believe I'm saying to add to the article, but it needs this section to be complete. Otherwise, this is now a very good article. The key, though, will be to see if the article remains stable for a time (I believe, though, that using the subarticles will help the stability issue). If it can remain stable for a week, I will vote to support it.--Alabamaboy 20:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • While I haven't had time to look at the article in detail, I think Alabamaboy's assessment is correct - while I'm not sure if it's FA material, it's definitely on the right track now (assuming it stays this way). →Raul654 20:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "That said, I think the editing cut out something important. The article seems to be missing a section on the falling out between Michael and her parents. This missing section, which would come after the section titled "Rehabilitation efforts and the malpractice suit," is needed." You gave me a scare, AlabamaBoy: I thought I needed to add something back in; however, upon closer inspection, all is well: For example, look right after Terri_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts_and_the_malpractice_suit, and you'll see: Terri_Schiavo#Notable_court_cases_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_saga. Then, click on that link, which would be: Selected_court_cases_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case, and read the very first sentence: "On February 14, 1993, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and the Schindlers had a falling-out..." That having been said, I think I will add a sentence or two in the main article referencing that. (I may also review the recent deletions others have made and see if anything was indeed deleted that is of import.)--GordonWatts 12:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto Raul. Johnleemk | Talk 12:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • FYI, I fixed that paragraph in the main article, in response to AlabamaBoy's concern: went from 45-to-46Kb, but I'm not sweating at this point.--GordonWatts 13:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Notice: Under the text move guidelines (a proposed policy), I am moving text from the Terri Schiavo article to the two related talk pages (this one and the "regular" talk page. Here is the text removed from that page: [14]

• The Register's compilation The Register's mirror link

• Watts, Gordon W. "Living Wills: Unexpected Weaknesses." The Register, 11 April 2005. ^{[15] [16]}

• The Register mirror link

Edit summary:

Current revision GordonWatts (Talk | contribs) Removing links that would give the appearance of impropriety and biased conflict of interest related to vanity links

PS: I give credit to Taxman for reminding me of my responsibilities here: "The only link of yours that is proper is one that covers important legal information covered nowhere else. I'll let other editors decide if that article is important enough, but the others have to go...- Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)"

--GordonWatts 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

• Object, article clearly not stable: Of the last ten edits at the time of voting, five is described in the edit summary as a revert. I'm begining to wonder if this article will ever be stable enought to be an FA. WegianWarrior 09:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment': my object above still stands but more so given the reversions that are going on. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article talk page is terrorized by FuelWagon who has upset the progress I made; Please do not blame me or punish me for it; I have worked tirelessly to improve the article, and he has messed up the references section and made many edits against Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, when he removed references, which were approved here regarding adding of controversial links that were needed to cite sources -and also continues to argue about article length here in this page's talk -even when all consensus says he is wrong. REASON: The reason the page is unstable is due to ONE SINGLE editor, FuelWagon, and the reason he is allowed to violate consensus is because ALL YOU simply do nothing to stop him, and you do not file a RfC or participate in talk. Mark and others think that progress is being made, but if we fail, it will be because YOU did nothing; I have done all I can: I am an editor -not a "miracle worker."--GordonWatts 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You are thinking about this in entirely the wrong terms. You are not being blamed or punished. The article simply does not meet the FA criteria and will not until it is properly summarized (addresses the points in relation the their importance) and stable. That will not happen soon, even without the current dispute. No one said getting articles to featured status was easy, but currently the article is in a terrible state (in any of the recent versions) in regards to meeting the FA criteria. If you let this nomination be removed as it should have long ago (and likely would have been if not for your combative edit warring to put it back last time), then the article can proceed on to improve. FAC is not the place to resolve an editing dispute. - Taxman ^Talk 13:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree completely. Last week I suggested [17] that the best course of action would be to remove the nomination and let the article stabilize. Of course this suggestion was met with strong resistance from Gordon. This really is the best way to move forward since no progress has been or will be made on this particular nomination. Carbonite | Talk 13:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Mee too. Gordon, let it drop for a while to see if a real consensus can be found around what should be in the article. This must be the first time that an FAC entry threatened to rival the article for size. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Re.: Edit wars You may think that lack of edit wars prove stability, and that edit wars are bad. (To some extent, this is true.) However, consider this: Do we have any edit wars in articles like Underwater Basket Weaving (if there is such an article)? No! You know why? Nobody cares about this mundane, obscure stuff. In Terri Schiavo's case, the edit wars, while bad, are reflective of the high level of interest in the issue: A "good" thing.--GordonWatts 05:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • "This must be the first time that an FAC entry threatened to rival the article for size." Oh, we've worked that hard? That is a good omen and sign that we've made positive progress. Great!--GordonWatts 03:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
            • In reply to Filiocht & Carbonite's concerns: "But miracles still happen." [18]--GordonWatts 02:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC assistance requested re FuelWagon's disruption here, where he argues with →Raul654

Since we all are complaining about the article length (and some of us are complaining about FuelWagon's disruption here), I was wondering if some brave admin would either co-opt with me for a RfC re: FuelWagon --or take action to keep him from de-stabilising the Terri Schiavo page. I just barely get it fixed when he keeps messing up the references section, taking out approved references to cite our sources; As we discussed in talk, I removed all links that look like vanity links except those approved by the resident Admin, Taxman.

So, will someone assist me in combating this editorial vandalism here by the argumentive FuelWagon. (I do not mean this is disrespect; I too wanted the article length to stay the same, but I am man enough to comply with consensus here.) Thx.--GordonWatts 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, and I didn't approve any links darn it. Stop misrepresenting me. I said only a link covering important legal information should be allowed to stay, and that I would let others decided if it was important. It seems like people dispute the article contains anything truly important. - Taxman ^Talk 13:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Brief Clarification to Taxman: I never said you approved of any specific links. All the same, the one link of mine that I tried to tie down and keep was indeed the only reporting of the Terri's Law Oral Arg. hearing in Lakeland: I know: I was there. So, it is for this reason that I assert that this link qualifies as needed by your good descriptions.--GordonWatts 02:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "It seems like people dispute the article contains anything truly important." Yes, but we will beat the deletionists incorperated: Teamwork -and Faith.--GordonWatts 02:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - lacks coherent timeline (10 year gap where everything happens), not stable, I fear that The Register will reappear as a source. Buried comments in the source are also troubling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "lacks coherent timeline (10 year gap where everything happens" Comment: You can't have your cake and eat it too. (American Idiom: You can't have both things; Choose one or the other.) If you shorten the article, it will arbitrarily make a time-gap (which is covered in the sub-article). If, on the other hand, you choose to report *all* the facts, the article length will be about 80 Kb. "not stable" Some "edit warriors" are not stable, and need to be disciplined; The article is like a lake: Large fluctuations in wind temperature result in only small changes in water temperature: The lake (and, by extension, the article) is relatively stable. "I fear that The Register will reappear as a source." That is not my fault: I have removed ALL "Register" sources from the visible comments: If others chose to put them in, you will have to accept the consensus: "Consensus" does not always go our way, but if we are mature, we accept that: You must accept that too. "Buried comments in the source are also troubling." Huh? What comments? I removed ALL of them, and only put a few back in to notify others that I had removed the links to my paper, The Register. What would you like me to do? Lie about it? Be silent and not up-front? Put the sources in NON-hidden sections for the public viewing? Please clarify, Hipocrite - «Talk», or, otherwise, I will discount this particular criticism. Since it is my responsibility to answer critics, however, I hope that I have answered them all.--GordonWatts 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The article can be shortened without cutting relevent facts. It takes at least two to edit war, and one of those is you. The Register remains in hidden comments. It is a non-notable, non-reputable source. I'd like you to stop pushing your newspaper into the body of articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The Register remains in hidden comments.I think it should be treated like any other source, but I will agree to your compromise; BTW, thank you for not wanting to remove it altogether as some are: It should remain for future generations as we need to cite our sources. "I'd like you to stop pushing your newspaper into the body of articles." Done, according to your wishes. "It is a non-notable, non-reputable source." Hold on a sec: I asked you on the Terri board:Do you think I lied about the news report of that Oral Argument hearing? By the way, a reporter need not be notable -none of us reporters are usually notable, but we still produce reliable news coverage. In what way is my news coverage unreliable or false? Here are links to the news stories in question:
      • #{{note|OralArgNewsStory}} From Staff Reports. (Watts, Gordon W., Editor-in-Chief) "Lakeland Appeals Court holds Oral Arguments for Terri's Law," The Register, June 14 2004 link mirror link
      • #{{note|QuoWarranto}} Ford, Cheryl, R.N. "News Coverage of Terri Schiavo's family's challenge to Mike Schiavo's guardianship," The Register, June 16 2004 link mirror link
      • I await your answer to my question. Thank you for your time.--GordonWatts 22:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• There is an edit war that was ongoing, so it can't be a featured article till this is sorted out, however: I can see one or two sentence paragraphs in several sections. This doesn't look too good. I don't really think a footnote in the lead section is such a good idea: this material should be covered in the main section and readers should read on to find out more info. I feel that the structure is not clear - someone should look into making this a lot clearer. - 203.134.166.99 03:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Grace Note, is that you at this Australian IP address? Well, whomever you are, thank you for your input, but instead of talking about problems, why don't you try to help us with solutions (or, if you already are and have, THANK YOU for your assistance here).--GordonWatts 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One solution: (1) Block anyone and everyone who's monkeying up & disrupting the article; (2) Fix it; (3) Feature it; (4) Relax and smile!--GordonWatts 03:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Crazy in Love

Support Detailed information on this hit song with chart performances, music video and influences.

• Oppose. For starters there are no references. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Crazy In Love.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 07:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose- as above, no references, no copyright info. A sample would be great, as would some kind of critical comment. It's better than many articles about hit singles but does not compare well to existing featured articles such as She Loves You or Layla. Writing style could be sharpened - need to remove "fanzine" type language and colloquialisms. Examples:
  
  • "it also hit number one "
    

**"the song also raised eyebrows"
**"Knowles began shopping for beats"
**"hungover from a night of partying"
**"it would either flop horribly or take off"
**"Unfortunately for Beyoncé" (conveys a point of view)
**Two sentences that begin with "Internationally speaking" and one "domestically speaking" are awkward at best but references to the "domestic market" assume the reader to be American. Obviously the reference is to the American market - so that's what it should say. Rossrs 09:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Canildo, I've added info on that image. Rossrs, I've toned down the "fanzine", and I've added samples of the song (This is the first time I've ever added a sample, so I'm not sure if I did it right - if I didn't please let me know). And Evil Monkey, I'm not sure where I would find references, as most of the stuff I wrote was from TV/Radio/Magzine interviews that don't have an online counterpart. But I'll be looking for some. OmegaWikipedia 14:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • References don't need to be online. If stuff is coming from TV shows etc then provide airing date and time, channel etc. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Evil Monkey, I can't remember random shows from two years ago, but I do remember that Beyonce has talked about it on her live DVD and the DVD single of the song. I've added them as references. Is that ok now? OmegaWikipedia 11:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OmegaWikipedia - the article looks a lot better and I appreciate the way you've responded to the various comments here. When I have a bit more time over the next couple of days, I'll go back over the article and give it a copyedit. You know, with regards to references you can always work backwards. Try doing a Google search on Beyonce or the song. She's got to have about a zillion hits, pick some of the more credible sites and go back through them. Then you should find good quality references that you can cite, plus you'll probably find more info that can be used in the article. Then anything remaining that needs a source, and which you can't find a source for - you can delete, and all you've done is improve the article. Some type of review comments or quotes from critics would be a good addition, and give the article a bit more "authority", so if you try searching on some of the more legitimate music sites such as Rolling Stone, NME, Melody Maker, Billboard etc, you're sure to get some good stuff. That's just a suggestion but once you start sifting through sites like that, it's amazing how much good info you can find, and your reference problem will be solved. Some of these sites also link to magazine articles and interviews etc, once again useful source material. Rossrs 12:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Rossrs. I was able to find two more sources for the article. I've also followed your suggestion on including comments from critics, and I've added a section detailing their thoughts. Is there anything else that needs attention. OmegaWikipedia 20:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Support The critical comments made all the difference - nicely done. I went through the article and copyedited it. I don't consider the changes I've made to be major, but I did delete some minor things that I thought weren't needed, but I also added a couple of points. Well, you can see what I've done in the edit history. Have changed my vote to support. Rossrs 11:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks Rossrs :) OmegaWikipedia 12:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support It deserves to be a featured article. Ruennsheng 08:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you Ruennsheng :) OmegaWikipedia 12:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, please add the html links from the text as complete citations the reference section so that a record of who wrote the artcile, what it was called and who published it is available if the site goes down or the page is moved.--nixie 23:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Besides what nixie said above (see Wikipedia:Footnotes for guidelines on how to do this), a few more things that need to be fixed.
  1. Copyedit for proper terminology and conciseness (eg. "a rap performance by Jay-Z" should be "a guest rap from Jay-Z" or "a guest rapped verse from Jay-Z").

That can be done

• 1. Header is too short for article this long. It should be at least another paragraph long, telling us why this song is notable. Mention the Chi-Lites by name in the header when referring to the sample (which uses the bass and drums as well as the horns); your average reader will not know "Are You My Woman" is a Chi-Lites song.

Well the reason for the song's importance is seen in the first section and the critical response section, but I think I kind of get what you're getting at.

You can take a look at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Headings for more information. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Do not bold chart positions (unencyclopediaic and POV). This goes for other articles as well.

Have to disagree with this one too. I know you mentioned the other articles, but it is pretty commonplace, and it's not really POV, I think. A #1 should be emphasized just like the entries here who emphasize different Olympic winners in different degrees.

It's POV, because it implies "oh, look! We got a number one hit! Yay!" (which is also unencyclopediaic). It looks, for lack of a better term, "fannish", and is only common among the articles on pop stars written by their fans. Your average Wikipedia user should be able to realize that you can't do any better than a #1 hit.--FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Format references in APA format, with author, publisher, year, place of publication, and (where applicable) page. See Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations

Ok, I'll take a look

• 1. Three samples of one song is overkill. Only one 20 second or less sample of the record should be used.

Disagree here again. LOL Maybe I should stop right now. With all the disagreeing you'll probably end up opposing anyway. If this were something like "Naughty Girl" or "Me, Myself, and I" then I'd agree. But "Crazy In Love" is well known for its rap and its sample usage, so I feel those need a sample too.

I'm surprised the users who push fair use haven't raised an issue about that. It just looks a bit "extra". No one else has said anything, so I'll ease up on this. BTW, so long as these minor issues are improved, I will support the article; it's very good. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Don't leave elements of the infobox empty. If you don't know the exact day the song was recorded, a year will suffice.

Nothing's blank now.

Be careful about blanking other users' comments. Let them do that; in some cases, it could be seen as vandalism. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1. For that matter, avoid using the infobox templete, and use just the code, so that Beyonce and Jay-Z's single chronologies can be listed seperately.

Is the Jay-Z chronology right though? He's also releasing so many singles and I dont remember their exact order.

According to the Jay-Z discography, "Crazy in Love" was preceeded by "La-La-La (Excuse Me Again)" and followed by "Beware of the Boys"

• 1. More pictures (screen captures from the music video, alternate single covers from overseas, a screen capture from a live performance, etc) would help break up the monotony of non-illustrated text for a visitor. At least two more pictures should be added, although I will not oppose the article if no pictures are added.

I believe theres only one single cover, but more pics and live performances can be added.

--FuriousFreddy 01:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In addtion, as per current edits (wow; that was fast)...I don't think music video directors should be listed in the infobox for two reasons:

Hehe, I'm just fast like that :p

1. "Music video directo" is too long to fit in the infobox.
2. "Director" by itself looks odd without any attribution to what the director directed. Leaving it out, or mentioning it in a production credits list of some sort, will suffice

Well, I have to disagree with this. I'd prefer Video Director but apparently some people have issues with two words being in caps next to each other. But I think nowadays the music video director is key to a single, and theres no way it should be left out the single box.

"Video director" should work fine. "Director" makes it look like the music video director directed the song. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, songwriters should be listed by their official ASCAP or BMI names, not by any stage names or nicknames (this refers solely to Jay-Z here). The article should reflect what it says in the album liner notes (which should also state where the song was recorded, an fact of intrest for inclusion).

I have to disagree with this one too. I thought about this, but I think it'd be best to leave it as Jay-Z. You and I both know who Shawn Carter is and he's probably not the best example, but for lesser known acts who use stage names, I can see people getting confused and wondering if an artist who was on the record had helped with co-writing it or not.

Pipe the link; somebody might learn something new. It's not a big deal, though; the article can live without it. --FuriousFreddy 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia 02:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC) --FuriousFreddy 01:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Also, the comment about the song's vidoe being "one of the best of the year" needs attribution. Otherwise, it is POV. Some of the language in the article still needs to be toned down ("outstanding success", more elegant vocal style", and such). The bit about Harrison being hungover the day he wrote the song needs attribution. --FuriousFreddy 11:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think it is comprehensive and very detailed that it truly deserves to be a FA. What FuriousFreddy does not realise is that it is not only this song which are bold texted when the song is number one. Other songs like "We Belong Together" by Mariah Carey or any other number one hit songs are bold texted as well. It is not "fannish" as FuriousFreddy says. It is to emphasise the achievement of the artist throughout their chart period, not POV. Other hit songs are like that as well. It is objective and straight to the fact. What else would you expect? The song did reach number one. Furthermore, the article do need the link for evidence that it is correct of that the article has been said. Otherwise, the article itself might get accused for over-exaggeration saying it is too much of a "fansite". So a link to the article will directly tell us that some statements which are too good or bad to be true is correct by providing evidence. Thirdly, we are working on the pictures but we don't need it too much to emphasise the song. I think the article we have right now is sufficent. So, I think FuriousFreddy should realise that this is how the music single article and other popstars articles are like. It is not "fansite" but objective and telling the fact. I think this article is encyclopedic. FuriousFreddy should look at more single articles before making ridiculous statements. Person22 04:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "It is to emphasise the achievement of the artist throughout their chart period". That is a textbook example of what POV is, we do not emphasize or place person on a pedestal for recording #1 hits. As I said before, the other singles articles should not be bolding chart positions either. Do not bash comments by other users, especially over something like bolding text on pages. FInally, you can't support an article twice. --FuriousFreddy 03:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too many samples. If you're going to claim fair use, you need to limit it to one sample of 30 seconds/10% of the track or less. --Carnildo 07:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Megatokyo

Re-Nomination. I think everything covered in the previous nomination has been taken care of, particularly added content to the plot section and revision of the criticism. Nifboy 06:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Pamri • Talk 06:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Looks promising, but it's still very much a fan guide. The sections "Availability", "The departure of Rodney Caston", "Forums" and "Megagear" serve little or no encyclopedic function and need to to be merged into more appropriate sections. The section "Characters" is far too short; super-brief summaries like these are not compensated by large sub-articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

We (or someone) resized the Characters section to a smaller one, now you told us to expand it? UNBELIVEABLE! Just kidding, I was wonder what we can add to the characters section. I do not know what to merge MegaGear and Forums with (MegaGear is a seperate site and the forum is part of Megatokyo), and the sections "Availability" I believe can be expand. The "Departure of Rodney Caston" is pretty improtant, so I don't know how to change/merge with. Thanks for your feedback.--Kiba 20:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

At least make "The Departure of Rodey Caston a sub-section of something. An entire main section on just this is too crufty. As for the characters, first rule is: don't make a list. It needs to be an easily read text summary of the most important characters. This means you only have to briefly mention the most important characters and describe their general characteristics. "Forums" and Megagear" are both fan-related subjects. Fan activities are always secondary to descriptions of the actual object of fandom and should be limited, or you'll find yourself stuck in yet more cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of the plot section covers nearly all the major characters (Piro and Largo are covered in the first). The Characters section is only still there to highlight the sub-article, I think. Nifboy 05:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Then I suggest removing it altogether. The sub-article can be linked at the end. I'm eagerly expecting some sort of change in all the fancruft-sections. It's still written partially like a promotion. Just look at the beginning of the section "Availability":

All strips are available free of charge from Megatokyo.com or can be purchased in book form, which is published by Dark Horse Comics. As of April 3rd 2005, three volumes are available for purchase. At one point Studio Ironcat published a book compilation of strips that are now included in Volume One.

Stuff like this can be covered in the lead. It doesn't need a separate section with super-detailed publising info.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very good article on an interesting subject.--Alabamaboy 23:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Zach (Sound Off) 21:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object I'd like to see this placed in some sort of artisic context. I'm told that it's written and drawn in manga style and then further down Megatokyo has evolved into a far more manga-influenced webcomic. Is it? What sort of manga? It's like saying 'written and drawn in comic style' - really doesn't narrow it down a lot. I mean presumably, if it's so heavily based on manga as to warrent a comment in the first sentence and then again further down, some one could mention some *titles* that they think have influenced it? Or the creator will have commented on some of his inspirations? Or at least what kinda manga, or some authors, if specifics can't be managed? To me, the overall style and especially the rendering seems much more firmly rooted in the 'webcomic genre' - at the minute the only cross reference is to PvP, and that's an aside rather than an attempt to locate the subject within its field. Finally, I think the head needs rewriting. It's not any kind of summary of the article, being mostly history lawyering, and completely fails to mention what the comic is about. Oh, and the article doesn't link Tokyo, which I think is funny. --zippedmartin 18:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • On "Artistic Context": Titles wouldn't help. Just to give an example, Ping is constantly considered a ripoff of Chii of Chobits, but Fred hadn't even heard of Chobits when he introduced Ping. The archetype is just that prominent in all of anime/manga (Oh, and Tokyo is linked in the very first sentence of the plot section). Nifboy 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nifboy on this issue. If I can see what Megatokyo is really about.... It a pardoy webcomic mixed with comedy and romance. "Manga styles" is subjective but the author defintely have more infulence from japanese comic and anime rather than webcomic.--Kiba 20:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What archetype? I can assue you that clamp-style artwork is not common to all anime/manga. To make myself clear here:

• Fix the head. Two short paragraphs followed by a spoiler warning (aka. stop-reading-now sign) isn't good enough, see Wikipedia:Lead section.
• Give some, any, room to discussion of the visual style, even if you don't want to be comparative. It's ridiculous to have an article about a comic that only concerns itself with plot elements, bar a paragraph in the disjointed 'Criticism and praise' section.

Nice and actionable? --zippedmartin 22:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Ruennsheng 09:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: ref/notes need fixing. Otherwise, this is very good! - 203.134.166.99 03:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Um...what wrong with it?--Kiba 22:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I strongly reccomend sending this to peer review again. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support.--Kross 01:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Cyberpunk

Self-nom, though I'm not too emotionally invested in it. ;) This article was nominated to FAC several months ago, and back then everyone including myself voted against it. I think the intervening edits, by myself and others, have addressed our objections pretty well. I put the article up for peer review, and the only comment it gathered was about fair use rationales for the images, which I researched and provided. Overall, I think the article is useful and not too fannish; if people raise good solid objections, I won't be too dismayed. Anville 11:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral for now, but the paragraph on the #Protagonist is fannish and a bit naive to literary terminology, and there is a little wiki-itis shown in all the agglutination of "types of this, types of that, types of the other" appended to it. ("Wiki-itis" is when "anyone can edit" means that people start appending examples rather than developing discussion. It's the infamous "Famous comedies" stuck into the middle of Comedy.) Also, it's interesting that the rationale for the adoption of "punk" isn't included anywhere. It only deserves a sentence, but the early practitioners picked up the sole universal of punkrock: anti-corporate sentiment. There seems, withal, to be a lot of appeasement of various editors with special interests, and there isn't a strong thesis that orders all the information. Geogre 13:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I haven't been involved in this article (although I did just make a minor edit.) I'm not sure what Geogre's complaint is in reference to; perhaps it has been fixed up after he made his remarks? In any case, this seems to be a very well-written article, admirably organized. I'm not sure if Geogre is correct in his assesment that the "punk" in cyberpunk implies an "anti-corporate" sentiment -- indeed, many of cyberpunks early fans and writers had strongly libertarian leanings AFAIK. Again, AFAIK, the word "punk" was chosen mostly for its suggestion of abrasiveness and rebellion against the then-current utopianism of science fiction -- i.e., the "punk" of cyberpunk referred mostly to the writers themselves, who saw themselves as "punks" in contrast to establishment writers. I don't think discussion of this point needs to appear in the article, partly because it is just speculation, and also because the actual politics of cyberpunk are admirably addressed in an NPOV manner. Sdedeo 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I did try to clean up the "protagonist" paragraph, as per Geogre's remarks. (And thanks for your edit!) Anville 08:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. First off, I just want to say I think this is a very good choice for an FAC. It's an article that represents modern pop culture very well. However, it has some problems:
  • The lead is much too short for such a big article.
  • Small paragraphs and very long quotes make it harder to read. The paragraphs need to be looked over and the quotes need to be summarized and then italicized so they are easily distinguished from the text. Most of these quotes can be summarized by the editors.
  • Merge all the information about cyberpunk in games, movies, music fashion etc. One section with sub-section should do.
  • If possible, I would like a picture to go right at the top next to the lead. No squabbling about which pic it should be, though. Consensus and compromise is the way to go.
• I'll help out with this, so don't despair. / --Peter ^Isotalo 13:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see another brain getting involved here. I think you've raised some pretty good points, and I'll take stabs at addressing them. Of the pictures currently in the article, I personally think Image:Lain-hacker-small.jpg would go best with the lead, but Image:Ghostintheshell.jpg is pretty good too. Hmmm, Image:TrinityMatrixCharacter.jpg might go well alongside Nicola Nixon's comment about "gender politics" (which we can paraphrase). Maybe someone can dig up a sexy still of Major Motoko Kusanagi to complement it? Anville 16:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer images of female characters that focus on something other than sexy appearance. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree! However, the sex appeal of cyberpunk heroines is a subject of legitimate scholarly interest — at least two of the sources the article cites right now (Nixon and Brians) comment on it. I didn't mean to say that we should dress up the article to appeal to the teenage male demographic, but rather that we could easily find fair-use pictures which illustrate a point made in several of our sources. The idea is that somebody sees a picture of Trinity and a picture of Kusanagi, and then they read Gibson's description of Molly the razorgirl, and they ask themselves, "Why are all the cyberpunk women like that?" My apologies for miscommunications. Anville 15:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Book cover of Neuromancer plz. I note we have a reprint cover up already on that article, what were earlier ones like? Sticking Lain as head image would be like illustrating an article on Restoration comedy with a pic of Sheridan. --zippedmartin 14:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a copy of Neuromancer with (what I think is) the original cover. I can take a photo and upload it, would that be acceptable? I also have many of Mr. Gibson's other books, if photos need be taken of them. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 20:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be great. Anville 09:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...would a scan be better quality than a photo? I'm not particularly experienced with these things. I'll scan/photograph the covers of a few other cyberpunk books as well. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Scan probably preferable. If needed, google should help you find various guides that might be of use. Then see Wikipedia:Image use policy for the wikip side of things (most of which you no doubt know, {{Book cover}} is what you'll want). --zippedmartin 18:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Check out the best picture I've found so far. (Ha ha only serious.) Anville 15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Just great. --PopUpPirate 11:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fairly comprehensive. Merge tiny paras, especially in the games section, to make it look better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support great work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. I've read this a couple of times now, and have a feeling of vauge disquiet about the structure and tone of the article as a whole, but am having trouble thinking of how I could actually go about fixing that. First off, I think the back-links to detective fiction and the New Wave movement really need to be mentioned in the head (as well as further down where they are now). Then the head puts Blade Runner (1982) and The Matrix (1999) in the same breath, which is more than slightly confusing, and this kinda chronological soup continues through the article - read the current games section for instance. Everthing feels rather tick-listy rather than discursive, I think more effort needs to be made to bring all these different strands together in a sensible manner. Finally, anime coverage jumps straight in at Kōkaku Kidōtai in 1995 (with the no mention of the manga), cyberpunk had a big influence on the OVAs of the 80s from AIC, Madhouse etc and that needs to get a footnote somewhere. The Encyc. of Science Fiction has a good 3 columns on cyberpunk, I'll check through later see if it has anything fun that the current article lacks. --zippedmartin 17:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm responsible for the Blade Runner/Matrix bunching, but the point I was trying to make here is to list two of the most popular cyberpunk-influenced films out there. They're there because they're very popular and have most likely reached a far wider audience than any other film, book or game out there. If you have better candidates, just add them. I've tried looking the article over and done what I can when it comes to copyediting, but I'm a bit stuck when it comes to section 3 and onwards, so please don't hesitate to butt in and try to touch stuff up. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that both those films were important in popularising this sorta scifi, I just think that mixing something that was made before the word 'cyberpunk' was ever thought of, and something that used elements when the idea had already been part of the mainstream for ten years is somewhat confusing for a casual reader. Anyway, I have a revision of the film/tv section I'll get round to finishing/saving this evening. Probably. :D --zippedmartin 22:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctant Object - Damn - I so very much wanted to support this article. The lead section and the first two sections, Style and History, are simply brilliant (although the history is incomplete; zippedmartin's explanation above cover's this). Also, the Literature and Film and TV sections seem too short to me. Please expand. --mav

• Strong Support --- This is better than some featured articles, deserves to be in. Ruennsheng 02:30 (UTC)

• Would like to support, but a few issues remain:
  • "While this gritty, hard-bitten style was hailed as revolutionary during cyberpunk's early days, later observers concluded that, literarily speaking, most cyberpunk narrative techniques were less innovative than those of the New Wave, twenty years earlier. Primary exponents of the field include William Gibson, Bruce Sterling, John Shirley and Rudy Rucker. The term became widespread in the 1980s and remains current today." - confused... are we talking about the primary exponents of New Wave or Cyberpunk literature?
  • "Witness the series 8 Man (1963), about a human-turned-cyborg who fights an endless struggle against his lawless world." - witness the series?! Copyedit this, please!!!
  • "(One can always aggrandize the cyberpunk genre by retroactively "claiming" earlier works to be members, or at least vital precursors; consider The Six Million Dollar Man or Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Indeed, one could even aggrandize postcyberpunk, by laying claim to optimistic fantasies like Tron.)" - reads like an essay, seems to be someone waxing lyrical about their favourite topic (sorry if that is you)... needs to be less POV.
  • "Indeed, this focus upon the social impact of network technology has led some commentators to feel that the television series leans more toward being a product of the postcyberpunk period." - which commentators?
  • "While the first movie was extremely successful, earning $456 million worldwide and beating Star Wars: The Phantom Menace for special-effects Oscars, viewers continue to debate the quality of the sequels." - can we have some expansion on why they are debating this?
  • Lastly, we have numbered references, only there is no corresponding notes section! Please number the references in the right order... - 211.30.179.151 12:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Highway 66

self-nom. I feel this article does a great job in both discussing the highway and its impact on people and vice-versa. It keeps both the aspects which have become standard for articles on highways (e.g., route infobox and related routes) as well as discussing how the highway was created, evolved, and eventually decommissioned and the impact that all of this has had on the people traveling on it and popular culture. Rt66lt 03:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No map of the route.
  2. The image Image:Chain of Rocks.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 04:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the copyright issue. I had personally taken the photo and didn't know there was a specific template that needed to be used. Also, a map is on the way, courtesy of SPUI. Thanks.Rt66lt 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The second paragraph of the lead needs work. It says that politics and publicity made it famous, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't support that. The lead should explain how 66 had iconic significance for so many people, and should give the year it opened. The first pic is too big -- it squishes the TOC an awful lot. Section headings should follow normal rules of capitalization -- only proper nouns and the first word. It needs a thorough copyedit (The following year... would officially disband in 1976. for example, is in dire need of changes), then the next sentence refers to something Avery "claimed", but I don't see where he ever said why traffic would grow on the highway. The paragraph about GIs after World War 2 doesn't make much sense to me -- it seems to imply that soldiers used the road to return home after the war, but since the war was not fought in North America, I don't see how they could have. It claims there are several novels about Route 66, but only gives the one example and doesn't explain why that one is so important. Tuf-Kat 04:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote opening line of the second paragraph, removed parts of it. Picture has been moved to the History section. Section headings have been fixed (thanks to SPUI), removed Avery's claim and the returning GIs has been removed (the intent, I believe (I didn't write it) was that after the war, they would return to Route 66 to go to California, which was often the case according to the references, but I simply wrote about vacationers in general). Removed "several novels" about Route 66. Rt66lt 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the article is really very interesting but in needs a good copyedit. From the lead on the phrasing is awkward and there are there are places where the tense changes - and probably shouldn't, particularly in the Early 20th Century American pop culture section. Other minor things include the capitalisation of section heading where they should be in lowercase; a map, which although not necessary, would make a useful addition; and some of the items listed in the see also section would probably make interesting additions to the text rahter than in appearing in a list where they have no context, anything that already appears in the text shouldn't be on the list.--nixie 05:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of section headings (along with shortening of titles) has been done and I moved most of the "see also" list into the article and discussed them. Currently, only the "List of cities on US 66" remains, removed rest. Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• I can make a rough map; if I haven't within a few days let me know on my talk page. --SPUI (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—Substandard prose, I'm afraid. Take the first sentence:

'U.S. Highway 66 or Route 66 was and is the most famous road in the U.S. Highway system and quite possibly the most famous and storied highway in the world.'

Why clutter the opening clause with 'was and is'? Why not just 'is'? What's a 'storied' highway? Why use both 'road' and 'highway'? (Better: 'Highway 66 is the most famous highway in the United States, and possibly in the world.') And why not name the article simply 'Route 66'? Much neater. Have you read the criteria for FAs? Tony 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Highway 66 is the official name of the road; Route 66 is generic. The article was originally titled "Route 66", but was changed. There is a lengthy discussion of this on Talk:U.S. Highway 66.Rt66lt 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote mentioned section. Currently reads "Route 66 was a highway in the US highway system." Sorry, I see no way to retitle the article and keep it standard with the other highway articles.Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – the prose does not have an encyclopedic tone in some places: But it became more than a highway. It was a major migratory path west, arguably the "Oregon Trail" of the automobile era.; many Americans enjoy Route 66 nostalgia 2) Route 66 sign should be placed below, in the first section. 3) No route map. 4) Headings too wordy (it should be as terse as possible) and should be in small casing. 5) Business, Bypass, Optional, and Alternate US 66? Plz explain 6) Plz go through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units (8 point) regarding the units and use of the &nbsp; 7) Claims such as arguably the "Oregon Trail" ; possibly the most famous and storied highway in the world references needed to support this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Oregon Trail" and the "nostalgia" statments from the article. I had moved the sign picture to the Revival section, but moved it to top of "History". Retitled most of the headings. Retitled the Business, etc. to "Bannered Routes" and gave a definition. Fixed the spacing on measurements. Rt66lt 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have went through and cleaned up prose and unencyclopedic statements. I think I got all of it, but I will re-read the article again tomorrow, after I've been away from it to give me a new look at it.Rt66lt 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the cleanup: It was a major migratory path west. It would give livelihoods to... should be edited to Route 66 was a major migratory path west, and helped improve the economy of towns along the route.... And what is meant by "decommissioning" of a highway? Is the highway abandoned completely? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Thanks to recent minor changes, this is now a great article. --PopUpPirate 09:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Regretful Object Well, I just tore through the entire article changing it to one, single tense, changing spellings, etc. I don't really think this article is stable enough yet to be a FA. It might be a good idea to flesh stuff out a bit more. --Matt Yeager 06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benzene Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magneto (comics)

Nicolas Sarkozy

(Partial self-nomination, wrote some of it.) I think it's now rather complete. David.Monniaux 20:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Observation: the article sort of looks a little bit austere with only one image; obviously it will be difficult to gather Free ones, yet I wonder whether some special effort could be made in this direction. Rama 21:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already asked Sarkozy's party for other photographs, they didn't answer. I suspect they don't know ho to handle requests like that. Perhaps now that we've had a full-page article cited on the front page of Le Monde they'll pay attention if I make another request.

As for taking the photos ourselves, this is obviously difficult: people like Sarkozy are always surrounded by journalists, photographers, policemen, security guards etc. Unless you're accredited as a journalist (which is near impossible for us, because the criterion for a journalism card is basically being a paid employee of a news source), it's only through sheer luck that we could do it (as Anthere did for Jean-Pierre Raffarin). David.Monniaux 05:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support Nice work. 172 | Talk 23:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support Rama 23:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, please add a list of the sources you have used to write the article.--nixie 03:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • References added. There are also some press sources scattered through the article. David.Monniaux 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be a good idea to provide full citations for the links included in text so if the sites go down or the articles are removed then there is a record of who wrote the article and who published it.--nixie 10:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. David.Monniaux 07:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Undistinguished prose at best, including misspellings ('cozy'), unevenness of register, and redundant wording ('he felt inferior in relation to his wealthy classmates'—just 'to' would do). Stop/start paragraphing at the top. Tony 11:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs good copyedit. I would suggest to place it in peer review so that editors can comment on the prose. After that is done, this article will be excellent and worthy of FA. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyediting done. David.Monniaux 05:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • When you say 'done', I immediately wonder how simple it was. A quick look at random revealed that it's far from 'done': 'professing Catholic'—not idiomatic English; no hyphens after -ly adverbs; the heading 'Ambition for the future' should be two words, not four; one-sentence paragraphing is a problem, at the start and in a number of other sections; check the logic of the hierarchical headings—and why a three-line section at one point? See if you can get someone else to look through it thoroughly—it needs a fresh pair of eyes. Tony 06:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I used {{cleanup-copyedit}}. I guess there were not very thorough. David.Monniaux 16:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think this article is not really NPOV. It doesn't give an impression of Sarkozy's personal style and how it is reflected by the press. It should be stated already in the head that Sarkozy's opponenents see him as populist, careerist and activist. Some anecdotes or citations illustrating these points could make the article much more fun and interesting to read. Example of citations: "Each morning when I am shaving, I think about it" (the 2007 presidential pool), "One should wash that city out with a kärcher" (the suburb of Courneuve after the death of a young boy), "I am ruling the only cabinet which works also on sunday". One should also mention that for months the French press has been making the main titles with the quarrels between Sarkozy and Chirac, often ignoring major European or world-wide news. One could also cite some press title like "Sarkommence" from Liberation. IMHO, this could improve very much the article. Vb 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to work on that, but I'm afraid that discussing a person's style is fraught with POV. Sarkozy's opponents claim that, though he shows himself everywhere, he actually does little with real long-lasting impact; but should we fill entire sections with such claims? David.Monniaux 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the article a bit in this direction but I am not French and not specialist in the French politics and also not very fluent in English. I therefore cannot help you more than this. However I am ready to support this article if it gets less boring. I think the biographical details may be interesting but a discussion of the image of Sarkozy in the French press and of his particular style is very important. Sarkozy is a controversial character and this should be brought more clearly to the front. Of course the price to pay is to risk non NPOV. Yes indeed. But political correctness is not the goal of WP and is not NPOV either. An easy first step would be to expand the quotation section. Vb12:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Belarus

After a good session at Peer Review, I feel that this article is ready for FAC. While I have worked on Belarusian related articles before, I was asked to edit the main Belarus page. I took the user up on the suggestion and made significant improvements to the article (Diffs [19]). While I worked with two great editors at Peer Review, I welcome others comments as well. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Why this article doesn't use the Template:Infobox country? CG 12:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because I used the template so we can stick more things into the article (eg free up space). Plus, I went off the format of Belguim's article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer you use the infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I saw the box, and it could be easily turned to the template. I prefer that at least featured articles follows a little more standarisation. CG 18:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the infobox due to the suggestions at the talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Stanislav Shushkevich.jpg is claimed under fair use, but does not indicate the creator/copyright holder. Without that, it's not possible to claim fair use.
  2. The image Image:Belarus dress.jpg is claimed as "public domain" on the grounds that it's from a US Government web site. However, images on the Library of Congress are in general not works of the federal government. The actual copyright status of this image needs to be determined.
  3. The image Image:BelarusHistoricalCoatOfArms.png is claimed as "fair use and permission". This is far from an ideal license: would it be possible to get the creator of the image to release it under the GFDL or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license?

  --Carnildo 22:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • For the third image, I will just remove it outright. Though, IMHO, it falls under {{PD-BY-exempt}} since it is a former national symbol. The second one, I will provide information on the copyright holder. For the first image, I have the copyright of the website that hosted the image, but I do not know much about the copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The law, at least as expressed in English, doesn't seem to cover former symbols. --Carnildo 23:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I removed the third image, I added the copyright of the website hosting the first image and I reverted to the fair use image for the second one (since I know the author and copyright). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I've found copyright information for the newer version of Image:Belarus dress.jpg. It's from the Library of Congress Country Studies series: one of the few cases where something on the LOC website is public domain as being a work of the federal government. I've reverted to that image and updated the description page accordingly. --Carnildo 20:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Wipes forehead Ok, while I know you still object about the first photo, I did not get a response from the website on who made the photo I am using. While I know where it came from and the copyright of the website, I have no clue who took the photo or when it was taken (but it is from 1991-1994, if that helps). I am also using this photo because it has a photo of the 1991 flag. I have drew a photo of the 1991 flag, and we could use that instead if you choose. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
            • You should replace the photo. Without knowing the copyright holder for the image, it's not possible to claim fair use. --Carnildo 21:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Replaced the image with the w/r/w flag I drew myself. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, the flag drawing is PD-user. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Support. --Carnildo 03:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support as long as there are no objections and the lead clearly states it is a dictatorship. Impressive - Zscout is doing great job (as usual), but I am not sure if this is comprehensive - I fixed some links/problems in the history section (which partially overlaps with Polish one). There may be some other links which can benefit from fixing. If there are no objections, I assume it is comprehensive and support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead states "Since independence, Belarus has been the focus of international attention due to the authoritarian leadership of President Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled the country since 1994. Due to this, Belarus has been excluded from joining the Council of Europe. Belarus is considered to be Europe's last dictatorship." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Changed to Oppose – I would like Tony's comments resolved.Conditional Support Neutral – I've helped Zscout in PR, but I still feel it needs a copyedit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC) Prose at the moment is acceptable, though would like to see my inline comments addressed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments addressed. Zach (Sound Off) 17:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Concern that the text needs a thorough run-through to bring it up to standard (Wikipedia says 'brilliant' prose). I'll give it a go some time after Tuesday, after which I'll decide whether to support the nomination. Tony 16:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Some other users have been copy-editing the article. Zach (Sound Off) 08:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

---

• • Comment

Considering the size of the country - This article has a large and expansive scope and I feel it adequately begins to address the lives and people of the land. Nice anthropological work Zscout! 69.161.109.170 07:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • It needs thorough editing. I've gone through the first section making numerous small changes. The bit about the name of the country is very messy—so much information, scripts, 'Lacusa', transliteration—and could be simplified and shifted down to introduce the next section on the origin of the name. As is, the impact of the opening is compromised. Tony 09:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose—Poorly written and poorly organised. The opening needs to prepare the reader for the topic, but contains messy information about the name in a number of languages, or it did before I moved that stuff to the second section. The first section now needs more relevant, quality information, and most of the 'Name' section below it needs to be binned, or savagely pruned. Who cares about what people call the country in other languages, except perhaps for Belarussan and English? The history jumps from 1994 until 1986; wasn't the Soviet experience worth talking about? It's very densely linked, so I've removed the low-value years, which won't help the reader at all. I haven't read the rest, but already I oppose the nomination. Tony 14:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted some of the changes, because India (an FA), has information about the name. I believe it is important, since not only Belarus has more than one official language, people would want to know why this country got it's current name. Plus, it is significant, since Belarus was called Byelorussia, and we have to note that someone will take offense to that. I did add information that Belarus was a founding member of the UN, in 1945, but nothing significant stood out of my mind of what happened in Belarus since after the war but before Chernobyl, unless you want to make a very, very minor note that JFK's assassin lived in Minsk. As for the interwiki links, I might get rid of duplicates. However, I believe some of the things you put in the article as i-notes were insulting. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC) While I put some changes back in, what you done to the article, IMHO, caused more hurt than good for the article. Zach (Sound Off) 20:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I see nothing worth mentioning that would sway my vote to oppose. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm changing my vote to Strongly oppose. The main author has reverted my recent work on the opening, so that typos (e.g., 'though' rather than 'through'), grammatical errors (countries mixed up with nationalities in a list), other stylistic problems, and inappropriate organisation of information are back again. Most reviewers don't bother to roll up their sleeves and try to improve the articles they oppose; I do, and if you don't want my help, I'll just go through picking out example after example of why this article is substandard, to support the case that it should not be considered for promotion to FA status (at the moment, it would be an embarrassment). I note the following statement at the top of the page: 'you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised'. By the way, I don't care what you interpret or misinterpret in the article on India, or Belgium, or any other country: if it's poorly done here, it doesn't bear comparison. Tony 00:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I added some of your stuff back in, but as I mentioned in the edit summaries, some of the information I cannot provide because it does not exist, like who selected Suskhvich to be the first leader. But, while I welcome the grammar errors, the gutting of the lead was what caused me to revert. But I am also adding back the useful information you have provided. Zach (Sound Off) 00:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• OK, let's get down to work. First, some random examples of what you've reverted after my numerous improvements to the opening sections.
  • 'The area of Belarus was settled by the Slavs'—It wasn't called 'Belarus' in those days; I'd fixed this nicely.
  • 'the 6th and the 8th century'—one or two of them?
  • 'caused the state to be impacted gravely'—nice one.
  • 'Belarus first declared their independence'—one country or several?
  • 'which still dominate the country today'—they don't just still dominate it, they still dominate it today, do they?
  • 'the invasion of the Mongols into Rus'—invasion into?
  • 'which was headed by under one monarch'—hello?
  • 'Belarus being officially called the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic during the Soviet-era'—um....
  • 'Byelorussia and Ukrainian Soviet republics and the Soviet Union'—couple of things wrong here.
  • 'upon the issuing of May Constitution, Europe's first modern codified national constitution, which abolished all subdivisions of the states and were merged into the Kingdom of Poland'—illiterate.

I must stress that these are only a small number of examples of the poor writing that pervades most sentences. I'm not dealing yet with what can only be described as an obsession with names and titles in the opening and the first section, including the information about informal surveys conducted by some obscure website to see which version of the name of the country was used on a majority of websites. This, before we've been informed of the major issues in summary, bird's-eye fashion, so we know just a little about the subject we're going to read about. This is where you need to engage the readers in your topic, convince them that it's worth reading on, not make them wade through endless names for the country in various languages at various historical times, complete with cyrillic script and transliterations, nested in a forest of parentheses. If you have to have this name stuff, it goes much further down, sequestered into its own section to warn off the majority of readers who won't want to wade through it. It can't possibly qualify. Tony 00:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am having a few folks copyediting the article. As for the names, like I said before, it is important. People need to know that when they see Byelorussia on the Internet, they need to know that it is an informal name for Belarus and is considered offensive to some. Plus, I included the informal survery in, since it was linked to the article before I even touched it. I thought it would be interesting to present in the article what name was used the most and used the least. Zach (Sound Off) 06:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well keep going—there's lots to do. I hope someone's writing about the Soviet period. The section on Ecomony needs considerable work. Tony 07:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I will try to find out more information about the Soviet-period, and I am finding out a little bit more on Belarus trading with the European Union. I also could write about the use (or delay of use) of the Russian rouble. Zach (Sound Off) 13:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Particularly as the Soviet experience must have partly shaped Belarus as it now is. Some important matters may be:

• • to describe succinctly the Stalinist system in political and economic terms, as it applied throughout the Russian empire, with brief references to historical milestones within the period (the death of Stalin being one of them);
  • to describe how this may have applied in Belarus in particular, bearing in mind its economic strengths and weaknesses;
  • to describe how Belarus dealt with the fall of the centralised economy and Russian control: how is this still felt in the country?

These are major issues, don't you think? Tony 15:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, these are major issues that shoudl be dealt with, though I cannot promise on what else could be added. While Belarus did undergo an overhaul after the Wehrmacht left, I just do not know how much. As for the centralized economy, Belarus still uses that now, but Belarus was one of the last republics to leave the USSR. Though, IMHO, Russia still plays a key factor in Belarusian affairs, since Putin and Lukashenko usually meet each other a lot and have a good friendship. Zach (Sound Off) 22:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, to give you a heads up, the article is 33kb big now. I am now getting warnings about the article is too large. If you wish, I can reformat the whole History of Belarus and add the fine details that you request. While I want to add as much as I can to please you, but I do not want to make the article too big for anyone. Zach (Sound Off) 23:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment at Zach's request, I've gone through and copyedited the article as best I can. Could those pointing to spelling/grammatical errors in the text please check to see if they're still there (and if I've introduced any new ones!)? Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll go through it later today. With respect to the Soviet period 'black hole' in this article, this is kind of information that would be of great value to some readers, is probably not easily findable on the net, and will give a deeper picture of the country today (and wouldn't hardly count as 'original research'). Is there any foreign investment in the country, given that it has apparently been slow to open up to capitalism? Is there resistance to attempts to internationalise the economy? (I'm sure this can be done in a NPOV way.) People considering doing business there might end up going to Wikipedia: now that would count toward's W's 'unique presence on the Internet', as stated in the criteria. We want to know about this. Tony 00:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not a huge secret that Belarus is going back to the Soviet-era, and many websites on both sides of the fence state the same thing. While the information is hard to come by, it will not count as original research if it has been published on the Net or in another source. If I made it up, then it would be original research. As for the foreign investment, I have read that some McDonalds are in there, but many of the industries are nationalized, such as the Belarus Tractor Factory. NPOV is not a problem, since (surprisingly) most people when coming to my articles about Belarus mention the grammar issues, not POV issues. Sorry about the earlier reverting and misunderstanding Tony. Zach (Sound Off) 00:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• PS It's not about pleasing me, but the readers. The section on government, which needs massaging, starts 'Belarus is a republic governed by a President.' Then we learn that there's a parliament. The caption about national dress implies that what you see is the only national dress. Is this the case? Tony 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I reworded the first part of the government and fixed the caption of the photo. The dress is not the only one that can be worn in Belarus, but during various cultural and ceremonial events, there will be people dressed like that in some way. Zach (Sound Off) 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

More on the basic structure of goverment, please. Can the President veto legislation, and can the veto be overriden by the legislature? Is the current president the inaugural holder of that office? Surely each chamber by itself can't create laws: that's what it says currently. What is the process for changing the constitution (two-thirds majority in both houses, possibly)? Surely the Consititutional Court isn't a 'sub-court' ....? Does the upper house have no choice but to confirm judicial nominations (not 'appointments', please) by the President.

These are basic matters that readers deserve to find when they go to Wikipedia after hearing of some crisis in Belarus's government. Tony 03:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I also happened to write the article Constitution of Belarus. While I do not know much about the governmental functions, but from what I seen, if Luka wants something done, he will decree it. Even if it is important like national symbols, he institutes them via decree. While Lukashenko is the first and only elected head of state, there was a guy before him that served from 1991-1994 at the position of Speaker of the Supreme Soviet. Zach (Sound Off) 03:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I added some of the information you wanted in above, and some was already there in the history section. However, I am at 34kb now and my edits are not saving at all. Zach (Sound Off) 04:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Edits that don't save are a general problem at the moment, unrelated to the size of an article. Check whether they are in fact saved, even if you get the notice that they haven't. The suggested size of 32 kb is only a guideline. Many country articles exceed this. More history is needed (Soviet period), and I don't think it matters it you go over, even up to 40 if absolutely necessary. Tony 09:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

At least 40 gives me some type of benchmark to reach for, since Australia is about 40kb. Zach (Sound Off) 17:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, after seeing oppositions from above. Article is well written in many ways, but needs some more work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Some of the claims in the Economy section require referencing. I've made a few changes where it was looking a little POV. I still think the lead:
  • requires a few sentences at the end of the paragraph, giving a bird's-eye view of the topic
  • should have only very brief mention of the name, in English and Belarussian only, without the cyrillic script (leave that for the articles in cyrillic, since here, it complicates matters for the reader, where we want to captivate them)
  • should be followed by a briefer section on the history of the name of the country.

Nice job on the Soviet period. Tony 09:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Which particular claims do you think need citing? As for the name part, I was asked to expand it earlier at this FAC. Even with a short statement about the name, people will still ask who started it, when did it start and other things. What else are you suggesting for the lead? Zach (Sound Off) 06:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • One more thing, as for the "birds-eye view," did you want it at the economy article and what do you want me to say in it? Usally, if the section is going to sound like a lead, then it should be at the head of the section. Zach (Sound Off) 06:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

John III of Portugal

Partial self-nom. After the Biography Collaboration I think it is now a fine article. Underwent countless improvements on language issues, image problems and the content itself. Gameiro 00:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support, well-referenced, fine lead and apparently complete (can't vouch for accuracy). Minor issue: Under Inquisition Pope links to the current one. Could someone find out who was Pope at the time. The text isn't very clear whether the Inquisitor was appointed in 1515, 1536 or a completely different year. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Kudos to the collaborators, but this still needs some work. It seems to be missing a fairly large section. The article goes straight from outlining his life to discussing the declining state of Portugal during the later part of his reign. Where is the description of the nation's condition during the early part of his reign? The writing also needs improvement. Trade is not generally described as being "intense" and scholarships are not generally "attributed." The article also has some formatting problems. There are far too many one sentence paragraphs, and the images are poorly arranged. The article fails to use the standard footnote style for the quotations and other in text references. - SimonP 17:53, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • FA's use different reference styles I don't see anything wrong with current system.
• There is a section John_III_of_Portugal#The_Portuguese_Empire_under_John_III, I think this can be solved with just a bit rearranging of existing sections. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral I will support if SimonP's objections are met. This should probably be archived as a FAiled FAC considering its been a month. I hope to see this one up again. I don't think there is anytrhing wrong with the images or references though. Falphin 15:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support with minor issue. It would be nice to see the lead be organized into three summary paragraphs. While it may or may not be complete it is just a bunch of 2 sentence paragraphs which doest not follow Wikipedia:Lead. Newbie222 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The João III article is a mess. The first thing it needs is for someone to get the Paulo Braga biography and use it for the facts. Get those straight first. Then go on to the other stuff. The statement that the head of the Inquisition always came from the royal family is dead wrong, for example. Where did the writer get that howler? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warez Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates

Martin Guerre

This is a self-nomination of an article that has been nominated and failed before (see old discussion). I believe all the objections expressed at the time have now been met. AxelBoldt 23:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written and documented. Phils 13:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Wikipedia, being as it is editable by anyone, needs to go to extra lengths to support its information, and that includes inline references, which this article lacks. For every, or at least most facts presented, there should be an immediate link to a reference supporting that information, so someone researching the topic can easily determine whether or not the wiki is accurate at that time or not (such as in the case of stumbling across vandalism). Fieari 21:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The reference for the historical information is the book by Davis; I wrote that in a later section, but maybe it's better to write it at the beginning? AxelBoldt 00:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I know of no autoritative reference publication, online or not, that explicitly backs every statement with an inline reference. This would mean about 30-50 inline references per page (on A4/US letter paper). Phils 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Phils - the requirement is for citations "where appropriate", which in my interpretation (as featured article director) means that statistics, quotations, judgements, disputed/controversial facts, 'etc; it does not mean you need a citation for every statement. →Raul654 21:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Bruce Johnson

Self nom. Profile of Ohio's lieutenant governor, potentially the next governor considering the investigations surrounding Bob Taft and others in Ohio government. Detailed, has photos, bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 15:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:BobTaft.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson's family at swearing in.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson giving inaugural speech.jpg, Image:Bruce Johnson and Jennette Bradley.jpg are claimed as being in the public domain. However, works of individual states are not automatically in the public domain: it varies from state to state, and sometimes from department to department within the state government. --Carnildo 20:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This could qualify as a featured article if in fact the process to oust Ohio Gov. Bob Taft were an active reality. Recent polling by the Columbus Dispatch newspaper indicates that people may not like Bob Taft (very low poling numbers), but that they are neutral in his removal (hovering around 50%). Furthermore, the Democratic (opposition) party isn't pushing for Taft's resignation, but rather basking in his incompetence. In any event, Johnson is not planning on running as Governor in 2006 and doesn't have the organization in place to even start at this point. To me, this is a very well researched article that isn't relevant to Ohio residents at present. -- Stu 22:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is your objection based on information you have on the status of Ohio's copyright claims? PedanticallySpeaking 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Featured status is determined by the quality of the article itself, not by other factors such as notability. Everyking 04:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The featured article in my opinion should be well written and have relevance to someone. My input was based on how the author/submitter presented it as topical to politics in Ohio today. While the article is well researched, it isn't featured article material. Stu 12:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Not topical? Johnson is the number two official in the State of Ohio. By virture of his office he is notable. It is irrelevant that impeachment is not likely or that Johnson is not presently a candidate for governor. If anything should happen to Taft, politically, medically, or something else, Johnson would become governor. These factors, as Everyking points out, are not relevant to what makes a featured article. PedanticallySpeaking 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Taft's troubles aside, I disagree with you on Johnson's importance and the "urgency" that accompanies this article. Stu 02:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral, but will change to support once Carnildo's copyright concerns are addressed. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind Stu's objections--if he's claiming that Johnson isn't notable enough to have an article, that's clearly false, and this article is clearly of feature-caliber, so I'm not sure that his objection is in any way actionable. The photo licences are a legitimate concern, however. We can't assume that Ohio releases its photos into the public domain. Honestly, the claimed photos aren't necessary to the article; they could probably be removed without harming it too much. Aside from the photo issues, this is excellent work. Meelar (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My objection to the article is that while Johnson is second in line to Taft, such an impending shift is not as likely as user:PedanticallySpeaking claims it to be in his nom. Had the nom been made when Taft's ethics charges were news, then yes, this would have been more topical, however, given the current political climate in Ohio, Johnson's chances at being named Governor are slim to none barring an act of God. I've never disputed the research quality, but I do feel that the article overly long. Now, as for the photographs, I think that the face shot is perfectly fine for the purpose of the article. I do have an issue with the swearing-in image, because the source isn't listed. I do agree with Meelar that the article could run without the images withour any problem. Stu 02:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, OK. I'll freely admit, I consider the actual statement made in the nom to be of very minor importance. I'm not sure what PedanticallySpeaking should do to improve the article and gain your support. Is it actionable? As far as length is concerned, it's only 39 kb. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'll give some support - well written and researched as Meelar said. However, like one or two other of PedanticallySpeaking's former featured article candidates, there had been problems with image copyright issues. I'll support this well-written piece of work, but we should probably clean up the images quickly. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support - as soon as the issue with the images is sorted out, will change to support. Article is well written, thorough, and PedanticallySpeaking once again provides extensive references. I strongly feel the article should be judged on its own merits, and if a subject merits an article, that article should be eligible for consideration regardless of concerns about being topical etc. Rossrs 15:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support the problem with the images and copyrights can be worked out. It is a great article and well written. If I understood Stu (above) correctly, I feel that it is nonsense to say an article is too informative for the attention it has in real life because the goal is to get articles as complete and sharp as possible without bias. If I misunderstood Stu, I apologize and shall revoke my comments about Stu's opinion, however, I would keep my support for this article. It truly is a great article: nicely researched (such a long list of references! :) ), great format, easy to read, factually complete, I have no reason to object or stay neutral. I did notice, however, that the External Links portion was very short with only one link. However, I cannot consider this a negative thing because I do not know about the supply of quality links regarding Bruce Johnson--one link may be all that is out there. --Lan56 17:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article seems extremely POV to me. For example, in the lead is this sentence: "If the Coingate investigations of Governor Taft and others in state government force Taft from office, Johnson would become governor in his place." At this time, few objective political observers in Ohio or elsewhere think that the scandal will force Taft from office. In addition to these POV issues, the article's prose is not the best I've seen. While it is okay, the language and tone of the article read more as a summary of Johnson's career than as an article about his life and career. --Alabamaboy 02:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• All photos were removed from this article today. 66.213.119.98 14:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hydrogen

Nominating hydrogen for my 1000th edit. Toothpaste 06:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Toothpaste, congrats on your 1000th edit. I really like this article, and hope that the nomination succeeds. A few opening comments:
  • Table at top: 'colorless' is a funny epithet above that brown, tube-like thing.
  • Query question marks against 'magnetic ordering'.
  • You might consider engaging more readers at the start by elaborating just a little on 'Scientists are now researching new methods for hydrogen production.' Perhaps point out hydrogen's potential as a partial solution to greenhouse?
  • The level of explanation of terms is a little inconsistent. Your (now deleted) first sentence in 'Hydrogen atom' was a bit simplistic, yet then you hit us with 'Coulomb force' and 'spectral lines' a sentence later. I know they're linked, but since the text is not overly long, you might consider glossing a few of the terms that lend themselves to brief, less technical explanation, leaving those that cannot be simply explained as links. This might encourage more non-chemists to stay engaged throughout.
  • The sections 'Notable characteristics' (which is a misnomer, I think) and 'Hydrogen atom' (which is stubby), might be conflated under the heading 'Basic features'. Both sections currently start by talking about the same thing from slightly different angles.

Well done indeed! Tony 08:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I think that might be a mistake in the photo, perhaps, since the photo of helium looks like the exact same thing. I consulted all the books I used in helping to write the article on the magnetic ordering, but there was no information. I fixed your other three comments, though. Thank you for helping out. Toothpaste 09:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Everything it should be. Doesn't need an image under "Appearance" but not critical --PopUpPirate 11:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object for the moment. Lots of good content but there are some points I'd like to see addressed:
  • What's a lifting gas? Term is used in intro but not explained.
  • I think the intro could summarise more of the article content.
  • Intro gives a slightly different etymology to the history section
  • The explanation of the hydrogen spectrum seems a bit unclear and slightly inaccurate to me.
  • You say that in space H exists as individual atoms - true, but they can be huge clouds of individual atoms; see H I region and H II region, which probably should be linked to.
  • powering the universe - not really correct. Hydrogen fusion powers stars.
  • Applications section is mostly list, which should be converted to prose.
  • The ground state energy level of the electron in a Hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV, which is equivalent to an ultraviolet photon of roughly 92 nm. - I understand what this means, but then I've got a PhD in the study of astronomical spectra - not sure a layman would understand this. The following paragraph is a bit patronisingly written in my opinion.
    • Just to add to this, could be worth mentioning in this bit that when the average photon energy in the early universe dropped below 13.6eV, hydrogen recombined and the previously opaque universe became transparent. Incidentally the wavelength is 91.2nm. Worldtraveller 10:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A lot of the stuff in the 'see also' section should be discussed in this article. Generally it's considered that see also sections are redundant, as anything mentioned in them should be discussed in the main article.
  • General suggestion - you could give the equations for the proton-proton cycle and the CNO cycle, they're quite simple, and informative I would think. Also, an image of an H II region and/or Jupiter could be quite nice and illustrative. Worldtraveller 15:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Except that I'm not sure 'introduction' is synonymous with 'summary'. It should prepare the reader for the more detailed information to come, and allow her to navigate more easily through the article. It may define the scope, or may not. Tony 15:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

True, the terms are not synonymous - I should have said 'lead section' instead of 'intro' - sloppy conflation on my part. WP:LS states that The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Worldtraveller 16:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not at all comprehensive, and includes significantly dubious material. Paracelsus story is, at best, an unverifiable legend; is it really plausible that he was the first to use acids on metals? Hydrogen is not difficult to produce in large quantities -- the economics may be difficult, but not the process. The energy levels/quantum mechanics section is simplified to the point of meaninglessness, and conflates early quantum theory with later quantum mechanics. Fuel cell use goes back at least forty years, apparently predating significant alternative fuel proposals. Chemical reactivity of molecular hydrogen is at least as significant a factor in absence of atmospheric hydrogen as light molecular weight. Most conspicuous omission is discussion of nuclear fusion power generation research. Problems with tone of article, which mixes high-school level writing with more appropriately rigorous discussions. Monicasdude 16:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above editor has objected to dozens of FACs and, as far as I can tell, has never cast a supporting vote. He's of course free to do this, but I note this here so that Raul can take this into consideration in a close vote. This editor is pleased to impose elite science journal standards on others even while his own prose falls far short of those heights, and is pleased also to make cracks like the "high-school level writing" gibe above just to give an extra twist of the knife along with his incessant no votes. This sort of thing is just an unnecessary downer and really I just feel his votes should be discounted until he can get past all this self-vaunting at others' expense. JDG 06:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above editor has spent an inordinate amount of time posting malicious nonsense aimed in my direction after no other editors supported his position in an edit war he started with me. I haven't objected to "dozens of FACs" -- I've posted on less than two dozen. I think that this article -- like too many recent candidates -- fails the comprehensiveness standard, and falls far short of the "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" standard. I make no apology for saying that articles on scientific topics here should be held to a higher standard of rigor than high school science texts; I think that point should hardly need to be stated. Monicasdude 23:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above editor now has five or so fellow editors diverting their time and attention to an RfC with one purpose: to get him to pause, reflect on his bullying ways and change them so that even more time and attention isn't sunk into the endless tussles, dustups, conflagrations and kabuki dances he kicks up literally everywhere he goes. So far these efforts have been approximately as effective as a guy with no arms throwing jello shots at an 80 foot tall titanium-hulled robot remotely controlled by an evil mastermind in an Arctic bunker, but we keep on keepin on. Wish us luck, gentle colleagues. JDG 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• I appreciate your frustration at JDG's tone, but there's no choice but to address his/her comments as best as possible; if any of them are unreasonable, they should be fairly easy to debunk in a few sentences. Maybe JDG has a few valid points (I don't know). I say this as a supporter of this nomination. Tony 07:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Whose frustration at my tone?? Are you trying to say my frustration at Monicasdude's tone? JDG 16:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, got the names wrong; yeah. your frustration at Monic's tone. Tony 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulk vending

Hulk Hogan

Not a self Nomination, I just think this is a well written and interesting artical and I don't even watch professional wrestling. --Richy 14:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article needs a lot of cleanup for content and layout. And more importantly, there's no references. With some work, I think this will get to Featured Article status eventually. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. None of the images has source or copyright information. --Carnildo 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Despite having worked on this article quite a bit myself, it's not ready, mainly for the two reasons given above. --Chrysaor 05:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

Self nom. I've worked for a loooong time on this article, to make it as fair, balanced, and comprehensive as possible, a difficult task when involving someone like Phelps. There is still much to be added, but in the past few days I've gone to work foot-noting the hell out of the thing (thankfully, "Addicted to Hate" and the Topeka Capital Journal put all of the interviews with Phelps and his friends, enemies, and family in one place). The copyrights on the pictures are solid, the subject is timely, and the article thoroughly researched. I think this belongs on the front page. Mistergrind 04:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Minor cosmetic objections: 1. Some sections seem to have a lot of short paragraphs which would be better merged to improve flow. 2. Incorrect format of quotes: short quotes (four lines or fewer) should be enclosed in quotation marks and embedded in the text. They should not be italicized. Long quotes (longer than four lines) should be formatted as blockquotes. Slightly less minor objection: The references section is very short indeed, and is called "Sources cited/biographies." It only contains three items, but it's not clear which is which. One would assume that a very long article such as this would have more than one or two sources. Perhaps the bios could be added to the external links section (which should be moved -- sources should be at the very end). Otherwise, distasteful a subject as it is, good job. Exploding Boy 06:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• As much as I despise Phelps and everything he stands for, we need more sources to back up all the extreme statements in this article. Almost all inline citations are from a single online source, which is apparently nor sympathetic to Phelps. Also, there are a lot of microsections, making the table of contents unnecessarily long; these should be reorganized. Phils 14:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Although there are only three references, the main one, "Addicted to Hate," is mainly made up of interviews with his children, enemies, Phelps himself, friends (such as Pete Peters) and members of the Westboro congregation. I debated, myself, on whether or not to include a lot of the ATH info, because it seems biased. Ultimately I decided to, because as I examined the book, although it seems biased, ultimately it is the facts that make it seem so; the simple truth is that Phelps has given very little to write positively about.70.243.38.28 19:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Phelps51.JPG has no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:FPhelps.jpg is claimed under "fair use", but does not have a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 20:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Due to POV. I don't like the man either, but this article seems a little too empassioned about him being a dispicable fellow to be a good encyclopedia article. Take the following example (only an example, fixing only this won't change my vote)

In the realm of traditional fire-and-brimstone sermons, the one that Phelps credits for helping to develop his hatred was relatively tame by any standards: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him.

• • Does Phelps really credit himself for devloping hatred? That's the sort of thing I'd really need to see some quotes on. The article makes some claims that I find slightly hard to swallow. Does he really think about himself in such terms? I've found that most people are pretty rational if you accept some certain irrational premises first... but this article doesn't present that side of the story. What does he really think about himself, and his activities? I mean, even the premise that God hates "Fags" doesn't back up all the things written here. I understand that most of what you have written comes from a few, biased sources. Would it be possible to find more sources to explain things better, and in a more dispationate way? Words like hate, while applicable to quotes, should be avoided in the main text of the article unless directly referencing a phrase someone said. Otherwise it colors the article in a POV way. Now, I'm sure he really is as despicable as you say... but can't we describe that in a more nuetral manner? Fieari 21:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• This is the problem run into when dealing with Phelps... people don't seem to understand that when the article is NPOV, it's not going to seem as NPOV as some other articles. There are people out there who just don't give you good things. There are other people, like Phelps, who due to mental instability, don't provide the reasonable "flow" you'd expect, and so people automatically assume that there's something amiss in the article. As pointed out above, someone who doesn't know much about Phelps would assume that "God hates fags" doesn't back up Fred's theology. These people seem to miss the point, which is made very clear by people quoted in the article, that they believe Phelps is mentally ill, a statement that would appear to be easily verifiable based on his actions and beliefs (such as that he'd like to see children adopted by gay couples turned over to child molestors). Now for the most part everything I've written I've done so trying to use as many quotes as possible, and to not try and make it anti-Phelps: I just present the facts as they are. So the constant NPOV accusations really get on my nerves.70.243.38.28 22:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Allow me to go into more detail.
    • "...an image emerges of Phelps as a ferocious child abuser and wife beater, who..." -- Is this original research? If not, who does this image arise to? Can we quote him/her/them? I'd argue that this sentence, as it stands, is currently and horribly POV. It could be made NPOV, however, and still keep all the facts, which WOULD emerge an image of Phelps as all that, but wouldn't put it in those terms. The facts alone should suffice. Don't push the point.
    • "...ownership of a book...", "In the book..." -- (Nitpick) Err, what book? If it's public domain, why not link to to inline here? Does this book have a title?
    • "In the realm of traditional fire-and-brimstone sermons, the one that Phelps credits for helping to develop his hatred was relatively tame by any standards: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him."
    • In order to further illustrate the POV, I've attempted to reword the above statement in a more NPOV manner:
    • "Phelps is quoted [source] as crediting a sermon many consider to be relatively tame for inspiring him to his hatred: Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him.</nowiki>" (also, a link to either the bible chapter or the sermon itself if available might be interesting)
    • "he was part of a failed mission to convert" -- The word failed, while accurate, is a little strong and adds to the negative tone of the article. A more nuetral term might be useful here, such as unsuccessful.
    • "The campaign ended badly: ..." -- POV. You can state the fact without judging it.
    • In general, you state many things as fact, whereas they are mostly claims by individuals. For example, "At the same time, even though he had gone back to being an attorney, Phelps continued to force the children to sell candy." How do we know that he forced the kids to do so? Well... because the kids said so. But people can lie. I doubt they did, but in an encyclopedia, we like to state things that we KNOW are true. Someone could concievably dispute that the kids actually did these things. No one can dispute that the kids claim that they were forced to do these things. So change the wording to more accurately reflect your source-- personal anecdotes.
    • That's the biggest source of POV here... treating things recounted in anecdotes as fact, when they should be treated as claims... even claims backed up by a great deal of plausibility, but still claims.
  • The facts should speak for themselves. I agree with you, Phelps is a madman. But we can say that in a NPOV way. Fieari 00:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No offense to your work, but this article has a ways to go to reaching featured quality. It is far from NPOV. Instead of making claims, it should simply state known facts. For example, an NPOV article shouldn't say "Through interviews with his children, family members, congregants, friends, and enemies, an image emerges of...". That is making a claim. Instead it should say so and so described him as... and His son says this and that, etc. That kind of stating opinions is pretty much throughout the article. - Taxman ^Talk 23:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Rant. I put this article up for peer review (link), and none of this was brought up there, in fact hardly any feedback was given at all. What is the point of having a peer review which gets completely ignored then when somebody does a feature nomination, all this comes out? Why should we use peer review at all? Seems we should all just nominate anything here, since it's the only place any feedback gets given. End Rant. I'll look at the language over the next 24 hours and attempt to correct any POV I can find in terms of claims vs facts etc and see what people think then. Djbrianuk 19:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We can't get to everything on PR. Sometimes when I see an article on PR that doesn't have a chance to make FA I choose to spend my time reviewing something else. I'm not saying that is the case here. But what PR needs, is more reviewers that know the FA criteria. How many listings on PR have you reviewed? Only then is your rant justified. - Taxman ^Talk 20:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This thing is gonna go down the drain, but I think it's pretty good and so I just want to give it a vote before it gets sent to "Former Canidate" status.Timmybiscool 16:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I feel it would give a bad impression to visitors to see this article on the front page. It would contradict Wikipedia's Neutral POV status. I think the article needs a few improvements anyway. Dantecubed 04:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So where's the bias in the article? What exactly needs to be fixed? --Carnildo 04:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Self-submit that objections raised previously (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin/archive 1) have now been met, and this is a reasonably worthy candidate...dave souza 06:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Qualified support; good article overall, but I'd like to see better captions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Captions revised..dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support - captions seem to be quite good now. There are a few small changes that I will make in the article, but overall it seems like a totally appropriate FA. I would like to see careful, each fact footnoting, but I know I am in a very small minority on this, and it's hardly a FA criteria. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, a few format issues should be addresses, first the main article links breaking up the Orchids, Variation, Descent of Man and Worms section don't do much for readibility, would it be possible work them into the text, after all a blue link in the text is effectively the same as a {{main}} link in this case. I also think the works section of the article is poorly organised, list of publications would be nicer on the eye if it was presented as a table, (Year!Title/URL1!Alternate URL), even if you don't make a table this section needs to be tidied up. Why is there a section on links to his works, when all his works are listed as links anyway? The Alternative links also repeats the resources already listed. Finally the Commemoration section should be written as prose rather that a list of points.--nixie 04:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed, but I don't have the expertise to make a table of the works section so have tried revising the formatting....dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, but a little reluctantly. Since every major subsection under "Biography" seems to have its own satelite article, it seems like a lot of page space is wasted in duplicating those articles. That being said, I think the overall quality of this article is better than the quality of the satelite articles (the "inception of theory" section is much better written than the Inception of Darwin's theory article, IMO), and the overall quality of the article itself is quite good. It just needs to be a little more controlled in layout, IMO. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Layout being tightened, any further ideas welcome...dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is a good article related to one of the most important scientific topics ever. I'll probably support the nomination after going through the article to tweak the text on the clause level. Tony 01:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC) At the opening, I wonder about the statement 'who achieved lasting fame as originator of the theory of evolution through natural selection'. The two planks of the theory are natural selection and sexual selection; if you feel that it's inappropriate to mention the latter at the opening, can 'through natural selection' simply be removed at this point? Tony 01:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason for qualifying evolution as "through natural selection" is that Darwin is often wrongly characterised as having introduced evolution as an idea, though theories of evolution were current and controversial throughout his early life. My non-expert thought was that sexual selection is a sub-set of natural selection, and as it wasn't covered in the famous Origin but added in Descent of Man, having it in the intro might confuse some people. Thanks for tackling the layout/style concerns, work in progress....dave souza 10:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a subset of natural selection. Victorian and 20th-century scientists had a history of neglecting this second half of the theory for 'moral' reasons, and it is still all too common for people to ignore sexual selection; yet it is so important. Accordingly, I strongly argue that it be announced at the start. For this reason, I strongly argue that it be announced at the start. Tony 10:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Will go along with that. In his intro to his abridged Origin Richard Leakey describes sexual selection as an "accessory mechanism" (not necessarily a great authority, just had the book to hand), but it's certainly an important part of the theory....dave souza 11:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Not happy at all with the section entitled 'Return to celebrity and science', which I've just slightly edited.

• • Was he a celebrity before he left? I don't think so.
  • 'printed for distribution': isn't that just 'published'?
  • Lots of things hit you unexplained: 'plants'—are they the fossils previously mentioned? 'radicalism', 'controversial', 'hazards', 'Grant'—all a jumble that needs to be disentangled and explained to the poor reader.
  • 'Chile, and the South American landmass, was slowly rising'—Isn't Chile part of that landmass?
  • Why 'startling'? Making the account colourful is fine, but it's becoming opaque.
  • 'the collections of others'—other finches? other islands?
  • 'Eras's lady friend'—Is that your abbreviation?

And on and on ...

I'm starting to wonder whether this is too big a job to bring up to standard. Can you entice some other editors to help? It's a very important article, and I want this nomination to succeed. However, at the moment, I must oppose it. Tony 08:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This is extremely valuable feedback. The aim of minimising article size while including a lot of information has resulted in obscurity. I'll go over this section now and aim for clarity...dave souza 18:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through the next section—'Family, work, and development of theory', the title of which sums up a problem I have: the detail in which relatively inconsequential aspects of his life are treated, compared with his intellectual, scientific development. His relationship with Aldous Huxley is dismissed in one, stubby little sentence (six words, is it?). I think some of the account of the more mundane aspects of his life should be trimmed in this summary article. I've gone through this section making numerous alterations to the language. Please look at the commas I've inserted. Tony 01:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 19:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)I've gone through the whole article except Darwin's family. I hope I've improved it. Please check.

Ashlee Simpson

Another Everyking-driven article on Ashlee Simpson, although this one I spent a lot of time on. Its a very good article on a pop star :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - contains too much fancruft and trivia, and a pro-Simpson POV pervades throughout. Also, the fact that this and related articles have led to several arbitration cases against the main author for his steadfast refusal to let anyone else make substantial edits does not do much for this article's claim to be representative of the best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Could you please give an example so I can fix it? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• RN, please see the comment I made about your other current FAC, I think the same issues apply here as well. Worldtraveller 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you mean the album your comment is exactly the same as here.... please ignore your dispute with Everyking and try to help me out here and give me an example or something to work with :-) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• World, are your objections the same as raised by Johnleemk? You're falling silent on the issue which is kind of troubling (your objection veers on being too broad to act upon) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Big surprise. Hey, at least you're not actively warring over it anymore. Everyking 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • At one stage you were banned from editing this article for a year because of your behaviour - I have never remotely been 'actively warring'. Worldtraveller 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Some detailed objections here, but I also strongly advise looking through the extensive talk archives in which numerous editors raised strong objections to the style of the article. In general it reads like a magazine article or a fan page rather than an encyclopaedia article.

• highly rated MTV reality series - who rated it highly?
• ...used a pre-recorded vocal track...This led to accusations that she had lip synced... - what is using a pre-recorded vocal track if not lip synching?
• The U.K.-sourced "La La" single - what does that mean?
• Simpson cut her hair shorter... - trivial, only of interest to hard core fans.
• Frequent use of 'Ashlee' instead of 'Simpson'
• Simpson often wears shirts with "punk"-style designs and typically has her fingernails and toenails painted black - trivia, not notable.
• are sometimes described (positively or negatively) as raspy - defensive tone here
• Ashlee got a tattoo of a star on her left wrist after the release of her album, and another tattoo of two cherries was seen on her ankle in 2005. [13] As of August 2005 Simpson has a new tattoo, of the word "love", located on her right wrist.[14] - trivia, only of interest to die-hard fans.
• Criticisms and controversy should be woven into the narrative rather than given a separate section.
• Due to some of her actions and performances... - which ones? Why? This is extremely speculative and vague
• a more popular theory - by what reckoning?
• "completely [lost] [her] voice" - what is she actually saying here? Either quote directly or paraphrase and drop the speech marks.
• the incident was made apparent when her drummer hit the wrong button - why 'was made apparent' instead of 'was caused' or something like that?
• Various explanations for the booing have been suggested - why not just cut this altogether? It has an extremely defensive tone and seems to be pure speculation.
• which was originally said to be called In Another Life - said by whom?
• although "L.O.V.E." was originally said to be the first single - said by whom?
• although there have been rumors that Simpson stole Valderrama from Lohan - according to whom?

Worldtraveller 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks - I'm working on these and others at the moment - please check back in a few days :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks again World - those helped out a lot.... I'm pretty sure I addressed those and some more, sans a couple cases. Namely the tattoo/punk-style thing - instead of just removing it I tried to highlight its notability. Anyway, thanks again, and even if this doesn't pass I think your comments really helped me tone down the NPOV in the article. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It has improved and I commend you on the work you've put in, but I think there's still an awful lot here that's superficial and unencyclopaedic. Why is the fact that she's apparently going to appear on Oprah notable at all, let alone notable enough to appear in the intro? used a pre-recorded vocal track...led to accusations that she had lip synced: the former is the latter - this clearly seeks to tone down what happened. Her next tour is planned for the fall of 2005 - reads like promo material. The whole section offering opinions about why she got booed makes me cringe - as I said before, not our place to speculate, and it reads like a defensive fan article. Around the time of the petition looks like an attempt to belittle the negative point about the petition. Set list from tour dates is not encyclopaedic in my opinion. A point of writing style - there's a paragraph that contains stuff about her voice and then her worst-dressed accolade - a jarring non sequitur. "I decided that I didn't want to talk about that because it's super personal," she said of the situation - that's extraneous, you can just give the reference to support the fact, and generally there are too many quotes from Simpson, they make it read like promo material.

The article looks well written, I just don't think it is encyclopaedic enough in content at the moment. Worldtraveller 20:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea: why don't you write your own version of the article in your user space, and then everyone can look at it and decide whether any of its changes are worth including? I think this would actually be very easy work because all you'd be doing is chopping it back to a few paragraphs. Everyking 21:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

When people take the time to offer extensive constructive criticism, it's astonishingly rude to respond with inane and snide remarks. Be civil and avoid personal attacks. If you can't do that I will have to file an RfC or RfA. Worldtraveller 21:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Are threats any better than a sneering—but quite truthful—remark? In fact I think they're worse. But I encourage you to start an RfC or an RfAr or whatever else you like, and see how much support you have. Everyking 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyking.... please understand that he's trying to give criticism on how to improve the article in HIS OPINION.... it doesn't neccesarily mean we have to do that exact thing to get his support. Often times we can just reword something rather than eliminating it. To clarify, many of the problems he points out are valid, but he's just giving what he thinks is the best solution (in some cases axing it completely) which could very well be wrong. The important thing is to look at the problem and try to work with it rather than doing what he suggests as a solution. Does that make sense? (Hopefully it does).Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

EK, he's got some good points - although, I don't know if simply "chopping" them up is the best solution. Perhaps we should try to come to a comprimise on the talk page. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

RN: Redundent double positives like "...through the success of her chart-topping..." sound POV/fannish; either one is sufficient--having both sounds like hype. Also, "...popular reality show..." is somewhat POV and ambiguous. Should be more fact-based, such as highly rated (if that was the case). Similar issues with "...successful two-month North American tour." Would be much better if "successful" was replaced with something more tangible, like something relating to profitability, or number of sold out shows, or if applicable lack of cancellations due to low ticket sales. Anything quantifiable is superior to generic adjectives. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Waterguy - I went ahead and tried to quantify all of those a bit.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm abstaining for the moment at least, because I think it's generally good but doesn't really flow very well. Tuf-Kat 22:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough... I'll see what I can do:) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Change to support. Reads a bit better now. Tuf-Kat 16:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Everyking 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I applaud the efforts to slim this article down, but it still has some issues. I won't object further if the following are fixed: 1) It's too positive and I'll give specific examples. The lead fails to mention she is generally panned heavily by the critics. The phrasing regarding the critics refers to it as mixed while pretty much giving examples of negative press. I've never seen honest positive press about her to balance the negative, so mixed is a stretch. Pretty much everyone outside her fanbase that buys her music in droves thinks she's horrible as a singer and artist. Yes that's my observation, but it's a lot more widespread than this article even attempts to address. Most artists are simply ignored by those that don't like them, but not her. The 'controversial incidents' aren't that at all, but very simply indications of how much she is disliked. There's not much controversial about them. You don't need to be negative about her everywhere, and it's not and won't be if these issues are adressed since it notes how well her albums have sold and all her fame. 2) The lead is too short. Wikipedia:Lead section calls for 2 or 3 paragraphs for an article this size. Autobiography has basically the same problems. - Taxman ^Talk 03:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I finally have an idea of what to fix now :). BTW on the converse I really haven't too many serious reviews that universally pan the album either - could you live with it characterized as recieving "mediocre" reviews? Thanks again :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think what I mean is the new intro I just did for Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can live with whatever is the case, and yes that lead captures it fine as far as I can tell. "Critical reviews were mixed" sounds like some were negative and some positive. It does seem like most were just mediocre, so clarity on that would be good. - Taxman ^Talk 04:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Autobiography received a fair bit of critical praise—and even the critics who didn't praise it generally gave it so-so, not dismal reviews. Read our article on the album to see this. So to characterize her critical reception the way you want would be just plain inaccurate. I think "mixed" is fair and accurate in that regard. Everyking 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Everyking what he's saying is that in that section we don't any positive reviews to back it up though... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, well grab one from the album article then if you like. Also, as to critical reception, there was also the tour—I think I read pretty much every article published about it and the impression I got was that the reviews were mostly good, that people thought she put on a good show. There was some negative press as well, I'll grant, but it mainly consisted of lingering SNL barbs. Everyking 07:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Nothing's going to change the fact that she is pretty much laughed at. Brushing it off as lingering SNL barbs is part of the problem. There's always going to be positive critics because their job depends on it and everyone knows that. So go back to mixed reviews and make it clear some were positive and some were negative, if it is the case that they were about even. The article doesn't need to move to a negative POV, but it can't be hagiographic and pretend in the lead that she is not viewed negatively by a large number of people. - Taxman ^Talk 14:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
            • I changed the lead quite a bit to reflect the impact of the SNL incident - in your opinion what else needs to be done? Should I try to emphasize more in the intro that she's more of a mediocre/average singer, maybe point out more the differences of opinion between the negative and positive reviews? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Ok, it seems a lot more balanced now. Biggest problem left is there are just way too many short pragraphs that makes the prose choppy and flow poorly. A great article shouldn't need them. Either expand or merge with related material. - Taxman ^Talk 15:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
            • OK, thanks a lot for your help Taxman. I've crunched the paragraphs as much as I can and me (and possibly EK too) are out of ideas at this point.... do you think its good now, or...? Thanks again. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
              • In the interests of being fair, the lead has swung too far the other way. In my best attempt to be neutral I think it is clear that while the criticisms are strong and common, it is also clear she is very successful and her music sells well. If the lead has two sentences clearly stating the negative criticism (well done I think), it could now use one mentioning how succesful. Instead of chart topping, which sounds promotional, just mention her albums have sold very well and she had her own show on MTV that did well (try to specify how well). Try to keep it short too. One sentence should really do it, two could easily overdo it. After that is fixed, I'll probably go neutral. I don't think the article is great, no offense, but I don't think I could motivate myself to find specific issues. Maybe that's just my bias against pop culture topics in general, so sorry, but neutral won't hurt the article. Autobiography has the opposite problem, in that the only non positive mention is that reviews where mixed. Some mention of the negative publicity/criticism that came from the promotion of the album should be mentioned in the lead. Again, probably only one additional sentence. Sorry for combining the advice, but they're related and it saves an edit. - Taxman ^Talk 14:03, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Seems NPOV. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

*Object. Perhaps after many incidents whether good or bad surely will have more info than this. Furthermore, it seems like Ashlee is receiving only kids awards and no major awards have been said. Maybe if they focus on the history of Ashlee Simpaon a bit further. Also, like other popstars, each album should be explained and analysed in detail. It's too little so far. I however congratulate you on this nomination." *Support: It is now better. Keep up the good work! I have now seen that she has won a substantial award. (Which is a Billboard award). Well Done!

• • Sadly, the article used to be fairly rich in detail, but has been trimmed back a good bit since January or so due to deletionist criticism. (On the other hand, I think it still has a reasonable length, and it's been growing recently.) So I don't think an objection is actionable if implementing it would mean a flare-up of massive conflict. Anyway, you need to sign. Everyking 07:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What exactly is your objection? What specific parts need to be added/removed for your support :)? The album itself is described in excrutiating detail in its own article... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, well I added another (substantial) award Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment (seeing how James doesn't really like me), but I'll weigh in anyhow. The article struck me as being "almost there"; not bad enough to object to, but nowhere near good enough to support. The captioning isn't in line with Wikipedia:Captions. I think the article is a bit fancruft-heavy; does it matter what/how many tattoos Ashlee has? The list of various minor performances is something I'm unsure about; on the one hand, most of them seem irrelevant to me, but on the other, take them out, and there's not much of an article. Who is Mr. Blackwell? The personal life section implies Simpson and Cabrera are together, but the "current activities" section indicates Simpson stole Lindsay Lohan's boyfriend, Wilmer Valderrama. I'm not sure we need a detailed description of how Ashlee got Punk'd, either. Nevertheless, I remain neutral; let's see what happens next. Johnleemk | Talk 14:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments:
  1. As for the tattoos etc., they are relevant because they are widely reported by the media (maybe unfortunately but that's a POV), so it would seem to me a bit intellectually dishonest not to record them, in fact what's in the article right now is mostly just the media has widely reported - sans some stuff about her doing commercials earlier there isn't a whole lot of fancruft in there (and yes, the hair is even more relevant whether anyone likes it or not). Maybe the importance of image could be expanded upon though.
  2. You may be right about the captions - I'll fix that today :)
  3. You're definately right on the boyfriend thing, it is confusing and I'll rework it
  4. About the punk'd part though you may be right that it verges on fancruft... I'll think about that one
• Thanks again for the comments :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • OK John we took care of the captions, removed the Punk'd mention, clarified the boyfriend thing and more.... let me know what you think :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified and linked Mr. Blackwell. Waterguy 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Got a couple of problems here — the criticism of Ashlee appears to be rather weaselly; might we cite one or two editorials or columns slamming her for these actions? Second problem is that that paragraph does not segue well into the SNL incident. The Valderrama incident isn't too clear — shouldn't there be a slight mention of that in the personal life section? Also, the references/notes are whispered, but I could have sworn that somewhere in policy, it is advised not to whisper them because readers with deteriorating eyesight (i.e. aging academics) may have trouble reading them. Like Worldtraveller, I am still a bit concerned about the pro-Simpson POV of this article. I ignored it before, but now that there's a paragraph on criticism, it seems to me that the article is rather imbalanced (especially as much of what I've heard about Simpson is indeed negative); might the criticism be expanded to cover an extra paragraph or two? I'm not objecting yet, just having a lot of trouble with supporting. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You want something added to the article? Well, this is certainly a change of heart. Problematically it only pertains to criticism, criticism which is already explained in adequate detail. Everyking 14:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Damnit, I knew it was only a matter of time. Oh, well. "Adequate" you say? Perhaps 80% to 90% of comments I have heard about Ashlee are negative, and either refer to her lip syncing or being an artificially produced pop star. The former is covered well by the article; the latter is not. Since arguably more print is devoted to criticising Ashlee than discussing the colour of her finger- and toenails, the least we could do is have a couple of paragraphs about her other negative press. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, as mentioned to taxman and WT I've done everything I can think of to balance this, in addition footnotes like this are standard in FA as far as I know.... your comments have been very helpful, thank you. If you have any more please don't hesitate to share them :).
• Object. It is great that this article has been slimmed down. It is much better than it was when there was only one editor, a policy which was thankfully tackled by the arbitration committee. The input from a second editor has toned down the kind of excess still on display at Pieces of Me, where we learn that Ashlee's single "debuted [in Denmark] at 5 and peaked at 4, after which it fell off the chart; in Sweden, it reached a peak of number 31 on the singles chart, while in Norway it stayed on the top 20 singles chart for 12 weeks, peaking at 3 in its fifth week". And it is nice to see that subsequent editors have added negative criticisms of the much-maligned Ashlee. But the article is compromised, in my eyes, by the "Controversial incidents" section, which reeks of spin. That was the reason I disliked the article back then; not so much the excessive detail, which is hilarious, but the spin, which makes it hard to trust either the article or the person writing it. A lesser criticism is that the article says nothing about the process of manufacturing Ashlee. I have a rough idea how people such as this transition from being competent singers and the sisters of famous people into actual pop stars, with a contract and a product and songs, but this article skips the process entirely. The fact that this lady's parents cannot spell my good name, and dare to impugne my muscular masculinity by naming their daughter after me, has no bearing on my decision. (Subsequent edit: to be fair, some of the later objects - the process of pop rather than my name - are addressed in the article on Autobiography, her album, although it still reads like a massaged press effusion).-Ashley Pomeroy 16:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how we can talk about "manufacturing" Ashlee. For one thing, that would be POV; for another, the only side of the story we have access to, if you even believe there is another side, is the official side. So how can this be addressed? Everyking 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd already reworked the controversy section many times before and just now reworked it again for factual accuracy, and I really don't see any more spin in it. What are the remaining spin problems in your opinion? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Every serious (ie, not just a press release) media account I've read about this woman puts her in the same category as Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan. They were, according to these accounts, celebrities first, and then were signed to record deals as a way to 'cash in' by stamping their names on a formulaic product. Ashlee Simpson is depicted as a spin-off of the already successful Jessica Simpson franchise. An encyclopedia article about Ashlee Simpson cannot just ignore this. Her career, after all, follows a pattern established by child stars like Rick Nelson, Patty Duke, and Alyssa Milano (to name just three), and people shouldn't have to read between the lines to figure that out.67.67.120.228 22:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point - I put this into the critcism section. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As mentioned I've got several editorials slamming her now and all the cricism I can think of... thanks for your comments :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object --Revolución (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, you just can't object without a reason - it has to be actionable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

General comment- Everyone, please stop taking things so personal around here. There is a difference between constructive criticism and a personal attack, and everyone here is taking everything as a personal attack. Also, these edit wars and arbitration cases were MONTHS ago - there may be some lingering stuff left, but as you can see the article is improving rapidly and will hopefully be featured article quality before this FAC is over.... so please keep your comment strictly to the article at hand. Thank you and thanks to everyone for their criticism, help and comments Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Writing is not up to featured standard, and needs work for flow and style. Format of numbers inconsistent -- numbers that can be expressed in one or two words should be written out, other numbers are given numerically. Exploding Boy 06:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I reworked the prose mercilessly and I believe I have addressed this objection... if not could you please give me an example of the flow/style? Thanks for your comments :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is much improved, but there's still work to be done:

• In the "Awards and More Controversy" section, we offer speculation as to the reasons for the Orange Bowl booing (off key singing, halftime show "too MTV"), but no inline citations for those opinions.
• In the "Early 2005" mention of the "Stop Ashlee" petition, we provde a link to a story about the petition but not the petition itself.
• In "Style and Personal Life", it's noteworthy that she has tattoos, it's even worth mentioning that she has 3 of them. But I don't believe the specifics about what the images are and where they're located on her body are of interest to a general reader seeking information about Ashlee Simpson.
• In "Criticism" : Assuming she is a manufactured artist, much of the media speculate that Simpson was pushed to fame through the aggressive management style and contacts of her father, Joe Simpson, who is her manager and was the executive producer of her reality show on MTV. I don't think we should be attributing assumptions to anyone in the media, let alone "much of the media" collectively.
• The "Astroturfing" text in the same section should mention the Wired Magazine "Jargon Watch" entry for "Ashleeturfing".
• External links are not balanced, and sites with any negativity have been repeatedly removed. Of the 7 present links, 3 are unarguably "pro" (the official site, the official online team, and the unofficial fan site), three are neutral (TV.COM, IMDB, Notable Names), and one has a mild "pro" pov IMO, but is neutral at best (wikicities). Skyraider 15:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

1. True
2. Petition is www.petitiononline.com/StopAsh/ of course
3. Fair enough..... I guess the references can take care of that
4. As mentioned below that's a tough one
5. I guess so
6. Again, WP:NOT a link farm and there should only be a minimal set of links, although maybe the fan site could be taken out (it really doesn't make sense to have an "anti" ashlee link as there are several references for that and besides the WP:NOT rule it opens up the externals links to silly edit wars (on any article)) basically from what I understand you're just supposed to have the imdb links etc. and then the official sites, including an official fan site. However, since there is no official fan site we have an unofficial one here instead. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • OK, it looks like Johnleemk took care of some of the criticism part. I removed one of the pro links anyway since there was a pro since, and took care of the rest of your problems Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm still very much dissatisfied about the criticism section being weaselly, as many assertions we make there are not being backed up by the references, which only make one or two broad generalisations. The Orange Bowl incident has some speculation that is not referenced (i.e. backlash against MTV-isation of the halftime show). Overall, the article is starting to look a lot better than it used to be, but I'm not ready to support just yet. A lot of the sentences don't flow well (although there are slightly fewer of them than before), and their phrasing often sounds similar to what you'd find in a fan magazine. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well I'm not sure what to do here except attribute them specifically to the editorials. As for the sentence flow I've tried my best, and I guess its up to someone else at this point I'll take one more shot at it. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I took one last shot at the prose and backed up the orange bowl claims. As for the criticism the references do back them up (I believe) and I couldn't find any good sources for any other claims (and I don't really know of any others...) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Another criticism I forgot to mention: description of future events is not encyclopaedic. Exploding Boy 15:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • Saying "scheduled" isn't enough :)? Ryan Norton ^{;T | @ | C} 16:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the article does not begin with the fact that she has no talent at all and would not be notable or have an article at all but for her sister, then it is extremely unbalanced and this subject should never be a FAC. I mean, name me one thing she is notable for except for being a sibling and screwing up the opportunities she got? --Noitall 19:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, saying that and an edit summary "forget it", its no wonder people get defensive when putting a lot of effort into these. Anyway, if you have a specific objection I'd like to hear it, but that is completely unactionable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, I have not edited one thing on this article even though I think it is wildly out of balance. I figure it is your article and the subject is too unimportant that I would leave it alone. But as for FAC, forget it. The article states, "Ashlee Simpson eventually rose to prominence in her own right", which is ridiculous. Ashlee has had constant and total media exposure with the world's best media companies on all forms, movie, records, cable, etc. Yet she is only truly notable "in her own right" for Saturday Night Live and the Orange Bowl incidents. Actually, now that I type this, I would probably support FAC if this article was entirely re-written to show what a no-talent person could accomplish when married to a talented and popular sister and having a media savvy father dedicated to making his daughters famous. But the article has none of that flavor. --Noitall 19:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

See also: Paris Hilton (vacant whore). Exploding Boy 19:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • This seems rediculous... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Paris, at least she is notable for "famous for being famous" and for being in the tabloids on her own right for her wild antics. Further, the article clearly addresses what is notable about Paris. In this case, it is "famous for being a sister of someone famous" and "famous for screwing up the incredible opportunities presented to her after having years of professional training and the world's best media exposure." The article does not come close to addressing this and is much more suited to a fan site. --Noitall 20:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • If I change the intro a bit to note the varying opinions on why she is successful (assuming I can find a credible reference(s)) and expand the criticism to note this would that address your objection? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of changes, including changing the flavor of the article, rather than just tweeking. I will reconsider anything. --Noitall 06:23, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• *sigh* I've searched through over 1000 links on google in an effort to come up with credible sources for anti-ashlee claims such as these, with basically just coming up with just [20] (which ends up being pro-ashlee in an odd way). I guess if you want something overly critical you could see the talk page, lol (I still don't have any sources to back up the riding coattails of sister claim though...). That what's makes this subject hard is the lack of sources. Anyway, I'll see what I can mash together with what I've got :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• I am beginning to think I will support this article, but only after some minor issues I have are clarified. For example, certain pieces of information don't fit into some sections, such as the paragraph about her backing band in her biography, or the sentence about her vocal range in the middle of her personal life section. Also, I won't support until we clear up that commented out paragraph near the end of the article; either we reference it, or we get rid of it. By the way, I don't think iMDB lists Ashlee as having starred in Raise Your Voice any more. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ryan, you are buried way too deep in the issues to see the big picture. Here is a true measure of notability, 2,220 google references for "Ashlee Simpson sucks". [21] and 574 for the huge sentence "Ashlee Simpson has no talent"[22]. I mean, really, she is notable for having no talent. --Noitall 14:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Not that I want to knock James or anything, but you honestly can't say that until you look back at what he (Everyking) inadvertently caused because of the huge misunderstanding we had about Ashlee Simpson and her related articles. Ryan is being extremely reasonable, if you ask me, especially considering some of your statements seem to imply you'd prefer us to distort the article with POVed assertions. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think if you vote in a way that would require the article to be reworked in a manner that would dissatisfy everyone but yourself, your vote is inactionable. Opposing votes need to be at least vaguely compatible with majority sentiment in order to be actionable. Everyking 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Come on now EK, I think I've even seen you present a better understanding of "actionable" than that. Actionable means literally able to be acted upon, and certainly working the article so it would be entirely anti-Ashlee is possible, therefore actionable. But it is also possible to be actionable, but not help an article follow the policies and get closer to meeting the criteria. In that case we just think the objection is improper or whatever word you want, but it is actionable. We can still get a consensus for ignoring the objection. - 18:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I should note that Raul removed this from FAC so it failed. Anyway, I digged through about 100 links on both the search queries Noitall mentions - but they are almost all message board posts, blogs, or student newspapers without references to back it up. Ergo, not credible enough for here. I also searched for '"Ashlee Simpson" criticism' '"Ashlee Simpson" critique' '"Ashlee Simpson" coattails' and much more. It's not that I disagree at all its just that credible sources for claims like that are nearly impossible to find (and pretty much all the ones we have now are opinion columns from reputable papers which have wild speculation). Its not like Paris Hilton where there's an actual porno to back it up, and if we just put that kind of criticism in without references to back it up it will be massacred on the next FAC. Anyway, Carnildo mentioned a spokesman review column that might be useful which I'll see if I can get ahold of. In the mean time we've got a month till we can put this on FAC again, so we should try to do what we can until then. Plus with another album coming out lengthening the article should be slightly easier to do by then. Noitall, remember next time you comment on FAC you need to make it clear what needs to be done, and not say you "might" support, otherwise Raul is probably just going to ignore it when he filters the FACs. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Whoops, Raul just put it back... so the show is still going on.... I'll update the talk page again :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, there is no "expert" opinion or research to decide such issues. The references are valid only to what the general public generally thinks of her. And they generally think that she has no talent. That said, I have not edited on this article and don't intend to. My only true and "actionable" statement is that, as it stands now, this article comes nowhere close, even in the universe, of FAC status. You and others are welcome to ignore my comments and continue building an "I love Ashlee" fan site, and that will be fine with me. It just does not qualify for FAC. --Noitall 23:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Listen, at least the FAs here I've seen about celebs here have little to no criticism of the person - this one at least has somewhat of an in-depth NPOVing of the controversies and a brief overview of the criticisms. Also, believe me when I say that I'd get more specific and critical if I could (you can see the stuff on the talk page that is over-the-top criticism of her father etc.), and you may vote support - but many others here will oppose if I do it without credible references, and probably some others who arn't here will jump in just to oppose on that note. Of course, someone here can correct me if I'm wrong :). In the mean time, I'll try to rework the intro and criticisms as much as I can - also, I do agree with johnleemc's comments about the structure - but I'm not sure what to do about it - I'll try to think of something about that :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article seems shallow to me. On reading this I get no impression of how she fits into the history of American popular music. I'm not even sure what genre of music she performs, other than "pop" or "pop rock." The closest thing to this is the single dismissive statement by a critic that her music is a "mundane melange of Avril-ish brat pop and Sheryl Crow cod rock." Which artists have influenced her? Whom does she acknowledge as her musical mentors? Whom are the artists she has influenced? There is a great deal about her life and career, very little about her music. For that matter, there is very little about her voice. We are told that Mariah Carey sings in a whistle register, but all we learn about Simpson's voice is that on occasion it has been damaged by acid reflux. The whole article reads like something from People magazine (which is high praise, of a sort). A hundred years from now, people reading this article would have some idea of what kind of celebrity she was, but very little idea of what kind of singer she was. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopkins School

Self Nomination, Support I've worked for a long time on this article, along with Harro (founder of WikiProjects Schools) to get this article into tip-top shape. It has interested, copyright info'd images, encyclopedic information, and has already become a Wikiproject Schools FA. Here's the first attempt at FA status, though the article was incomplete (issues fixed) Staxringold 21:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Great effort to clean up this article, and I'll be happy to feature it at the Schools Portal if it becomes a WP:FA. Support, although I'll be interested to hear what Carnildo has to say about the copyrighted images (thought I'd just come out and mention that...full disclosure!). Harro5 22:03, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Just a note, I have been given express permission to use those images. I can expand the fair use justifications, but please don't vote against because you think I'm using copyrighted material without permission. Staxringold 22:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  2. In all three images, you state that "As a Yearbook Editor I, Staxringold (J---- R------), have been given permission to use Development Office materials such as this". What is this permission? Is it permission to use in the yearbook (in which case use on Wikipedia is a copyvio), permission to use on Wikipedia (an unacceptable license), or permission to release under the GFDL (acceptable)?
  3. Image:HopkinsSchoolHeathCommons1.jpg and Image:Hopkins Old Dining Hall.jpg are rather high-resolution to be claiming "fair use" on.
  4. Image:HopkinsMascotGoat1.gif states that "the promo photo tag basically applies". Is this image officially part of the school press kit or equivalent?

  --Carnildo 23:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry if it was unclear. No, not just in the yearbook, I've been given express permission to use these photos. I'll update the copyright info a little bit. Staxringold 01:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object There's a loooong way to go. A quick look at the opening reveals numerous problems.
  • The itty-bitty paragraphing destroys the flow.
  • 'North America' and then 'the country' later in the same sentence doesn't work.
  • What do you mean by 'somewhat' divided schools?
  • The quote-mark fairy has been splashing around in the second mini-paragraph.
  • 'Comprised of' is better as 'consisting of' or 'comprising'.
  • 'The Hopkins' motto' is ungrammatical, and if it really is 'the breeding up of hopeful youths', it's great fodder for stand-up comedians.
  • '... only qualified students are accepted and are then placed where they should be based on ability'—back to the drawing board for that clause.

If the parents fork out US$24,000 a year in fees, they should hope that the school's junior English students are taught to write better than this. Sorry. Tony 15:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Serious object. I believe this article could be a wonderful FA, but as it is now it is missing major sections and information. For example, the school has existed since 1660, yet the article has no history of the school at all. I would imagine the history section of the article would be rather large. Also, I'm sure the school has produced more noted alumni than the few mentioned here. As it is now, the article reads like an informational brochure promoting the school.--Alabamaboy 18:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony: To start off, please don't be offensive without cause. Also:

• If I don't paragraph, people complain about long blocks of text without organization. I went this way.
• Changed 'the country' to 'the United States'
• All three schools go to the same Hopkins, and all three go to all school assemblies. However, generally Junior schoolers have classes with Junior schoolers, Middle schoolers with Middle schoolers, and Upper schoolers with Upper schoolers.
• Removed single quotes for various schools, as those are their names
• Changed Comprised of to Consisting of
• It is "for the breeding up of hopeful youths," and I fixed the sentence to not be so wordy
• Reworked the admittance sentence

Alabamaboy: The school was a one-room schoolhouse until 1926, there isn't exactly a lot of history worth mentioning before that. As for noted alumni, I left the list as it was in the old stub article, as many of our 'famous' alums aren't really that major. Also, what sections seem particularly POV? Staxringold 01:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • If the school was a one-room schoolhouse until 1926, then the article should have stated that. Now that you've added in the history section, the article looks much better. I do wonder, though, what your references are for the history in the history section. Please list them.--Alabamaboy 02:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. While my reason for opposition is not addressed literally in the featured article criteria, I nevertheless feel that the content of this article is not suitable for a featured article. Featured articles are, accoring to the criteria "the best what wikipedia has to offer". Information about any regional educational institution in any country is relevant to only a minute fraction of wikipedia visitors. As featured articles function as a "showcase" and are used for wikipedia promotion, I don't think articles with such a limited value to the vast majority of wikipedia users should be featured. Esthurin 02:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to give offence, Stax; it was a bit naughty of me. Although my final statement was a slight exaggeration, I stand by it in principle. I'd remove mention of the school motto, frankly; the school should reword it, because the sexual overtones are inescapable in modern English.

The problem is that the whole article needs serious rewriting. Can you find someone to go through it? What about one of the English staff at the school who's good at editing—surely they have an interest in it? Tony 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The motto is what the motto is. I understand that breeding is a sexual statement, but so is 'ejaculate,' but they don't edit old Hardy Boys that say "Oh Boy," Chet ejaculated (or something of that sort). The text is what the text is. As for an actual editor editing the article... This really isn't on their radar. If you want to dig through for smaller notes, I'll be happy to give 'er a good ol' fashioned American hack n' slash job, but I don't know what needs reworking/wording/writing or needs to be added/removed entirely. Staxringold 01:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested enough in the topic to work on it; as I said, try the teaching staff at the school. Tony 02:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopkins School

• Self-Nomination - Fixed up a school article to actual article size, with nice formatting IMO. Staxringold 06:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Object, not ready for being a FA. Pictures lacks proper tags, and if you claim fair use on any of them you ought to provide a rationale for it. Try turning the list of facilities into normal prose. Also, I get left with a feeling that this article isn't complete - it says a bit about the history, a bit about where the school is, and thats about it, apart from the list of facilities. What makes the school special? Is there any school sports teams (which I understand there typicaly is on US schools)? As a private school, I'm assuming parents have to pay - but the article don't say, nor how much, nor what class of people attend? Overall, a good start, but I feel it's not ready quite yet. WegianWarrior 06:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:CThopkins logo1.gif, Image:HopkinsMascotGoat1.gif, Image:HopkinsGirlsSportsTeam1.gif have no copyright information.

     I find the GFDL claims for Image:CThopkins logo1.gif and Image:HopkinsMascotGoat1.gif to be quite dubious. Do you have any evidence to back this claim up? --Carnildo 19:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  2. For something with 350 years of history, the history section is looking a little anemic. There's a rather large gap between 1660 and 1926.
  3. There are no references.
  4. It's got a Wikiproject infobox at the bottom. Get rid of it.
  5. I'm sure there are other problems.

  --Carnildo 06:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Compare with Caulfield Grammar School and Stuyvesant High School - a featured article and close-to FA respectively - and you will see this article doesn't have the depth and notability of the highest quality high school articles. See the Schools Wikiportal for some inspiration and advice for this article. Harro5 08:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, I agree with all the points made above. Compare with Caulfield Grammar School and make sure you expand the History section. Also, are there any other references outside the school itself? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Trying to deal with very fair complaints, I had not seen the very nice Caulfield page. Thusfar I've added external links, copyright information, and I've started expanding the main information (before going into academic breakdowns)
• Added Academics section Staxringold 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Added Student Privileges section Staxringold 16:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cosmetic work, and small tidbits of content Staxringold 21:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• There've been NUMEROUS touch-ups and additions, and since this version was long since pulled from FA contention I've archived this. Staxringold 19:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI

This article has received a lot of attention in an effort to make it a featured article. With the help of several editors, this article has had a CVG peer review, a regular peer review. Several editors have collaborated on this in order to have this article reach featured status. All of the pictures have fair use rationale and correct copyright tags, fancruft has been identified and removed, and the article meets the featured article criteria. Furthermore, this article is not a gameFAQs duplicate.

Nominate and Support --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oh dear, no. Erwin
  • Why don't you want any Erwin? -- Bobdoe (Talk) 18:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You need to state an actionable objection. Borisblue 18:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • mmmmmmmmmmmmk. The article is of sufficient calibre, yet the subject is Final Fantasy VI, which is shit. Try FF7. Erwin
      • This object still does not count. Your complaint needs to be fixable in order for it to hold weight.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The section on censorship is gigantic, and doesn't need to show every single instance of censorship in the game. The Graphics and Musical score sections are too big with unecessary white space. The censhorship section is all muddled up, the Production credits is unnecessary, and the image on the infobox, according to consensus, should be the English boxart (with the exception of games not released in English). - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • • • Support, I guess. All complaints addressed except for the Infobox issue. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • The "consensus" regarding what image to put in the infobox does not, as far as I can tell, exist. The discussion went on for months, and I don't think any sort of reasonable observer could say that anything resembling a "consensus" was reached. Furthermore, there are a number of practical reasons for having the game logo there: the game was released multiple times in North America (and, if we're casting the net as "English," at least once in England, as well). There is nothing in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Infobox description of proper infobox usage that indicates that box art is any sort of mandated standard, and the writeup even points out that its precise usage is "strictly voluntary" and that "many variations on this archetype are in use in various articles." Final Fantasy VI is hardly unique in using this format, and it's been that way, without comment or reversion, for months. – Seancdaug 21:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the page specifically states Additionally, consensus is that the image shown should be game box art. There is consensus on this, if you look at the discussion you linked to that was just one user (User:Slike2, who has since stopped contributing) objecting. The consensus on this issue was reached long before that discussion. Jacoplane 15:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The "consensus" note was added by Andrevan after this discussion started, and one editor saying so does not a consensus make ("something akin to a supermajority"). A cursory look at the discussion I linked indicates that no consensus was reached: two people were actively in favor of using the box art, a handful more said that they either didn't care one way or the other, or could accept whatever, and a few more said that the important thing was having the logo in the infobox, which, I would like to point out, the article in question had all along. Furthermore, there are numerous articles that do not use the box art in the infobox, and it has never once been raised as a serious issue before (and some, like the Final Fantasy VII were even mooted as an ideal example of the form). All that being said, I've placed the Japanese box art in there now, in the interests of reducing controversy, but it remains, for all the reasons I and others have cited, an extremely problematic solution, as this is a case where the box art is probably more misleading than it is useful, given the multiple versions of the game released under various different names in various different regions. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • The discussion above is a bit of a red herring. They're discussing box art vs. screenshots. We're using the logo, which is part of the box art, and in this case, more concise. -- Norvy (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I do believe there was a consensus and I agree with that guideline on WP:CVG; however, given that Final Fantasy 3/6 (whatever) has been released so many times and there are a number of box covers for it, I don't think the logo is a big deal - in fact, it may make it easier also considering it was released as FF3 and FF6. The consensus dealt with screenshots anyway, not a logo, which in any other situation I would also oppose in favor of boxart. K1Bond007 19:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • To start off, the spaces added in the graphics and musical score sections were put in to make the reduce visual clutter. Without the spaces, the pictures of those two sections would run into the next sections. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't have visual clutter, and it shouldn't have blank space. I suggest you add content to the sections or just remove the images. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • About how many instances of censorship would you say is acceptable? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As little as possible. I'd prefer just one example. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • We've trimmed it to four graphical change examples, which I think is a good sample without going overboard. What do you think? -- Norvy (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In responce to the production credits being unnecessary, I believe that they are necessary, and they have been used in other video game featured articles. A good example would be Super Mario 64 credits.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Those were added sometime after it was featured. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 21:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'm a perfectionist, and I'm not 100% satisfied with everything about the article, but I think it's come a long way, and is more than worthy of FA status. – Seancdaug 21:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to neutral in light of the lack of article stability cited by BrianSmithson. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'd really like to support this one, but... eh, there are a lot of things wrong with it, in my view. The excessive censorship images, lack of flowing prose in the plot section, etc. It's a good article, I think, but I'm not sure it's worthy of being featured. --Dalkaen 22:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. I can't say anything about this article because I've just started playing Final Fantasy III for the first time and don't want it spoiled. AngryParsley 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support a great game(which I didn't finish yet...), in a wonderful article. igordebraga ≠ 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Does not conform with all WikiProjects, one of which is the WikiProject CVG, which states that the infobox picture should be the box art. Andre (talk) 00:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Read what Seancdaug wrote above about the discussion. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Other than that, little of what I've said has been properly addressed. If you fixed everything BUT the image in the infobox, I'd support it, but until then, I stand by my vote. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I will not support unless box art is used. Andre (talk) 00:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • Currently, the box art is being used. What other WikiProjects does the article not conform with? — WARPEDmirror 21:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support I think it has reached a magnificant level with all the feedback and the contributions coming from both the Final Fantasy WikiProject and editors. It has my support. Derktar 20:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC).
• Support The censorship section seems a managable size, as does the music section. There was an awkward phrase I think I made flow better and one fact I fixed. The infobox seems a little crouded with all the images, but it's not a big issue. This looks like a great article. Fieari 20:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. It's really hard to tell that there are two game boxes. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The idea was actually adopted from the main template page. The only change I made was to alter the style so that it matched the current infobox template. – Seancdaug 14:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. User:Seancdaug keeps reverting things to past tense that should be in present; he also insists on making album titles bold in an article that is not about albums. Besides, the page is hardly stable right now, which is one of the requirements for featured-article status. BrianSmithson 15:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I take some offense at your characterization of my edit (which happened only once, I would add), Brian, though I do apologize for the error: the "reversions" were a mistake owing to an edit conflict, and I will gladly correct them. That being said, you're right about the stability question. In light of the issues that have been raised during this vote, I'm withdrawing my vote until such time as the page achieves stability. – Seancdaug 16:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Sean(?). I misinterpreted your edit, and I thought you had made similar changes before. There have been so many cooks in that kitchn, though, so it could have been anyone. Again, apologies. If the page attains some stability in the next couple of days, I will change my vote. The article is already much better than Wario, another video-game FA. BrianSmithson 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No problem, and the very fact that I was running into edit conflicts kind of proves your second point. I think the major complaint, though, was about the infobox, and I expect that the resolution of that issue will do a great deal to stabilize the article. – Seancdaug 17:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I would hardly call it better than Wario; it's not just the content, it's also the writing. For one, Wario keeps lists down to a minimum... and although Wario's in a different situation than a game, that character list should have much more content, opposed to being just one sentence. Not to flip flop, but I'd rather not support it unless the character list gains a little more content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that the character list in this game should have more information, or are you referring to the Wario article. If your refering to this game, would the fact that the 14 major characters of FFVI have their own articles help? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I'm speaking of FFVI, and yes, I know they all have articles, but no, that doesn't make it appropriate for the characters section to be underdeveloped. - A Link to the Past (talk)
      • That's exactly why I think it's better than Wario, though, Link. The FF6 article as it (sort of) stands now does not suffer from the list-o-mania that so many video-game articles do (we've pruned it of that). Wario currently takes a "In this game, Wario could do this. In this game, Wario could do this" approach, which makes it read like a fanpage. I think the FF6 characters section can stand a bit of fleshing out, but I'm perfectly happy with it as it is and would in fact prefer it that way. BrianSmithson 20:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
        • So should the character section be expanded or would that be considered going into the Fancruft territory.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
          • It is on a different level, however, because a video game article should either have an indepth analysis of the characters or no character list at all. It may have a list, but this list has a large amount of content, necessary content. And yes, it NEEDS extra content - there's fancruft, and then there's lack of info. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
            • The thing is, what kind of content would you be looking for? Adding length for length's sake seems pointless. And the thing is, the section was longer, several months ago: the problem is that most of the content was either fancruft or repetition of what was said better in other articles. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm honestly curious as to what you think is missing. – Seancdaug 21:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
              • It just needs an extra sentence on each character at least. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                • So you've said, but that's not actually useful: adding extra text simply for the purpose of making something longer is the very definition of "cruft." The question is what content you think is missing, what needs to be said about each character, but currently isn't. There's no point in making the thing longer if we don't have anything else worth saying. – Seancdaug 22:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                  • Look at their pages, take a sentence. If it's not cruft there, it's not cruft here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
                    • Actually, it most certainly can be, because of the different scope. Someone reading Locke Cole is almost certainly looking for detailed information about the character. Someone reading this article might be, but s/he might also be looking for information about the gameplay, or the music, or any countless number of other things. An article covering the game in its entirety cannot afford to be as detailed as an article devoted to but a single part of that game, and what's perfectly acceptable in the latter is fluff and cruft in the former. Furthermore, it's unneccessary repetition: there are links to every single character article right there in the section, so why on earth waste space by copying and pasting existing info? Again, it's entirely possible that there is character information that deserves to be in the Final Fantasy VI article that we've missed, but you've given no hint as to what you think that information might be. You've just said you want the section to be longer, and seem positively uninterested in the actual content of the section. Which strikes me as a positively surreal attitude to take for an encyclopedia. So I ask again: what sort of sentence would you like us to take from the individual character pages and add to this article? – Seancdaug 22:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know, you seem to be an FFVI fan, you work it out. One extra sentence on the character is certainly not cruft. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • But that's just it: I am a fan. If I had to, I could wax on nearly indefinitely about every single character in the game. But, then again, I'm also not the kind of person who would be consulting an encyclopedia for information about the game, am I? The question isn't what sort of fannish minutae we can add to the section, but sort of thing the "average" reader would be likely to look for. That's why I keep asking you, as (apparently) a non-fan: what are you looking for? What's missing? And, more to the point, if you can supply a single thing that you think should be there but isn't, what's the point of expanding the section? If we don't have anything else important to say, why add extraneous prose (more precisely, cruft) to the article? – Seancdaug 00:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd have to say Seancdaug makes an exceedingly valid point. :P --Dalkaen 00:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is NOT cruft. You're avoiding the matter at hand, that all the characters list is, is a list of characters with one sentence slapped onto them. You're avoiding cruft to the point of giving bare-bone information, and going for minimal information, as opposed to the middleground. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Link, I have done no such thing. The reason I posed my initial question was to engage your complaint. You're the one who has the problem: it's up to you to help us understand how we can resolve it. You keep barely skirting around the meat of the issue: the fact that we're having this discussion is my way of trying to attain the "middleground." But there is absolutely nothing to be gained by adding random information (that, furthermore, is already available in other articles) simply to pad the article, which is already plenty long as is. "Make it longer" is not a particularly constructive comment. "I would like to see more information about x" is, and that's what I'm still waiting for you to respond to. – Seancdaug 01:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Everyone, relax a few minutes. We are here to discuss this article and how to make it into an FA. Not to squabble like little school girls. (no offence to the female editors) Lets take a deep breath, count to 10 and try to work together, rather then against each other. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Just to itemize what's in the article, as far as I can see, each character has a:
        1. Full Name
        2. Name in Japanese
        3. Brief background
        4. Character type (i.e. class)
        5. Combat technique
      • Keep in mind Featured article criteria #6: It should stay tightly-focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail, using summary style to cover sub-topics in other articles. So, for the third time, what's missing? -- Norvy (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I added a sentence to the Terra description. It is a brand new sentence that I did not copy from the other article on her. Is this addition to her what you want done to the others, or should I delete the sentence? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Norv, it's a matter of undevelopment. One extra sentence would not harm anything. And Ze, looks good. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
          • Padding does not equal development, and we can't develop anything without some sort of idea as to what our ultimate goal is. And you have resolutely failed to address that very basic issue. What kind of information should we add? If there's no specific rationale for expansion, then that expansion is meaningless (again, this is what "cruft" means). "Not harming" is not the same as "helping," after all. – Seancdaug 01:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
            • Use Ze's edit as an example. I personally hate it when there's a large series of small paragraphish parts in articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
              • What if we rewrite the "Characters" section as prose rather than a list? Maybe break the section into two or three paragraphs, either separating by major characters (Terra, Locke) vs. minor characters (Mog, Umaru), or based on broad classes (fighters, magic-users, rogues)? The paragraphs would go something like: "Final Fantasy VI features fourteen playable characters blah blah blah that fit into the traditional role-playing-game classes of fighters, magic users, and rogues." Then begin the fighter paragraph: "Cyan Garamonde is blah blah blah." This would avoid the list-o-mania that I've mentioned before, and it might let us add another sentence on the more important characters without it looking unbalanced if we leave the minor figures alone (I mean, how much more can you say about Gogo?). Or am I barking up the proverbial wrong tree? BrianSmithson 02:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
                • I agree that this is probably the best solution, and, indeed, that's basically what I did when I worked on improving the Final Fantasy VIII article a month or so ago. – Seancdaug 02:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
                  • That'd do well, that's what I usually do with lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure about the boxart, but I'll accept the logo if people really want to have it. Other than that it's a great article. Jacoplane 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article (about a great game may I add), is very informative and is better than some video game featured articles. I see no issue with the logo in the infobox. Though, as Sean noted earlier, there is no real "consensus" - though most articles do use the North American box art. The best known N.A. box art is Image:Ff3usbox.gif, which of course contradicts the title of the article. The only other N.A. box art is Ffabox.jpg, which is box art for a compilation known by another name. I don't believe the game was as successful in Europe as it was in America (probably because it was first released there when the graphics were fairly dated), thus making Image:Ff6eupsxbox.jpg a bad choice. As the article is in English, using any of the Japanese box art is stupid. The logo is the way to go. — WARPEDmirror 21:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm willing to bet if the Final Fantasy Wikiproject was polled, they'd endorse the logo. I also see no reason to bloat the character section with information about a character's astrology sign or weight when that information better serves the reader in the character's page. -- Norvy (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait, did I just read what I think I read? Are you saying that all information on Terra can be summed up in a single sentence? That the character list will take up half of the article's space if each character got even a SINGLE sentence added to them? Again, you're saying that middleground is cruft, and that the only appropriate information is almost no information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great article, the recent streamlining since I've been gone has made it even better. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:30, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support A good article that isn't too wordy or full of info that is meaningless to the casual reader. It is definitely deserving of featured status. Amren ^(talk) 16:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose—Hardly meets the criterion of 'brilliant' prose. Take, for example, awkward sentences such as: 'Towns contain shops where players can buy items, and villagers who offer information.'

Or 'Magicite also imparts various statistic bonuses as characters gain experience levels. Magicite also ...' Two successive sentences start the same way. Why 'also'? Every new sentence could be 'also'. 'Statistic bonuses' is a non-item. How do you gain experience levels?

Or this huge snake: 'In addition, the English localization features several name changes, either because of length restrictions ("Stragos" becomes "Strago"), Nintendo content guidelines (the magic spell "Holy" becomes "Pearl" to avoid religious connotations), or simply because of cultural differences between Asian and North American audiences (Terra's Japanese name, Tina, sounds exotic to Japanese speakers because of its usage of the rare "Ti" sound, but is a common Anglophone name).' This is indigestible—so many phrases tacked onto each other like roof-tiles.

The large amount of text given over to an account of what is, frankly, a superficial, plot-driven story that would do poorly as a high-school attempt at fiction, makes me wonder whether this ranks with the best the Wikipedia has to offer. I can see that the authors have worked hard, and in its own way, it's OK; but I'm afraid an unfeatured article it should stay. There's nothing special about it. By the way, please don't use male generic pronouns; be inclusive. Tony

• Fixed your first example that applied to the game. What else exists in the Final Fantasy VI game that you think is awardly worded. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've gone to the correct article and found it very easy to pluck out equivalent examples, which I've inserted above. The first example remains awkward in the article, despite your recent changes. My overall feelings are unchanged, although it is a step up from F IV.

Another example (they're so easy to find): 'Final Fantasy VI's combat is menu-based, meaning the player selects a battle action for the character from a menu of choices.' The possessive form is clumsy here; 'menu' should not be repeated in the same sentence; both cases of 'the' need rethinking. Isn't 'of choices' redundant?

With such a topic, the article would need to be very special to qualify for featured status. Tony 16:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• During the Peer Review we were told that we hadn't covered the storyline fully enough. Now you are saying too much of the text is dedicated to the story. Which is it? I also fail to understand why you added a comment next to male pronoun male-pronoun, rather than just fixing it. By the way, for the sake of clarity, you shouldn't edit your past comments. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I did edit my past comments. And one of my key concerns is that it's a boring little superficial story. Why not let people experience it simply by playing the game? Why write it out in an authoritative resource such as Wikipedia? It's just not of the quality we expect of featured articles. Tony 16:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that people should experience the story themselves. But this it what we were advised to do during the peer review. So I request comment from other editors, should the storyline section have ever been expanded? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Let me put my previous, intemperate comment in context. Don't get me wrong, I'd probably play the game myself if I had access to it (although I wouldn't purchase it). However, the story-line is made for a game, and requires interactivity to be of any value. Once it's removed from its original context, as here, it comes across as one long stream of sub-Lord of the Rings plot-sequence. Without characterisation, it's uninteresting; to a certain extent, this lack of characterisation is compensated for by the human element in the playing of the game—that's my point.

To be constructive, I'd consider changing my opinion if:

• • the prose were lifted to the specified 'brilliant' standard (I'm not interested in working on it intensively, but you might find others);
  • there were a stronger account of any criticism the game may have received;
  • there were an outline of the technological/feature improvements thus far in the series;
  • there were a section positioning this game in the array of similar games that have been developed (not in terms of plot/content, but technically);
  • there were some mention (at the top?) of the demographic at which the game is targetted, and the marketing strategy of the manufacturer;
  • there were an account of how such games (or this one in particular) are developed, from initial idea right through to production and marketing.

Then it will start to look like among the best that Wikipedia has to offer.

I'd be inclined to shorten the plot section, so that it's more of a summary. The stream of names, in particular, won't mean much to the unitiatied reader. Give us an overall idea of the flavor of the plot, and its movement in broad brushstrokes only. At the start of the plot section, you neglect to state that the story occurs in some kind of fictional, mediavalist world. (I'd ignore the previous advice to expand the plot, in the light of my argument here.)

I'm interested to know how much of the information here is simply a repeat of what you receive in the accompanying hard-copy, or that is embedded in the game. Can one of the authors let us know? Tony 01:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• The problem with many of your suggestions is that much of the information you desire simply does not exist in any kind of accessible form. It's difficult to present an account of the development of this particular game simply because the English-language material on that topic is sparse, and anything beyond that would likely fall under the rubric of original research. And I think it's important to remember that this is not an article about computer role-playing games, so any "general" overview of "how such games are developed" would likely belong elsewhere to begin with. As for "any criticism the game may have received," I tend to agree, but the vast majority of commentators have pointed out (with some degree of relevancy, I think) that more often than not such writeups are a thinly disguised example of POV-pushing, and that unless a case can be made of the notability of a particular strain of criticism in the larger sense (like a direct link to sales, or whatever) that such things are very rarely encyclopedic. As for the plot section, none of it is "simply a repeat of what you receive in the accompanying hard-copy." It is a summary, although perahps a longer one than you'd like. And uninteresting though it may be (and, understand, I'm not really disagreeing with you here), I'm not convinced that it's irrelevant to a writeup of the game, which is a more useful rubric for inclusion, IMO. – Seancdaug 12:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, I agree with Tony, the quality of the writing isn't there, take for example this monster:

Together with other members of the Returners and anti-imperial sympathizers, including Locke, a thief who searches the world for a special treasure that can restore life, King Edgar of Figaro, who has publicly allied with the Empire, but secretly provides supplies and aid to the Returners, and former Imperial general Celes, Terra manages to open the gate to the world of the Espers in a bid to enlist their aid against the Empire.

I may have a thing for tables at the moment, but the list of characters would look better as a table (Character!Description!Special ability) or actially written as prose than as a list. It would also be usedful for the reader to have been introduced to the cast before the plotline. I think it would aslo been informative in terms of the franchise to describe how this game was technologically different from its predecessors, did final fantasy V have Mode 7 graphics, are there any gameplay differences between the Super Nintendo and the playstation versions, I assume this kind of info would be in the early reviews mentioned in the reception section. It's kind of crufty, but it should probably mention how many hours it takes to play through the game, and that this was a very popular RPG amoung gamers (beyond the sales figures which don't mean alot without the reader knowing how well video games sell normally).--nixie 12:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Return to Oppose per nixie and Tony. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comment- Now the infobox image is the box art. So... igordebraga ≠ 17:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Cathedral of the Assumption (Louisville)

I think that this is a very complete article with lots of nice photos.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 05:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. What, if anything, does the copyright tag {{Church}} mean? Are the images public domain? Are they copyrighted-free-use? Are they "fair use"? It's used on the images Image:Churchfont.jpg, Image:Steeple.jpg, Image:Bapistry.jpg, Image:Font.jpg, Image:Coronation window.jpg, Image:Cathedra.jpg, Image:Cathedral organ.gif, and Image:Nave.jpg, and on the sound files Image:Glorylord.ogg and Image:Verbumcaro.ogg. --Carnildo 06:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object – 1) No references 2) Misuse of subheadings. Please increase the length of each subheading or merge with the parent heading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - images are a problem as stated above. Perhaps you could ask User:Essjay, who seems to have added most or all of them, to clarify the copyright status of them. If they are indeed fair use, then a fair use rationale should be put on each image description page, and you may consider reducing the number of images used, if this is the case. The use of references is essential, and the article is lacking in these. Lead paragraph needs to be expanded, and the number of small (one paragraph and even one sentence) sections should be condensed into broader headings. At first glance it looks like the subject has been covered with extreme brevity - this is a somewhat misleading impression created by the number of headings and small sections. On the whole it's well written, but these a fairly major issues that need to be addressed. Rossrs 14:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the images are fair use, then every last one of them should be removed, and replaced with a free-license image. There's nothing here that can't be replaced by a Wikipedian with a camera. --Carnildo 18:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • yes of course, quite correct. Rossrs 10:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Vishnu sahasranama

I am requesting comments on whether Vishnu sahasranama should be a featured article candidate.

Thanks,

Raj2004 19:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Object – 1) the references have to be moved to the end of the article. 2) Some sections are too short. 3) If you want comments please go through the Peer review. Will review more thoroughly later. =Nichalp «Talk»= 21:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - the image has no copyright status. Much of the text reads very well, but I know nothing about this subject. Peer review is a good suggestion. Rossrs 14:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review. This is not the place to solicit comments on FA suitability. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In-N-Out

I would like to nominate In-N-Out as a featured article. This article is one of the most comprehensive works on this restaurant that I have ever seen. Anything you would like to know about this place has been added to this article. There are plenty of references to prove factuality. The article is stable; there hasn’t been any major revision for a while. This article is surprising well written and is actually compelling to read. Since it is just a burger place it can’t be too controversial of an article. It has been written in appropriate Wikipedia style standards. The article contains a lot of images in appropriate places. Even though the article is comprehensive it is not too long. Topics are divided into different section and stay on topic. SenorAnderson 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral Oppose. I previously put this article on peer review, but I do not think that all of the comments that were posted there have been applied yet. There still seems to be a lot of lists on the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the copyright status of Image:IN-N-OUT BURGER MENU BOARD.JPG (which I raised on its talk page) still has not been addressed yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And another thing: The history section looks like it still needs work. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, due to the following:
  • "just-in-time" isn't really a business model, its an inventory strategy and it hyperlinks to the wrong article. Maybe it might be better to just say the food is "made-to-order"?
  • "locations's" is grammatically incorrect.
  • "food preparation area (where the tomatoes, onions," is an incomplete sentence.
  • Dedicated "mechanical/electrical rooms" strike me as unusual for small fast-food outlets. Please elaborate.
  • "employee locker rooms" are important to understanding the corporate culture, are these just a set of lockers or are they part of a set of employee facilities. Please elaborate.
  • "concrete tables and benches" sound awfully uncomfortable, are they really concrete or are they just set in a paved area?
  • The "two-box" design could use something visual to aid understanding (either a diagram or a photograph).
  • "larger restaurant site, newer restaurants" - the first noun is singular, the second is plural.
  • "the Snyders" are introduced in Advertising without any mention of who they are.
  • The list for the "secret" menu is a bit overwhelming - maybe you could move it to a new article?
  • Link 666x666 in Trivia to the Number of the Beast (numerology), non-Christians might otherwise be baffled by the reference.
  • Details of store numbers would be appreciated.
  • The History could be a bit more detailed.
  • The menu photograph should be relabelled as being in the public domain.

I'll probably be back to add more comments. From the WikiProject on business, "each article should have a section discussing the company's business model, which intimately tied to how a company is put together and one of the major factors usually shaping a companies history" and "management philosophy, vision, and values is also a major element of coporations and their behaviour which often go under-reported". I think you do a pretty good job of outlining both but any enhancements would be welcome. Good luck with the nomination. Cedars 03:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "the Snyders" are introduced in the history section: In-N-Out's first location was opened in October 1948 by Harry and Esther Snyder Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The copyright status of Image:IN-N-OUT BURGER MENU BOARD.JPG needs to be clarified. Is it GFDL as implied by the upload comment, public domain/no rights reserved as implied by the rights summary, or "fair use" as implied by the discussion page?
  2. The "trivia" section should be worked into the prose or removed.
  3. There seems to be too much emphasis on the menu.

  --Carnildo 07:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• This one's a little overboard. A guy drove up and took a picture of the menu board. In-N-Out may be abe to trademark the menu board, but as a photo of a menu board I don't think there's much claim for copyright of the photo. Now a transcription of the text they may, but not the photo this user took. Besides the template on that image page is wrong. It claims no source information, while the user clearly claims he took the photo. - Taxman ^Talk 20:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  There are three conflicting statements as to the copyright status of the image. Before the article can be considered to be of featured status, this needs to be straightened out, or the image needs to be removed from the article. I don't see what's "overboard" about that. --Carnildo 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  Agree with removal, especially since this photo can be easily retaken and properly tagged by any number of people. -- Norvy (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose featured article candidacy. Except for the recent notation, this is one of the most boring articles on Wiki. It looks like someone dumped their Business 101 weekend writing assignment on here. --Noitall 06:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry but I must agree..... it's unbelivably, unreadably dull. --PopUpPirate 23:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I concur with all those who say this article is boring to read. I liked it better when it was a stub. :) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

My reason for nominating this article was because it has a good length to it and regains the quality no matter how long it is. It is supported by quite a few images with captions as well. It will make a good read since people can find out about why he was murdered and how his songs are still going to this day. Thorpe 19:33, 27 August 2005

• Object. I think it's a good article, but there are some problems with it that will have to be remedied before it is worthy of becoming a featured article. For example, more than half of the lead section is devoted to the origin of the name "Tupac Shakur", whereas the lead really should be a summary of his life and career (a "mini-biography", if you will). The only reference in the article is in relation to conspiracy theories surrounding his death. Also, Image:Pac5.jpg, Image:Tupac-pensive.jpg. Image:Bblogo.jpg and Image:2Pac Makaveli-The Don Killuminati front.jpg are claimed as "fair use", and will need fair use rationale on their image description pages. And the page for Image:Tupac-mugshot.jpg claims that it has been released into the public domain, but on the legal section of the web address featured on the photograph, it says "Certain materials reproduced on this website are believed to be in the public domain." Are you absolutely sure that the image is in the public domain? Extraordinary Machine 21:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• It looks good but it needs references (besides the conspiracy one) and preferably inline citations. Could probably use a copyedit too. Tuf-Kat 23:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Pac5.jpg is claimed as an album cover, but #1, it's been cropped (fair use images should not be modified), and #2, it doesn't specify what album.
  2. The image Image:Tupac-pensive.jpg does not have definitive information on the source and copyright holder.
  3. The image Image:Tupac-mugshot.jpg is claimed as "public domain", but not all police mugshots are public domain.

  --Carnildo 07:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. An article about a major musician (indeed, any noteworthy musicial artist) should devote a substantial and appropriately proportioned amount of text to a discussion of the artist's music; and for a major musician that discussion should be based on an appropriate set of sources. This article goes nore more than a single step beyond characterizing the music as "hip-hop" and "rap." Monicasdude 17:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I agree with Monicasdude there is no real discussion of his music, lyrical themes and style etc. The section -his future plans- is poorly named, and the source of this information, and indeed all references used to write this article need to be clearly identified.--nixie 05:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Equivocal objection: Whilst I think the article is, on the whole, of featured article standard, I agree with the points made by Monicasdude and nixie. The article doesn't do his artistic career justice.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

The previous nomination can be found here

"Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." I am re-nominating Schiavo, and the process led me to this archived page, so I will go ahead and use it.

New info (ATTN: Nichalp) re Article Length: I just saved the Terri Schiavo page in *.txt format on my computer: My computer says that it is "69.7 KB (71,438 bytes)." which is accurate. Wikipedia claims says of "Talk" page that: "This page is 119 kilobytes long," so are my computer's numbers are accurate?? My computer says the "Talk" page "117 KB (120,015 bytes)," so my computer is telling the truth about the article page too, I believe. (PS" I saved the talk and article pages in HTML format, but I shall not discuss those figures, as they are not accurate.) So, in conclusion, since I can't pull up the edit dialogue and get "wikipedia's" assessment, we will have to guess that my computer is accurate: Terri Schiavo is larger than 55Kb or 65Kb, yes, but it is not 80Kb; it is more like 70Kb, references and all, FYI. Look at it yourself and see if I've read right, please. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• New News: Today's FA uses a "Fair Use" image, so apparently Fair Use is OK for Featured Articles
• NEW News: I have not fully studied all there is on the Fair Use issue, but I have new news on that standard -which I'm refactoring and placing at the top here: The Main Page lists a "Featured Article," Space opera in Scientology doctrine, which uses two images: One is made up with software, but the other, here, is clearly copyrighted and used under "fair use"; Since this is in a "Featured Article," then this feature shows by example that some images can indeed be "Fair Use." While I would like to personally visit Bob and Mary Schindler or email them, if that's not possible, then we can use the images we have, and still be legal --AND "pretty enough" to be a "Featured Article." I consider this concern closed unless someone can show how today's FA and Schiavo are different; However, Carnildo, raised good points in his links: If we use too many fair use images, then other will be limited on what they can copy; however, the few images on Schiavo are not enough to warrant that concern. The only other problems that remain are the length, which is a tad long, by some standards (??), and the edit war, which I expect to end soon, but I do NOT consider that a problem for the article -only for the editors.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• NOTE. Since there is ongoing concern of the edit war, please let me point out that I asked my father about it, and, if you want to remain credible in my eyes, I ask you to read this entire page, at least once, and pay special attention to my father’s remarks concerning the edit war. See e.g., below, before the page gets too long to be manageable.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the previous FAC nomination of this article. That FAC nomination has undergone heavy editing since it was archived on September 3, 2005. Lupo 07:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• NEW:Here's Talk:Terri_Schiavo the talk page, and the disagreement is "important," but both sides are close to an agreement, so don't come here if you are too lazy to actually educate yourself on the nuances of the disagreement; The actual disagreement that locked the page centers on one small paragraph: I wish to report both objections that an attorney had, and FuelWagon wants to report only one. He had in the past promised to not complain if I could quote a major player in the Schiavo saga, and said that this was superior to a mere description, accusing me of "original research" for merely reporting on facts; I did as he asked, and sourced (verified) it with links, so what's the holdup? Come and help out; PS: You remember Wagon as one of the six who favoured SUPPORT, as opposed to the eleven who OPPOSED Fac nomination. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"(If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move..." Already did, but it still shows this page.

Reason for (re)nominating the article:

There will be initial criticism for renominating the article so soon after it failed, but many have stated to the effect that Terri Schiavo is FA-worthy; and, let me add that the recent "emotional concerns" do not matter for FA-worthiness, because its fitness as a candidate is a state function, that is, the fitness to be a featured article is a property of the Schiavo article that depends only on the current state of the system, not on the way in which the system got to that state. My fellow scientists will understand this logic is more logical than the emotional concerns to wait: We editors (including Mark himself) have fixed ALL the problems that Mark (Raul654, the Fac editor), brought, and most of the problems that other editors mentioned; Only a few concerns remain, such as the length, but George W. Bush is about as long, and Terri Schiavo was arguably comparably as well-known as Bush.

The article is very stable, having only a few edits in recent times; there is, however, a LOCK on the article at the moment, and this hints that there is instability, but the existence of disputes is not a guarantee of instability. In fact, with the lock -and the negotiations going on in talk, the article is very stable.

In fact, a lot of work was done recently to procure images, first-hand, to release under GNU and avoid Fair Use. As well, the references section was created anew and much copyedit was done -with much blood-sweat-and-tears on the part of many editors, who don't always agree on things: For example: FuelWagon, the one who provoked me to ask for page protection does not always agree with me on things, but we both think Schiavo is FA-worthy, and so do some other editors.

To keep things orderly, I will not participate much in this renomination, since I contributed heavily in the past, but I want to set up areas of concern, here, and if the article meets most or all of these, then support it:

Policy Concerns:

• Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work.
• Comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written.
• Uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy,
• Comply with the standards set in the style manual,
• Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status.
• Have an appropriate length

Mark's concerns, addressed below:

• TOCright breaks the manual of style, the TOC (with its 37 sections) is quite overwhelming - We fixed that, and Mark scratched that out.
• the article has no introduction - We fixed that, and he scratched it out too.
• it has no references section to complement the inline linking -I fixed that almost single-handedly. Come and see.
• it has a see also section (which should be converted to prose, inserted into the article, and the section deleted) - we did that
• every image used in the article is fair use - Not any longer.
• it's 80 kilobytes long -We greatly cut the article down - You happy now?

Since the major problems have been ironed out, it is only logical to renominate, and I regret having waited: My inaction does nothing to honor the collective work of all the editors who have worked on this -and it does not honor the casual reader who wants to see a top-notch article.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. For the reasons above and below. Chiefly, the problems have been ironed out. If a few remain, deal with it: Life isn't perfect: This is a very quality article, representing the very best of Wikipedia and its editors. The few remaining disputes are discussed in Schiavo's talk page. Other than that, it;s good to go. For that reason, I support.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Article is clearly not stable (it currently is even protected due to a recent edit war), and there are many unresolved points on the talk page. Lupo 07:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The page is right now protected. 2) The article stands at 87 kb. That's unacceptable for any FAC, and especially such an over-blown and over-politicized subject. 3) It's been, what? Two weeks since the last nomination? This thing needs at least six months, probably several years to cool down enough. This is not "the best of Wikipedia". It's merely an outlet for the frustrations and non-notable opinions of those closely involved or deeply engaged in the affair. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of writing and it's very unbecoming an FAC. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Peter for your concern in comments above and below, but let me assure you that the "frustrations" of the participant, editors, etc., are a reflection on them, not on the article: We are not getting voted on; The article is. Also, since many complaints herein have been addressed or are not a reflection of the article itself (maybe a reflection on the "edit warring editors"), then many of the complaints (except maybe article length) are not actionable or relevant to the vote; Thank you, still, for your feedback, Peter.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • On a side not to Gordon: please don't use this nomination as yet another forum for intricate Schiavo-discussions. This is not the place for it. Accept votes as they are; if they're inactionable, Raul (and no one else) will decide if they're valid or not. No one with any formal powers will intervene and especially not Jimbo. Peter ^Isotalo 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. Article is not stable, as evidenced by a recent revert war and current page protection.
  2. The images Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg and Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but have no fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed, and the image description pages at Sunset Boulevard (film) for a good example.
  3. The image Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg does not indicate the creator or copyright holder. Without that information, it's not possible to claim fair use.
  4. The image Image:Schiavo.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but the fair use rationale provided is inadequate.

  --Carnildo 08:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Carnildo, the image currently at Sunset's link above says: "It is believed that such poster images may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision," which does not raise the standard or tell us anything new. Further, Fair Use is legal; Lastly, I personally posted many photos I took myself, to address your complaint, and you will have to accept a few Fair Use photos -unless you have a better idea. Most of the current photos are GNU, and not Fair Use, so what is the "legal problem?" Your problem is perceived, not real. I respect your opinion, but it is a non-real problem. (Unless you can get Jimbo or someone in power to argue with me on this, then I will accord this issue zero weight.) Relax. It will be O.K.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read and understand all of the following before complaining about my objection again: Wikipedia:Fair use, Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale, Jimbo Wales on fair use, non-commercial, and by-permission images, Jimbo Wales email on non-commercial and by-permission images. --Carnildo 05:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I have long been aware of Jimbo's concern's, but I never perceived "Fair Use" as illegal, merely "bad style," that's all (in reading Jimbo's past comments) --and I need a little time to research this, Carnildo; there may be details of which I am not aware. Thanks for the links -will get back with you.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Hey, Gordon, since you know Terri's family personally, could you ask them for some photos to GFDL? I'm thinking in particular of a photo of Terri before the incident. That could be a good way to resolve the copyright problems. Borisblue 06:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I may be able to help out here, but I can not guarentee anything; You also may contact them at the contact link at http://TerrisFight.org They may very well answer you. Have faith; Ask and you shall receive.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object - This article is clearly not in a stable state yet. And it is far too soon after the previous nomination to renominate. The size does not worry me unduly, but query whether the legal toing and froing could be moved to a separate sub-article which is summarised here - this article should be about the person, not the legal cases. Also query whether all 79 references are required - in some sections, almost every other phrase has a footnote. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • ALoan, where do the rules say there has to be any mandatory waiting period? The rules simply say: "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." I did that. Now, I agree with you on article length, but a few dissenters may compel the regular editors to look into that. Lastly, Mark, the Fac editor (Raul654 is Mark) is the one who called for the reference section, and this is policy; Yes, 79 or 80 references is a lot, but we must document, verify, source, and link to verify our claims. It will be OK; The "References" section is at the bottom and won't affect things. Oh, the "stability" issue: Yes, My father addressed that; see below.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • First let me say that I respect the effort that you and others are putting into getting this article featured: in principle, it certainly can and should be featured, but only when it meets the featured article criteria - that is to say, when it is comprehensive, accurate, stable, NPOV, well written, has appropriate images, and is of an appropriate length. Irrespective of its other merits, this article is still unstable (as evidenced by the edit war and page protection) and the only way to show that it is stable is for it to stay in an acceptable form, without significant revisions from day to day, for a substantial period (that is, for at least a few weeks - and no, this is not written down either, but it is what I would expect). I will reconsider my objection when the article is stable. Now, regarding your question, "the rules" also do not state that there has to be a waiting period between FAC nominations. It is, however, the usual practice to wait for a sensible period after a FAC fails before renominating (otherwise, as we are seeing here, everyone's time is wasted with the similar objections coming up all over again). And when an article is unstable, like this one, the waiting period is likely to be longer: the only way to demonstrate stability is to wait. It certainly takes more than one week after an unstable article fails FAC for the article be demonstrably stable. (Sorry, I don't see how your father's reported comments address the stability issue: you say "I told him about the dispute on the talk page, and asked him if an article could still be of good quality -even if its recent editors had questionable quality -as shown by disputed. He said that he didn't see why not." - I don't see how that contributes significantly to the issue of stability). Finally, this is a consensus process: you need to convince everyone with an actionable objection that this article meets the featured article criteria. It is really not necessary to write screeds of justification and rebuttal to do that. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "First let me say that I respect the effort that you and others..." Thank you for your feedback. Now, I understand your concerns on the stability issue, and, yes, I understand that we have to figure out some things that aren't written rules of policy; Let me reply: While there is currently an argument on the talk page and both POV and "Page lock" banners on the article, the page is generally stable, and that is what counts for FA. Here's additional proof: "**I think you misunderstand the stability requirement - the stability requirement is meant to discourage articles that are *currently* unstable; it's not meant to apply indefinitely to the future. In the case of this article, it's only gotten 5 small edits in the last week, which (to me, as the person who wrote that requirement) is relatively stable [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 05:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)". ~~ We all have small objections, but overall the article is great; and, if you have a SERIOUS objection, you are expected to try to correct it: While the main responsibility falls on the nominator (me) to correct errors, I've done more than my fair share. (I went out to the grave site and took photos, and I fixed, er, created anew, the references section, and done major copyedit + MANY OTHERS have helped me; I'm not the sole contributor.) Conclusion: Since I have done my part -and more -then any objectors are expected to navigate their way to the Schiavo talk page and settle the relatively simply and small (but important) dispute that remains -complaining is OK if you have a valid concern, but it must be balanced with "action" to work. Thank you in advance for your help here in Schiavo's talk page!--GordonWattsDotCom 22:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry Gordon, I warned you that you should have waited a while. This article is extremely unstable, with a recent page protection to boot! Borisblue 12:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Do not re-nominate unstable articles so quickly. Phils 13:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Phils, My father addresses the stability issue below, and I address the "waiting period" issue in the answer to ALoan, above.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree fully with Peter. Renominating just because you feel it should be featured is inappropriate. There was consensus on the FAC talk page against it, so even if some people though you should nominate it, you should have been able to see this coming. Multiple objections have been levied for it being too long. Please use Wikipedia:Summary style to trim the article down without losing information. Yes it is possible, but no one said it was easy. Prioritize properly what information really needs to be included to give a proper overview. And no, that won't likely be possible to do and reach stability in a few days. - Taxman ^Talk 15:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. Too quick a renomination, edit warring, too big, etc. And I'm confused how you justify the size by saying that Terri Schiavo was "arguably comparably as well-known as Bush". Bush is the leader of the free world; Schiavo was a news story for perhaps a few months. Ral315 15:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ral315 My father addresses the stability issue below, and I address the "waiting period" issue in the answer to ALoan, above. "Bush is the leader of the free world; Schiavo was a news story for perhaps a few months." Terri Schiavo will remain a story for the rest of American History; She will be remembered along with Dred Scot, Abraham Lincoln, and others, but her article is longer for now because she, like George W. Bush are "current" news.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Bush doesn't need or deserve such a large article either, regardless of being "the leader of the free world" (a statement which in itself is subject to debate, though this is the wrong place). Object for many of the above given reasons. Fredrik | talk 17:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak oppose, for reasons of instability stated above; the article itself is fair enough I suppose; but just because (even if) antagonists agree on a version, it does not follow that it is FA-worthy. Especially if both factions are (for different reasons) obsessed with the subject. Also, some annoying excess-linkage (stuffed animal (!), fax, dove, high school, iced tea..... I mean, seriously, what good is a link to testimony or April in this article?) dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • My Motives for Re-Nomination.
  • Featuring Terri Schiavo was not my idea. I got it from Neutrality, who edit warred with me and refused to accept this 4-2 (or 4-3?) concensus on the intro. In spite of his argumentiveness, I must give credit to Neutrality for being the one who suggested the nomination of Terri Schiavo as a Featured Article:--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Rebuttal to the above.
  • The article was mentioned as a Featured Article Candidate in the past two peer reviews:
• ""The last peer review request was done in the midst of the media circus and was very helpful. Now that the situation has calmed down somewhat I'm hoping for a FAC. Comments? Neutralitytalk 22:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• "I think it's a possibility. I'm pleased at how the article has become about as NPOV as it's going to get; a side-effect of that though is that the article is huge, and it might be challenging to shrink it and keep everyone happy...JYolkowski // talk 19:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)"
• "There is huge value in the references in this article...Please could you convert to a system which preserves the full reference information...I would suggest Footnotes or another system of inline references...Mozzerati 18:07, 2005 May 9 (UTC)" Gordon: We fixed that.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Even in the fist peer review there existed positive comments:--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• "...I say feature it now. -- Glen Finney 17:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)"
• "I think it is pretty neutral, more so than commercial news I saw about the case...AC 1:03, 21 April 2005"
• Even in the first peer review, we had comments like: "The article has improved a lot since the last time I looked at it...--nixie 23:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

• • Conclusion.
  • Since the article was highly-praised by people on both sides of the issue who normally don't agree --even back in the peer reviews, and since the article has dramatically improved since then, it is more ready. The edit warring will quit ...if there is stability brought on by a Featured Article status. If the article was (almost) ready for FA-status in the peer reviews, and if it has had improvements since then -on several successive occasions -then how can it get less ready? I think it is nothing more than pack mentality. Are we not smarter than that?--GordonWattsDotCom 19:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, you seem to have this very backwards. We don't promote articles to featured status in the hopes they will become stable; we promote stable articles to featured status *because* they are, among other things, stable. →Raul654 19:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • It goes both ways: The article is deserving because it was almost ready in the past 2 peer reviews, and has improved much since. However, nomination also affects stability -in the same way stability affects quality of nomination. ~~ It works both ways -not one, not another, but both. However, if there is "Pack Mentality," no matter how ready the article is for Feature --the Featured Editors are not ready for the article. Pack Mentality, where one person follows another without a full examination of the logic.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • You seem to be having a really hard time understanding how this FAC process of gaining consensus works. We'll all give you some leeway because it is your first time, but come on now, you're not even trying to listen to what people have to say. With well over a year of sustained FAC participation, I can guarantee you this article will not be promoted if you keep up what you're doing. People have repeatedly told you the article needs to be trimmed down. Continuing to ignore that isn't going to help. Please, step away, and stop with the polemics. - Taxman ^Talk 20:31, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • I am flexible on the length issue, but many editors with 'expertise on editing this article think it should be this long; Who are you or I to disagree? PS: On the "concensus" thing, Taxman, I think you misunderstand what happened in the past three (3) reviews -the two peer reviews and the last FA-review. There were more positive comments than you imply, and you should ask yourself "why" if the article is that bad: And, it has improved, with the only "major" concern being the recent edit war, but I address that below, when I discuss what my father had to say about it, so I won't repeat it here. I've addressed all concerns, and any more opposition -even if it from many voters -is "emotional," not logical; see below for my answers on the lingering concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is currently protected from editing due to edit warring, is listed at WP:RFC, and thus does not meet the stability criteria that is required for featured articles. There also seem to be ongoing debates about the article's content on its talk page. Extraordinary Machine 20:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object since me and Carnildo's objections were never resolved last time around. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • False: I made special efforts to personally obtain pictures that i personally took to sooth your objections re Fair Use -not that Fair Use is illegal; it isn't.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • After talking to Gordon, I decided to be bold and fix the image problems myself. While I do wish to see the article become FA, I just think with the edit war going on and page protection, it will have to wait. I am going to work with Gordon and Carnildo to fix the image problems. Abstain from voting. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • We need a little time to research Carnildo's concerns; thx for being bold, Z Scout.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object - Edit war, stability, and length. You mention that George Bush's article is also really long, but you might also note that George Bush's article is not featured, either. Fieari 21:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • First, I want to agree that a few things could be removed from the article, stuff like Terri's cat, for example. With that said, I will take an opportunity to tell you the feedback I received from my father, when I asked him about this.
  • What my father said, when I asked him about the edit war:
  • My father is not a "computer-type," but a common working man, but I called him up today and asked him about the edit war situation, the only thing that is a major concern (except now I think maybe a little fat can be cut from the article, but it still is quality). I told my father, born in 1935, who runs his own auto part sales business, the situation about the nomination and the edit war. (Pop used to be personal friends with "Big Daddy" Don Garlits, as both were in drag racing about 30 years ago, here in the Tampa Bay area, not that this affects his wisdom or anything.) Anyhow, I told him that a featured article represents the very best of our collective contributions.
  • I told him about the dispute on the talk page, and asked him if an article could still be of good quality -even if its recent editors had questionable quality -as shown by disputed. He said that he didn't see why not.
  • My opinion is that the edit war is possibly a reflection on the editor -however, this is not a popularity contest of the editor -but one of the page itself.
  • If you don't believe me, contact me, and I will put you in touch with my father.
  • Since the page was in the past considered by many for FA, and since the current status is much-improved (with no regard to the editors themselves in any edit war), then the transitive property reigns: If the past versions of Schiavo were good enough to be considered for FA; and, if the current versions are better, then the current versions are definitely better then the previous standards -which they passed well enough to get many positive rave reviews -in both peer reviews (see quotes, this page) -and the past FA-nomination (see archives, which show it was a closer vote than you and your fellow editors would imply here).
  • CONCLUSION: If the reader, you that is, don't at least read this entire page (it's not that long), then you are disrespecting the past three sets of editors, myself, and my father. Do you want to do that? I am not asking you vote "for" me (although that is my formal nomination request); I am, rather, asking you to either read the page and vote accordingly, or, instead, if you STILL have complaints, come and help out. Either help out -or don't complain -but you have no moral justification to speak unless you can certify that you have at least read this one small page here.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object - The reasons given above by others are overwhelming and do not need repeating. The nominator has crossed the line into "abuse of the system" long, long ago. - Bantman 21:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article was considered for FA in the 1st two reviews, and it has improved since then. Did you even read the page, or are you just following the crowd? PS: Read the comments (above) from my father on the issue -and he is not a "computer person," by the way, but a common man.
  • Regarding abuse, let me point out that the FA candidacy is not a review on the nominator -or editor -or edit wars -it is a nomination of the article. If the article was seriously considered for FA twice in peer reviews, and almost passed the third time (the "vote" was close, if you actually counted them), then I am inclined to believe the abuse is on the part of people who seem to say that the editors in the past peer reviews were wrong or stupid to suggest a FA nomination. If I were the only one who shared the feeling that the Terri article was FA material, I'd be inclined to believe you might be right, but since the past three reviews (the two peer reviews and the recent FA review) had many positive comments, and since it has improved since then, I say you are abusing the process: Your "no" vote implies the past three (3) sets of reviewers were stupid abusers of the process by voting positively: No respectful at all. Your only valid concern is the recent edit war, and I address that above -and share insight that I got from asking my father about this. I hope you would respect him enough to at least look it over.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • We understand that you are nominating the article; however, the featured article criteria state that a features article should be "mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day" and be "uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars". The Terri Schiavo article meets neither of these requirements. Also, since you have reverted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates more than three times in 24 hours, I have reported you at WP:3RR. Extraordinary Machine 03:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Correction: my apologies, you have not violated the 3RR, but I advise you not to pursue featured article status for Terri Schiavo for at least some time after this nomination fails. Extraordinary Machine 03:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No problem, Extraordinary Machine , regarding the 3RR mistake: We all slip up; and, yes, there is a current edit war, but that is one (singular), not edit wars, plural. It was mostly static, as Mark said in the recent FA-nomination (see archive link at very top), and now it is very static, and when the page unlocks, it will probably be fairly static, based on the edit history of the last months. ""uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy" It is not an uncontroversial topic, but all sides usually agree that it is NPOV (with an exception on this recent edit war on a small section). "...after this nomination fails." Huh? You are assuming it will fail. While it looks bad, I have met the technical requirements, "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status," so I don't see the problem. The problem is perceived, not real.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support I don't know where these accusations of instability are coming from. What's the objective measurement of stability? It's a good article and is a better written and more complete summary of this very important case than you will find anywhere on the Internet. I have nothing against Sun Yat-Sen or the History of Alaska but the material in those articles organized in a useful way is duplicated all over the net. The Terri Schiavo article on the other hand is a unique demonstration of how the competitive editing process of the Wikipedia can produce timely, comprehensive, and good enough quality. patsw 04:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Stability" means that the article does not constantly change dramatically, as, e.g. in an edit war. Borisblue 05:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – Currently protected from editing (thus not suitable for FA at this juncture), and definately needs a summary as the article takes up 54kb (excluding refs, ext links etc.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Questions 1 & 2. (1)How do you see the size in Kb? (I used to know how but can't do it now-days, but even then, my "saved" copy was a different size than the Wikipedia servers said, lol.) (2)Also, where's the policy on article size that sets an upper limit? (If I get a chance, Wagon and I will maybe try to trim it down, but it's harmelss and complete as it, I think.)--GordonWattsDotCom 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: Yes, it's long, Nichalp, but, as I've said before, current events (Bush, Schiavo, etc.) are going to be longer than ancient ones (Lincoln, Washington, etc.).--GordonWattsDotCom 05:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • When you click edit, if the article is above 32 kilobytes, above the edit window you'll get a message saying "This page is X kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." 32 kilobytes used to be considered the approximate ceiling for how large our articles should go. Nowadays, with references and whatnot, we accept that around 45 or 55 kilobytes is a more reasonable ceiling. However, bigger than that is generally unacceptable. →Raul654 05:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Mark. I thought it was automatic, but since the page is locked, I can't get that function; ALSO, Nichalp, regarding the edit war, I address that above, hopefully to your satisfaction.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Brilliant Flash: Mark just now said that 55 Kb was alright for a total size, Nichalp, and the references can't push the total up that much more, and are very essential to document, source, verify, and such make it legit. So, I see no problems with the article length, but I admit I do not know it all, and should hope to see if any fluff exists, fat that can be cut off.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That's incorrect. I removed the references, see alsos, notes, interwikis and the infobox and then previewed. Without all this the article content comes to 54kb, otherwise it touches 80kb. don't compare the article to GWB, that article is not a Featured one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:38, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
        • I acknowledged your removal of the references in my comment above and was about to clarify that the addition of them might push the total up above the 55 Kb (but I had an edit conflict and could not clirify) but still the article is close enough for me; nonetheless, I admit I don't know all there is about the details, and have an open mind that maybe some extra fluff can be removed.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Question for Nichalp re length: What happens if the article is featured as is? Do readers howl at the length if/when they click on it? I think they would simply ignore something if it were too long, and since the extra Kilobytes are merely boxes, notes, etc., then I don't think it would detract from the "look and feel" of the article; forget "legal" arguments: I "feel" that I am right, and I surf the web all the time, and apparently others feel this way: Many long pages exist, and one day will be featured articles, so this standard of 80-90 Kb is, IMHO, not too long, lol.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • [paste after edit conflict] Yes, it may be a current (ok recent past) event, and I don't deny that contemporary figures will have a lot of material about them, but that does not justify the need for having such a long article. You would need to add the detail to dedicated articles link you've done in the case of " Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case". You need to summarise the text here. Newspapers and magazines summarise all the time, so it isn't too difficult to get a summary here. Also if you want to check the size of the page offline, save the material as .txt and see the file size. Your ultimate aim is to get it featured, but why don't you wait for a few more weeks till things cool over? As the history of FAC goes, articles which are submitted immediately after being failed have a lesser chance promotion than those which have been nominated after a sufficient period of time. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• In that case WW2 would have a massive entry. Wikipedia:Summary style will address your queries. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • "but that does not justify" does it not? Maybe - maybe not - "would need to add the detail to dedicated articles link" Hold on a second: You're saying one article is too long and the linked one is too short? So, why can't you just shift a little material and make it ALL good. Hmm... Interesting! "need to summarise the text here" We did. It is the intro. We all worked on that -well many of us here did. "if you want to check the size of the page offline," Thx! However, it gave me different measurements when I saved it -maybe I used HTML instead of Text formats. May check later to see if my version's the same size as what Wiki-servers say... " but why don't you wait" Why should I? Since fitness is a state function, the burden of proof is on those who oppose moving forward, and especially since "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." "As the history of FAC goes..." Thx for your analysis, but might does not make right, nor do two wrongs (in past nomination history) make right. Right is right regardless of the "history." The article is what is being judged, not it's history, not the editors, not the edit wars: The article is fine whether or not there exists an edit war on some small (but important) point. We are judging the article, not the article's editors, lol. I know this page is growing faster than inflation, but you did read it all, Nichalp, right? I did! (As nominator, I hope I have upheld my responsibility to be responsive to ALL concerns; have I?)--GordonWattsDotCom 06:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Still object - both for the fact that it's apparantly unstable (as proven by the fact that is has been protected) and for the problems with the images pointed out above. And of a wild tangent, what does the submitters father has to do with this??? WegianWarrior 06:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "And of a wild tangent, what does the submitters father has to do with this???" Two things: 1) His analysis makes sense: The fitness of the article is what is being assessed, not the fitness of the editors, and the editor arguments do not necessarily affect the article (because the "lock" will soon be over, I am sure) -and 2) Since many people have morals, I thought they would respect my father's opinion and increase the depth of understanding.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • So.. basicly you're asking us to support because your father says so? Uhm.. no, I don't think so. I'll support or object based on the article as it stands at the time I cast (or change) my vote. WegianWarrior 06:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "So.. basicly you're asking us to support because your father says so?" Read what I wrote: I did not say my father said to support it; I said that he suggested that it could still be a good article -even if there existed arguments on the talk page; Furthermore, I don't ask you to do as my father suggest because he says sol I would ask that you look at his ideas that I shared and see if they make sense, but read them, which maybe you haven't? Thx for your interest.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Object due to instability. A protected article can't become featured because it is profoundly unwiki -- page protection goes against the core principles of the Wikipedia project, and we can't be featuring articles that are the antithesis of the wiki spirit. In addition, I find the lead highly unsatisfactory because it doesn't state why this issue became such a high-profile event (i.e. the very reason it has an article at all). And I agree that the nominator's father's opinion on an article he appears to have not read is pretty irrelevant. If he thinks it's a worthy FA, he should become a Wikipedian and support on this page. Tuf-Kat 06:27, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, Gordon's father's opinion wasn't on the article's FAC, but on the idea that edit war-ravaged articles shouldn't be featured. Borisblue 06:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"And I agree that the nominator's father's opinion on an article he appears to have not read is pretty irrelevant." Let me repeat it, since you may not have understood my comments above: My father did not comment on the article itself (he has not read it) -contra he commented that there is no problem in featuring an article (in general) if it's of good quality -whether or not there is an "edit war" among the editors; My father is just another person; However, if his idea has merit, I would hope you consider: Who is being judged: The editors -or the article? The name of this page is not "Featured editor candidates" -it is "Featured article candidates" --and the article is fine -very complete and refined in fact -even if we editors get crazy at times.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You have to realise, though that some articles attract more 'crazy' editors than others. And the fact is, if there is frequent warring, this page will have to be protected, have NPOV notices, etc. all of which would affect the article and look bad for Wikipedia. Stability is set in stone as a FA criteria. To get this article featured, you have to resolve that dispute with fuelwagon and get that page protection lifted, and then let the article go for two or three weeks without an edit war. Patience. Borisblue 06:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Stability is set in stone as a FA criteria"Wiki is, by the very definition, unstable, but for a very controversial topic, Schiavo has been surprisingly stable; Edit wars are normal for ALL pages -that does not affect the page -it affects the editors. The page is invariablely protected for a few days and then opened back up, and this will be the case here, barring disaster, so it is certainly stable enough for FA.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments: At least two people (TUF-KAT and Wegian Warrior) have misquoted or misrepresented what I wrote about my father in this talk page, and a third person Bantman was kind enough to admit that he didn't study the what I quoted in regards to the history of the nominations entirely before voting; Since I am not going to get mad at you for disrespecting my father, I would hope you also don't get mad at me for criticizing you for not fully understanding and/or studying the fact.

My point here is not to offend a person by mentioning their name and saying they are a bad person; We all make mistakes and/or get too busy to fully read a page; Contra, my purpose in making this comment here is to point out that people have not studied the basic facts and arguments herein, and thus sometimes make uninformed decisions.

My conclusion is simple: Please just take a little time to read and study the facts; I am trying to study the materials that Carnildo asked me to research --before I comment further, and I would hope my global neighbors would do the same for me here -regardless of how you feel or vote --if you don't mind. Thank you for your concerns.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Misqouted or misrepresented? No, I'm confused what he has to do with this at all. Most wikipedians are sensible enought to realise that what they vote for (or against) is the article itself, not the editors or the edit history of the article. Please don't assume stuff because you gotten emotinaly involved. If the article stabilises, and if the issue with the images is cleared up (which should be easy enought), I'll reconsider my vote. If not.. well, then I won't cahnge it. WegianWarrior 07:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't pretend to know it all about copyright, but if the images were so bad, why have they remained to this day? Also, you did misrepresent what I wrote, but it's no big deal; if you re-read our dialogue, you'll see the nuances, but as to my question on the images... Hmm...? Emotionally involved? Does that invalidate the quality of the page, which has improved since in each sucessive review?--GordonWattsDotCom 07:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The images are not bad, they just need - as pointed out - better rationale for their use. Which is why, incidentaly, I pointed out it should be easy enought to fix.

Your involment don't invalidate the page - but it might make you, how to put it, liable to read things into comments other didn't intent.

As far as the misrepresentation go... see my previous point. Misunderstood, perhaps, and I still can't even see why you thought it nececarry to bring up. Again, most wikipedians are sensible enought to realise that what they vote for (or against) is the article itself, not the guys who wrote it. WegianWarrior 07:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Your points are good; I admit I don't know the fullness of the image use issue, but getting GNU FDL images is easier said than done (harder done than said) -and should only be done if actually needed. I wonder if it is really needed, but if "justification" is all that is needed, you might be able to help fix that -ZScout370 is working on that as well. What do you think should be done? If you can suggest a proposed solution, I investigate doing it.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The very simple explonation is that you need to explain in full on the image-page why you feel that the use of the image in the article is fair use - the links Carnildo gave explains it pretty well. There is even a template sort of thingy at Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. WegianWarrior 07:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

WW, I just looked at all seven images: Four I took myself and released under GNU; The other three have good explanations, two of which were done just now by ZScout270, and the other with a good rationale relating to ist release: Here, you can see for yourself: Terri Schiavo. --GordonWattsDotCom 07:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I've just looked over the three 'non-free' images, and noted the following:

• Image:TerriSchiavo2.jpg Still needs a rationale why it's important to have in the article (just noteing that others have used it isn't explaining why wikipedia uses it)
• Image:Schiavo.jpg Should include _why_ it's important to the article (should be very easy to fix)
• Image:Schiavo catscan.jpg Ditto - why is it important to the article to have it (well, I realise why, but it ought to be written at the imagepage) in the article?

Off course, it could be that my ISP has cached the page and won't show me the latest version properly. At least you seem to understand my concerns over the images and are working to adress them. Now if only something could be done to the issue of (apperant lack of) stability, we might be home and dry. WegianWarrior 08:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly did not misunderstand anything. You are apparently under the impression that anybody should care about your father's opinion -- I'm sure he's a wonderful and very intelligent man and all that, but I have no reason to suspect he knows anything about Wikipedia, encyclopedias, edit warring, featured-article-status or anything else relevant to the subject at hand. Your father thinks a disputed article can be featured... So your father's opinions overrides the opinions of Wikipedians who have spent a lot of time thinking about what the qualities of a great article are? We should all just drop our objections because some dude's dad thinks so? Guess what? I asked my friend, Jeff, and my other friend, Mark, and they both figured an article of disputed neutrality should not be considered "featured". On the other hand, my third friend, Tim, thought it was the stupidest question he ever heard (OTOH, he thinks Wikipedia itself is a stupid idea), and his dog responded by looking at me hungrily. So, do Mark and Jeff beat your dad, or are we to assume that your father's opinions are better-informed than theirs? Of course, if your dad, Mark, Jeff, Tim or Tim's dog were to write out their reasoning somewhere we could see it, such as for example, on a freely-editable page like this one, we could judge for ourselves instead of trusting you and I to adequately inform each other about our respective friends and family's ability to form rational conclusions on this subject. Tuf-Kat 07:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The short answer (I'll stick to that) is that my father did not opine on the article itself -merely the concept of what can and can not be featured -but, yes, I'll agree he knows less about it than you or I --OTOH, let me point out that, since you ask for one: "to write out their reasoning somewhere we could see it, such as for example, on a freely-editable page like this one," let me point out that his opinion is so close to mine that my "reasoning" should represent his as well; Yes, he did say this, but I will write it out -again, my my: The edit war reflects on the editors who are at fault (as yet to be officially determined by a vote or admin analysis), but the article will only be locked for a little bit in all likelihood, and the "wiki" open nature of it will probably be little affected, and the article's fitness is like height or temperature: It is what it is -a state function -the daily tempers of the editors little affects the article, for few sustentative edits happen in relation to the article -it changes little over time: It is stable. Nominate. Vote to Support. Chill.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, your position is that the article is disputed but that this dispute will not amount to any substantive changes. I don't find that at all convincing, and I note that the article's lead still does not adequately explain why Schiavo is important. Tuf-Kat 08:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

"If I understand correctly, your position is that the article is disputed but that this dispute will not amount to any substantive changes." Correct. "I don't find that at all convincing," Time will tell, and probably find me correct. "and I note that the article's lead still does not adequately explain why Schiavo is important." OK, I agree it could use more clarification, but let me tell you why she was an important news item: A woman who had speech troubles might have been able to feel pain but was dehydrated slowly (which has happened to other people, falsely diagnosed as PVS, and who reported MUCH PAIN) -and that the average citizen said to himself - herself "Hmm... what if I can't speak; "Will they do this to me?" LET ME TRANSLATE: It scared the hell out of a lot of people! That's why it was news, he heh. Clarification: I'm not saying that Terri was PVS -I'm not rearguing the case; I'm instead saying that she may have been able to feel pain, and nobody knows because they refused to let her have communication or blink therapy.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• weak objection: there are at least a dozen spots in the article which need clarification. i listed them in Talk:Terri Schiavo a few days ago. i think eventually, the article can meet my standards of quality writing. Kingturtle 09:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

Self-renom, again.

• Round 1
• Round 2

The last two times this has been around, people complained it is too new and it needs to grow moss. Well, I waited over two weeks and no one has touched the page. So I am going to assume it has enough moss on it. Plus, the last time I checked WP:WIAFA, there is 'no time limit for articles having to be on Wikipedia before nomination to FAC. The only time limit for articles I even saw was for WP:DYK. Please judge the article on it's merits, not it's length of time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Object. For the following reasons:

• You install equipment or machinery, you instill values.
• "closely similar" is a tautology.
• "The organization is also called the Belarusian Republic Youth Union" is obvious because the article starts with "The Belarusian Republican Youth Union...is a youth group organized in the Eastern European country of Belarus".
  • Comment, notice the difference between Belarusian Republican Youth Union and Belarusian Republic Youth Union. -- Elisson • Talk 00:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• The group's acronym should be mentioned before it is used in prose.
• "moral values" is an unnecessary red link maybe you could link it to "morality".
• The verb "allowed" in "Lukashenko allowed BRSM" is probably not the best choice.
• "In order to join the BRSM, a young person between the ages of 14 and 16 must have written permission from their parents or legal guardian and must submit a photo." needs to be revised. Firstly, a person between the ages of 14 and 16 is young by definition. The "In order" is also redundant.
• "A person must also pay a fee of 1,400 rubles (0.65 USD) [4], which is a one time fee." instead try "A person must also pay a one-time fee of 1,400 rubles (0.65 USD). [4]".
• "However, if a person choose to remain a member," is grammatically incorrect.
• The "is" is redundant in "and is adjusted".
• "structure, membership" needs a conjunction for example "structure, though membership"

I did not complete the article but please consider removing it from featured article candidates, focusing on the prose and resubmitting it later. You can also request help through Peer Review. Cedars 00:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• While I have gone through and fixed everyone of Elissons objection, I am in the middle of doing yours. As for asking me to remove this from FAC, no, I will not. Peer review is rarely helpful to me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I am done with my grammar check, but I am going to run a spell check now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately the objection still stands. The second sentence of the article reads "the goals of the BRSM is promoting patriotism and instill moral values", the noun "goals" is plural and as such "is" should be "are". You might also like to use "to promote patriotism" and "to instill moral values". Cedars 09:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: While being interesting, and full of information, it don't 'flow' as well as it ought to in my opinion. Perhaps you could get a one or two editors who speak nativly english to look over it and tweek it? WegianWarrior 07:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• I guess my English is not that great, though I have been speaking it since day one. Well, I am going to see if folks on IRC can look at it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

August 2005

Cerebellum

A lot of work was put into this article by Nrets and me. It was sent to peer review and had an excellent reception. It's clean, it's thorough, and I think it will help fill out the number of biology Featured Articles.

• Self-nominate and support. Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I think (or rather hope) that we managed to merge general overviews with more technical details fairly effectively. We also addressed comments/concerns that came up during the peer review. Most of the illustrations were done by me or User:Semiconscious so they can be edited further if anyone has any comments on those. Nrets 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

*It's not there yet; needs some cleaning up, and more importantly, careful references to diagrams in the text to help the non-specialist reader to navigate her way through a lexically complicated text.Tony 07:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I incorporated the changes you suggested on the talk pages as well as made references to the figures in the text. I know the article is a bit technical, but I think that there is enough there to satisfy a general audience, plus a lot more to provide in-depth information to whomever is looking for it. Nrets 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though I still think some terms could be better explained in the text or linked. For example, "Lesions of the cerebellum cause not paralysis but feedback deficits, manifesting as disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning" is a sentence in the lead section. Feedback deficits could be linked to, or even more fully explained. What is defined as "fine movement" and "equilibrium" in this context? --Oldak Quill 10:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've rewritten to intro to make it more clear and accessible. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - The intro section needs expansion, and the random and strange bolding of certain terms needs to be removed. The term "figure" should also be removed from the article as the images should be placed next to where they are first introduced. I would also like to see the images right-aligned so that they don't push text. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've addresses several of your concerns, expanding the first introduction a bit by including some brief history. I've removed the seemingly random bolding of phrases. The term "figure" appears at the request of another user on the talk page in response to the placement as a FAC; the user felt by adding those pointers it would assist the reader. Due to the size and number of images, we can't always place the images next to the text where they are the most relevent. However, I have cleaned up the placement of some of the images. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I've continued and made some edits of my own, but I'd also like to see citing of information in the article as well as more external links. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 23:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've added many more external links that are pretty cool, I think. So much of the stuff in this article is "general" knowledge, so the three non-numbered references given at the bottom cover just about all this material. However I will continue to go through the article and look for less-than-general pieces of information so I may provide references for them. I've added one more reference already. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I've added a few more references. I'm still working on it... Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support—the authors have used their considerable research and teaching experience to produce an authoritative and well written summary of the subject. Tony 01:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've addressed your further concerns on the talk pages. Great work; thanks for your help! Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I've been reading through this article more closely now than in the peer review. I think that there is *great* work here, and that you guys have really done your homework. However, I think the writing quality of this article is still too uneven to represent Wikipedia's best. It's close, but not quite there. All you need is some more copyediting and clarification. What I think needs to be looked at:

:*Introduction: fragmented and not neccesarily the best 5 sentence overview of the cerebellum

• I've rewritten the introduction. I feel my briefcase example gives a very succinct view of what the cerebellum does. Let me know your thoughts. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• General features: Some technical terms thrown around here that are never explained: "perpendicular circuits"? Also, why compare the cerebellum to the optic nerve? I don't see how that analogy makes anything clearer.

• Well, another user removed my briefcase example. Let me know what you think. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've tried to be aware of the jargon used all throughout this article but it's difficult for someone so accustomed to the terminology. I've addressed the one particular instance you've mentioned here, so let me know what you think. If you find any more instances, I will try to address those as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Re: the optic nerve, it was in there when I began my massive re-edits, and I never thought to remove it? :) It just seems as though vision is such a complicated system, so comparing the cerebellum tracts to that system makes it seem all the more remarkable. I can remove it, but I think it gives the casual reader a sense of the enormous responsibility of this structure. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Development and evolution: Try to make this a little more user-friendly. Some of the sentences are very awkward. Also "thisis is one of many of the ironies of the “little brain.”" I don't see what the irony is, and I think that statement is somewhat silly for an anatomy article, especially since none of the other "ironies" are pointed out.

• Tony addressed the awkwardness issues with his awesome editing. The irony issue... I've fixed the wording here, but we discuss many of the other ironies at the end of the article, such as this "motor" structure now proving to be involved in cogntive and language functions, as well as how people who have lost their cerebellum seem to function so well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Anatomy: This section is generally quite good, but I would really like to see a lot more wikification - more links!

• Thanks! I can wikify a lot of the links here, but I haven't becasue they would mostly be redundant (i.e., "motor cortex" was already wikified earlier in the article) or self-referential. Suggestions? Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

These are just things off the top of my head, not the only things that can be fixed. Try to read these sections out loud and see how they flow, and you'll get what I mean. In my opinion, if this stuff is addressed, this is a featured article. I hope you guys tackle other neuroanatomy projects. Interested in brain stem, basal ganglia, or frontal lobe? Mr.Bip 05:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, if you check the talk page, you'll see basal ganglia is my next project! :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Support - A lot of the jargon has been left untouched, but I understand that this comes with the territory. Maybe I'll take a stab at explaining a few terms over the next few weeks. Still, this is quality science writing, folks. Keep up the good work. Mr.Bip 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• For my future projects (most immediately basal ganglia), I will try to keep the jargon to a minimum. Nearly all my experience with this is in relation to colleagues, so writing for a general audience often does not cross my mind. Always write to your audience. Thanks for the help and advice. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - still a bit heavy on the jargon, but I'm assuming thats unavoidable when dealing with a subject like this. Despite that, however, it's resonable easy to read, and very interesting even to a layman like me. Awesome illustrations. WegianWarrior 03:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. See my comment directly above yours regarding the jargon. I'll work on it in this article, and I'll keep it to a minimum in future writings. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. This beautiful effort by Semiconscious and Nrets is fully deserving of Featured status. It is well written, explains unfamiliar technical and scientific concepts clearly, has good diagrams (some drawn by the two editors themselves), and is reasonably well-referenced. The section on cerebellar dysfunction can perhaps be expanded — I particularly expected to see some allusion to the seminal work of Gordon Holmes — but still, one would not expect a treatise on the disorders of the cerebellum in what is a general encyclopedia article; I will see if I can round it out in the next few days (as it stands however, it should not be a reason to deny FA status, IMO). The reference section can do with a little cleaning up — inline references in the text are currently of the Harvard form, and link externally, whereas there is a preference on WP for intext notes that link to references, as I understand it. This is not very difficult, Semiconscious, I could show you how to Scratch that, I think I'll just wander over and patch it up for you. Some technical terms are not defined when they first occur (or linked to an article that defines them). For example, ipsilateral occurs at least twice, but I cannot see an explanation of what it means anywhere (link such terms to this article guys). I'm glad to see reference to some of the work being currently done on the cognitive functions of the cerebellum. However, the concluding sentence of the article is misleading. You might see this in the lower mammals, but in the human, getting relieved of one's cerebellum is not an altogether pleasant experience - the pancerebellar syndrome is not fun, and is conspicuously disabling (although chronic lesions often have muted effects). Would you consider removing or editing it? Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  04:14:18, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

• Thanks Encephalon. The cerebellum is not my "specialty" in as much as I can be said to have a specialty, so I'll have to look into some of the works you've mentioned. The sentence in regards to the pancerebellar lesions was indeed misleading... I'd written it but it didn't come across as I had intended to write it. And as I head over there to rewrite it, I see you've just corrected my error. Thanks. In regards to the anatomical location terms, I tried to cover that with a blanket "link here for help with anatomical terms" link at the top of the page. I'll be sure to follow the format you've offered in the future. The references look really good now, too; I like the separation of the general reference books into a "selected readings" section. You've done this wikipedia thing before, I see. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Really nice effort. I changed 2 headings in hope of clarity; change them back if you think they are less clear. alteripse 16:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind I edited your post to bold your support response. This is for my own clarity so I can parse users' responses as I check this page, to see if I can make any improvements to the article. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to replace the MRI (which I find blurry and difficult to use) with Image:Human brain NIH.jpg (take the picture, highlight the cerebellum, reupload and put it into the article) →Raul654 01:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I took your suggestion and replaced the image. I left the old one as well because: I'm still partial to it, it shows techniques that scientists use to study the cerebellum, and it fills up some white space next to the TOC. Nrets 15:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender

A very good and compherensive article. --Member 16:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Has no picture, a long article, but not worthy of being a featured article IMO. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 23:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  Articles need not have a picture to be featured. That objection is thus invalid and your vague "not worthy" is inactionable... 119 19:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  I'll be more clear. It is mostly a synopsis, very little production content. I don't think it is best to show the world this article as what wikipedia strives for. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 22:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  But when the subject of the article is a television show, there is little reason not to include a screenshot or two. The relaxation of the requirement is intended for articles where an example image would be difficult to obtain or create, even when you take fair use into consideration. slambo 19:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) There are no images. 2) Cite your sources. 3) The lead section is too short for an article of this length; it does not adequately encapsulate the entire article. 4) Too much of the article is devoted to episode synopses while not enough is discussed about the program's development and production. 5) There is some discussion about what influenced this show, but I don't see anything on the show's perception in or influence on modern culture (compare this article to other featured articles about television shows such as Blackadder or Dawson's Creek). slambo 19:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Cannot be both stable and comprehensive. The listing of (vocal) credits should correspond to the list of significant characters, as much as possible. And I do not believe that any article about an animated work can be viewed as satisfactory if it does not identify and discuss the animators at an appropriate length. Monicasdude 23:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

History of South Carolina

This is a bit of an unusual case. This article was promoted previously, but there was controversy. Some people thought it amounted to gaming the system. As a compromise, I said I'd renominate it here. First nom, second nom. →Raul654 17:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Well-written article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Overdependence on only two references (only one of which is a history) -- this verges on being a summary of a single work. Are there no topics in South Carolina's history that would benefit from more than one interpretation? As a sidenote, I find the whole business with the quick renomination rather distasteful, and hope that we can avoid allowing such things to take place in the future. - Bantman 18:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support as previous--it's a well-written and cogent article, though I can see the problems that Bantman has with the low number of references. Meelar (talk) 19:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Was the territory named after the ship that finally made it to the continent or was there some other reason for calling it Carolina? The text isn't really clear on this point. slambo 19:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

  Fixed. It was named after the Latin form of Charles I's name. Toothpaste 20:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks. Now that I've had a chance to read the rest of it, Support. slambo 19:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer more references, but I think this is worthy of being a featured article Tuf-Kat 21:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object- besides the low number of refs, I still stand by my previous objection that the lead section is too long. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Eliminating the last paragraph was certainly a bold move. While the lead is still (IMO) long, it looks better now. Also, the last paragraph that was deleted was a summary of "current" South Carolina, so it may not have been appropriate for the "history" article. However, I still would like to see more refs (along with the appropriate addition of facts and expansion) and some in-line refs would be nice. In addition, the "Recent" section, IMHO, should be trimmed down- we really don't need that much detail about lotteries and college scholarships that are irrelevant to South Carolina's history. Otherwise, I stand by my comment last time that it's a well-written article on its way to FA status. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Still support: I'll be happy to work with Toothpaste or anyone else in addressing the lead issue, as it is long. (Actually, it's not so much long, IMO, as it is sutured. The seams need to be obscured somewhat from its first and second incarnations.) As for the renomination, the author had nothing to do with that. It's purely procedural and done by Raul. I also think that the two references are not the only two sources of information, but they are the sources of information that required a reference, so I wouldn't object to that, myself. N.b. I've not edited the article, that I recall, except once on its first nomination, to do a little copy editing. Geogre 00:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I like it, and it is as FAish as at least half of our FAs. Func 08:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Still support - it's a very good article and definately worthy of FA status in my opinion. However I do agree that it would be even better if other sources were checked, but that doesn't alter my vote nor my high opinion of the article -- Joolz 18:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Phroziac ^(talk) 19:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support.Conditional object: tons of efforts are seen on post-war history, however the amount of photos and images is still inadequate and I wonder if no photos can be put onto the current events section? I'll support if more photos are added with at least one of them in the current events section. (well, as it says, current events, can anybody go and just take a picture?) Deryck C. 12:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC) The amount of pictures have increased and the arrangement of the article is good. I've no more opinions to object this as FA. However, adding more pictures can make this a better FA. Deryck C. 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a picure to the Recent events section. I'm looking for one on desegregation relevant to South Carolina, but there appear to be none on Wikimedia. Toothpaste 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Sorry I didn't see this before, but I agree with Bantman, two sources is just (very) inadequate. In addition there is no citation of any kind to show what material came from what sources, so verification is made much more difficult. - Taxman ^Talk 22:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, maybe object - I agree with Taxman and Bantman on this. I am also assuming that the external links were used as resources. If so, it may be best to place them in the reference section. As for the more recent events, I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that the sources are from news media rather than the listed sources. If so, please note them using inline notations. Pentawing 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the external links as resources. Toothpaste 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, how about the last point I brought up? I need this clarified and resolved before I can change my vote. Pentawing 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the news media as a source, though the sources I used might have. Toothpaste 01:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, what I need to know is the source of the section concerning recent events, since I am currently under the assumption that the listed sources didn't cover the entire thing. Some statistics might warrent inline citations since that would make it more difficult for a vandal to change the numbers and have no one noticing it. Pentawing 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Economic booms and busts, Desegregation, and Recent events come from Siglas, Mike (2003). South Carolina. Emeryville, CA: Avalon Travel Publishing. ISBN 1566915457. Edgar, Walter B. (1998). South Carolina: A History. Columbia, SC: USC Press. ISBN 1570032556 was used for events prior to those, and both were fact-checked against each other. Toothpaste 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, can you then use inline citations for the statistics (especially for the scholarship passage)? Otherwise, I can't support this article without questioning my own judgement. Pentawing 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Better? Toothpaste 00:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Object. The history is not properly balanced: important topics are treated cursorily, and recent events of no great moment are treated at length. In particular, the treatment of nullification and Calhoun are exceptionally superficial. Nullification is a key issue in American political history, and framing the matter as "John C. Calhoun decided . . ." without even a suggestion of Calhoun's importance or the back-history of the issue should be unacceptable. The relative size of the slave population to the white population in the early 1800s should be treated in more depth. The discussion of the Indian Removal Act, requested in an earlier FAC, is too generic, and gives no substantial information about the impact on the state. There is no discussion of desegregation of primary and secondary public schools, which, according to one of the websites referenced in the article, was more contentious than the article indicates. The discussion of recent events is far too long for the relatively minor events actually reported, and should be more comprehensive. The last paragraph, devoted to a lunatic fringe group's self-proclaimed plans, without any reason to believe the plans will bear (bitter) fruit, takes up more space than "the state's mishandling of the Hurricane Floyd evacuation in 1999," an apparently substantial matter mentioned only in passing, or the Abbeville education lawsuit, an entirely ignored matter despite its great importance. In terms of details, I think that the article's description of a British military strategy in the American Revolution as a plan to land troops in (Spanish) Florida and march north to corner George Washington is . . . more than a little curious. The discussion of the Fort Sumter battle is longer and more detailed than the rest of the discussion of the Civil War and its impact on the state. I don't believe the problems with this article can be resolved in the FAC time frame, but require extensive attention.Monicasdude 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support thats stronge than Monicasdude's strong object. What an immature vote. However I haven't seen him support any state history articles FAC. I think its fine with things like the Fort Sumter being longer as that was probably the biggest part of SC in the Civil War. There were no really important battles there, were there? It should be the most important part. Anyways if I were to address every concern I'd probably make a three paragraph comment which would get so long no one would bother reading it... So I'll just sign now... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to let this comment speak for itself, but I came across a profile of an novelist recently which makes the relevant point far better than I would have: "Kate [Wilhelm] wrote about her first [writers'] workshop experience: she turned in an ambitious story and had it shredded. The man sitting next to her turned in some trivial fluff and got gentle, kid-glove critiques. After the workshop drubbing, Kate went down to the nearby stream and threw rocks at the water as hard as she could, until she realized her fellow workshoppers treated her story firmly because they respected her and felt the story had potential." Monicasdude 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support! Great article. Long lead sections are good. Andre (talk) 18:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, while Monicasdude's comments seem a bit vociferous, the article does seem poorly balanced across time. For instance: one sentence for "Throughout the Colonial Period, the Carolinas participated in many wars against the Spanish and the Native Americans, particularly the Yamassee[2] and Cherokee tribes" and a full paragraph on disputes over video gambling. This problem exists because the first three periods of the history have been broken out to substantial subarticles while the later periods have not; breaking out a couple more subarticles for the later periods and culling some of the ephemera would fix this issue (and also bring the article closer to an ideal size). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

There is a bit of backstory here, spread out over several talk pages. Several members (not all, and not the self-nominator of the article) of an FAC-promoting wikiproject have made strong and disparaging replies to previous comments I made describing the faults of articles in general terms and calling for more extensive details. However, providing details produces an equally hostile response, as shown here. The underlying problem, as I see, comes from the relatively low standards the project applies to substantive FAC criteria, and the unwillingness of some members of the project to accept in practice the FAC guideline that proponents of a nomination are "expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." The tone of such responses is quite unfortunate. Monicasdude 23:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the dispute over FAC criteria should carry dispute to this article. Deryck C. 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support - well written and informative article. I was able to read this and learn things about a subject which, previously, I had no knowledge of. That, to my mind, is an indicator of what articles should be. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Extended content

Support comprehensive. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC) I'm going to stand by my original nomination of support. See the second nom (I think it is) for my reasons; they still stand true today. --JB Adder | Talk 05:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Object, the section on Desegregation is totally inadequate and misleading. To suggest that desegregation in South Carolina went smoothly, even in comparison to "hot spots" like Mississippi and Alabama, ignores the incredible efforts that South Carolina's white elites put in to their attempts to undermine the Supreme Court's order to end seperate but equal facilities--they were prepared to spend 75 million dollars "equalizing" facilities rather than desegregate and African Americans who led the movement in the State lost their jobs, were assaluted, had their homes destroyed and forced to flee SC for their lives. There is also no mention of Briggs v. Elliot, the case from Clarendon County that began the legal process that culminated in Brown v Board or of the fact that the majority of South Carolina's schools effectively remain segregated today. --Sjappleford 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Strong support. Well written article. Per the opinions I stated in the previous nominations. Deryck C. 08:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Object. First off, I still voice concerns about the references, since there are only 6 for the entire 43 kb article, and for that matter there are only 6 inline citations through the entire article. Second off, it is comprehensive, but by the point left by Monicasdude, the article is slightly too comprehensive in the wrong areas. A lot of that falls in the Recent Events section, which goes into a 5 paragraph summary of Hodges governorship, but stops abruptly upon reaching 2002. An addition, images and lead section should both be succint. And finally, the reference subsection under the Desegration part has to be fixed. AndyZ 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See discussion of FAC archive errors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Belgium

This is more or less a selfnom. But the article existed before and many participated in particular for copyediting. It grew to 41K a bit larger than the 40K Australia and South Africa FA but much less than the 53K of People's Republic of China. The length of this article is due to the difficulty to obtain a NPOV on Belgium which is a controversial country submitted to strong separatist trends. The balance must be always sought between the different communities and ethnic groups -- whose very existence is controversial to some extend. This article had already been featured. You can find the reasons why at

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium/archive1

It was later on removed. You can find the reasons why at

Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Belgium/archive1

It was reedited to reply to the critics and submitted to peer review. The comments are listed at

Wikipedia:Peer_review/Belgium

I think all critics have been taken into account.

• support of course --Vb 13:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The history section is too long and should be trimmed. The culture section is a collection of too-short paragraphs that should be combined into a couple longer paragraphs. Is there a reason the Main article: Economy of Belgium summary style isn't used here? The references also don't really look very satisfactory, especially without inline citations. Do we need the non-English names for all the provinces in this article? It's ugly, distracting and not very useful, and should be kept at Communities, regions and provinces of Belgium. Tuf-Kat 16:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • History: I think an alternative to the present version is the quite good article on Belgium at the US dpt of State [23]. One could easily wikify this but I really think wikipedia can do much better and bring more links and infos than that. I think the present version is a summary of the history of Belgium which is just a bit more expanded than this. Making it shorter would make it less good.
  • Culture: I personnaly think it is easier to read like it is. Do you think it would be nicer if litterature and cinema were merged. I think it would be ugly.
  • Economy: could you be more precise? Why don't you like the style used?
  • Provinces: Your last point is easy. I agree with you. It is addressed now--147.231.28.83 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object -- my comments in PR on Demographics, History and Culture aren't addressed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your comments have been addressed in part. Could you precise a bit more what in your opinion is still to be done.--147.231.28.83 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I said to summarise the history. Reasons of wars etc and lists shouldn't be mentioned here. Also the subheadings under the culture section are out of the ordinary. Yes, it may help a reader but it is not recommended and not used in any other country article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK. I'll try to improve that.--147.231.28.83 07:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• VERY strong oppose - I recently listed this article to be removed as a featured article, which passed with little argument. This article has not been improved in any way, and still lacks competely when compared to other featured country articles. The images are awful, the history is terrible, the government section is mostly lists. It actually takes a little gaul to list this article so soon on FAC after being removed with so few changes. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What you say is not true. The article has been thoroughly re-edited since the removal of the FA status. Look at its history. Some example: the history and culture section have been utterly rewritten. References have been added and all numbers appearing can be checked from the inline references. Much has been done in the style with numerous copyedit and the NPOV has been really ameliorated. How can you say the figures are awfull! It is maybe a matter of taste but I believe your comment is strongly biased. --147.231.28.83 07:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Call it strongly biased if you'd like, however, I pretty much wrote South Africa and was a large contributer to Hong Kong, both two country featured articles. I know what it takes to get there, and Belgium isn't anywhere close. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK It is not necessary to quarrel. All people here seem to be your opinion so, since it was my first trial, I think I'll try later on. Cheers. --147.231.28.83 08:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal from the Order of Canada

Self-renom. Ok, I figured it should try to get this going again. Just like with my Appointment article, some of the sections will be a bit wordy. I will go through that and fix it. Plus, only two photos are used and both are under CanadaCopyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Previous FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Removal from the Order of Canada/Attempt 1. WegianWarrior 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Support, however I feel that the images (Image:Order Canada seal.png and Image:Ahenakew 1976.jpg) should be given a fair use rationale. Otehr than that, well written, well referened. WegianWarrior 07:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. I mainly said that those are the most free images we can use in the article or even find online. I cannot find the seal image anywhere else except for the Canada Gazette. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Object Why isn't this integrated with the Appointment to the Order of Canada? Tony 10:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I've had a look at the 'Appointment' and 'Removal' articles, and still think that they should be merged. I read the opening paragraph of 'Removal' and made two grammatical corrections; please get someone to go through the whole article and correct the prose. I'm sorry, I can't bear to do it, because I think these awards are so much poppycock, and should be trashed in every country. In view of my bias, I suppose that it's (note your incorrect usage below, Zscout) only fair that I withdraw my objection. Tony 00:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can fix the grammar, since that is something I can fix. But, as I mentioned before, this article was put up for merging and that request was denied. The main Order of Canada article is 30 kb long, which is getting close to being "too large" under Wikipedia rules. If I sounded harsh or unreasonable, I am sorry, but I respectfully ask if either you or Raul can strike out the objection by using <s> and </s>. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Both articles are forks of Order of Canada, which is also has the FA status. The Appointment article discusses the whole process of getting into the Order and examples of certain people having unique examples, like Rush, Wayne Gretzky, and Gordon Lightfoot. In this article, two people got kicked out of the Order and my main point with this article is how it can be done, what a person has to do in order to be kicked out and short sectionson the two folks who got removed from the Order. But, if you mean why both articles were nominated at different times, I was told I cannot flood FAC's and both articles are completely different in their own respects. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the article was put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Removal_from_the_Order_of_Canada, suggesting it should be merged to Order of Canada, but the VFD failed since I made the article into it's current state. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I also left a note at Tony's talk page: [24]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Trinity test

I find this article very well written and meticulously cited. While it is a bit on the short side, there are exemplary pictures that add substantially to the content of the article. Moreover, this was a significant historical event and should be given due notice. Eszett 12:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. No "after" pictures of ground zero.
  2. No mention is made of instrumentation used to record the test.
  3. You really should work a link to rainout into the last paragraph of the "preparing the test" section.
  4. No mention is made of the actual yield.
  5. No mention is made of the window-breaking effects of the explosion.
  6. No mention is made of the reaction of area residents to the explosion.
  7. No mention is made of the fallout effects of the test (ruined photographic plates in New York, for example).

  --Carnildo 07:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Re #1, The article already had a aerial photo from 1945, and a photo of the site today. I've added a 1945 photo of two men standing in the crater.--Bcrowell 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the lead section needs to be lengthened and better written. --Oldak Quill 11:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object
  1. This sentence needs to be rewritten: "For the actual test, the plutonium-core nuclear weapon, nicknamed the gadget, was hoisted on the top of a 20-metre steel tower for detonation — the height would give a better indication of what the weapon would be like when dropped from an airplane, as detonation in the air would maximize the amount of energy applied directly to the target (as it expanded in a spherical shape), and would kick up the least nuclear fallout." I didn't rewrite it myself, because I wasn't sure what it was saying. Maybe the thought would be clearer if it was broken up into several short sentences.
  2. I agree with Oldak that the lead should be longer.
  3. I agree with Carnildo about the need for more discussion of the instrumentation (even at a basic level: photography, seismometers, ...?) I'm guessing that the lack of information about the public reaction was because there was not much public reaction: the announcement came after the bombs were dropped on Japan, which meant the war was over, and people were a lot more likely to be interested in that than in the fact that the bombs had previously been tested. But anyhow, this should be made more clear in the article, and from the discussion on the article's talk page, it looks like that's going to require more research.

Carnildo's points 5, and 7 seem to hint that he has relevant information, so Carnildo, could you point us to the information? Re point 3, I assume there was no rainout, since the test was done in a desert, so I don't think the link would be relevant. Re point 7, I don't think it's physically plausible that this would have happened; this may be an urban folk tale.

This is a great article that's marred by only a few flaws, and I'd be happy to change my vote to support if the issues about the lead and the instrumentation were fixed.--Bcrowell 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The source was a book I read a few years ago called "The Day the Sun Rose Twice". I don't have access to it anymore -- those are just some of the things I remember from it. --Carnildo 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Pan American World Airways

This article, about a legendary American airline, has gone through peer review twice. I have attempted to address every concern that had been brought up. Is there anything else that is needed or is this article indeed worthy of FA? Pentawing 02:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe just a little more emphasis on the importance of the Lockerbie bombings. Did the airline's sales suffer? Have they been involved in the court process? I don't know, but I'm asking as this is probably the most famous terror attack on a plane besides the 9/11 attacks. Harro5 04:01, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I made a notation about Pan Am being a target of terrorists. As for the other questions, the article did implicitly say that the airline's sales suffered as fewer travel agents booked flights with Pan Am. I recall reading somewhere that there was a lawsuit, but I can't find any legitimate sources to back that up at the moment. Pentawing 06:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, now I found a source concerning the lawsuit and noted it. Is there anything more that is needed? Pentawing 07:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, accurate, and reads well. PRueda29 15:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Turku

This is pretty much a self-nomination. This article about the oldest city in Finland has been through peer review, and I've tried to address all the issues raised there. I think it should by now be of featured article standard. Comments? - ulayiti (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Weak support -- I'd be happy to fully support if the article is properly copyedited by another user. Some sentences do seem a bit odd. (no offence meant to Ulayiti, but it will be a little hard for him to spot, as he is the primary author). =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Object at the moment. 1) The lead section is small. It needs to be expanded. 2) Incorrect use of subheadings. You've used a single ===subheading=== under a ==heading==. I suggest you promote the subheading to a heading, or merge the subheading contents under the heading. 3) The economy, media and culture sections should be expanded to twice its current length 4) What reference do you have for those figures in the =demographics= section? 5) height above sea level (47m?), breakup of religions is absent. I'll support once you take care of this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I've expanded the lead section, as well as the economy and media sections, now. I've also merged some of the sections with subheadings. The demographics are from Turun kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja (the final item in the references list). The breakup of religions is not measured in Finland. I haven't been able to find a figure for height above sea level (the city centre is very close to sea level since it's on the coast). - ulayiti (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

**It looks better now; but I would still like to know from where you've sourced the statistics on a) Language breakup on people b) per capita income, unemployment rate etc. in the economy section and c) a source which states that the Turun Sanomat has 70% of the readership. Use {{inote}} to format references as inline.
I've also noticed that the page has some more free images from wikimedia commons:, which can (and should) be included here. (PS. At this moment, the official site does not open.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Object on a few small issues that should be easy to address. (1) The recent history is pretty weak, did WWII have any impact on the city? (2) Are there any images with appropriate licences that could go in the later section of the article?--nixie 07:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've included some more images from commons now, as well as putting in some {{inote}} references (as requested by User:Nichalp). I'll look up some recent history in the library tomorrow (the Internet isn't exactly being helpful). - ulayiti (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Recent history proved quite hard to find, since most books written on the city's history only cover the Middle Ages (and maybe up to 1800), but I've now included something there. All the objections raised should have been met now. - ulayiti (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The additions look good, the article could still use a good copy edit.--nixie 12:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland

Partial self-nom. I am quite proud of this - a very comprehensive and NPOV take on a fairly controversial subjects. Has been through a Peer Review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I think this is fundamentally a strong article, but there are a couple of items I'd like to see refined before the article is promoted to FA status:

1. evolution of Nazi thought on management of the ghettos: Christopher Browning's The Origins of the Final Solution argues that there were distinct schools of thought on the ghettos before the Endlösung became policy, economic exploitation vs. elimination by neglect and therefore attrition
2. some reference to the Auschwitz trial and the identification of the victims in the Polish politics of the time
3. some history of how Poland has treated the sites at Auschwitz (including the archive and research center there) and the remains of Operation Reinhardt camps, as these were on my understanding always public institutions

I'd also point out that the numbers of Righteous is skewed by the fact that the Danes, who had the greatest success of any occupied country with preventing the deportation of their Jewish population (this, of course, also had a great deal to do with geography), generally only accepted collective recognition. The remark about the number of Righteous accordingly seems insufficient given the difficulties of establishing a basis for comparison. Buffyg 23:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately our resident specialist in this area, User:Goodoldpolonius2, is away until the end of this month. If you can be bold and improve this yourself, I'd appreciate it - this is not my area of expertise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I can address the issues from Browning on the ghettos. Don't know if I'd be too bold in addressing the others. I will get to this in the next few days. Buffyg 23:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Tnx. Don't be afraid of being to bold - I am sure we can reach a consensus in talk, if there are any problems. We did manage to reach quite a few consensuses here before, I am sure this would not be different. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Ghetto Uprising Warsaw2.jpg appears to be under a license of "no commercial use". This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
  2. The image Image:Kielcepogrom.jpg is tagged as both "fair use" and "public domain". This needs to be straightened out.

  --Carnildo 06:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • None of them is essential. I guess there is no choice but to remove them - although I will try asking for permission to use them under GDFL licence in the meantime. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, is the vote over already? What a shame, this should have been able to pass with a few changes. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

I am nominating this article as a featured article. It is well-written and packed full of factual, verified information. 66.32.97.69 21:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. Lead section is too long, and there are no references. JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. See its talk page - many people believe it may be NPOV. No references section either. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object As stated above: 1) the lead is too long. 2) Cite your sources. 3) There are too many single sentence paragraphs and a few single paragraph sections. 4) The writing seems too POV against the organization. slambo 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Must object. For starters, Image:WestboroBaptistChurch.jpg has no copyright information, the other images (while having copyright information) ought to be tagged properly, rampant POV and weasel words all over. I do realise that this is a subject that is hard to be neutral about, but I'm also sure it can be done better than it is at present. WegianWarrior 06:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Writing style is not up to par here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Aside from the irreparable NPOV problems, there's the erratic spelling. Monicasdude 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This topic matter is given space and detail far out of proportion to its actual significance, which I believe is a violation of NPOV. MrVoluntarist 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, trolling. The article has been nominated for deletion by the same IP who nominated it here, who there describes it as "far too long, has little to no references, mostly opinion, negative point of view, bad spelling, poor grammar". Most amusing, can it be removed now, please, Raul654? Bishonen | talk 00:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm removing this waste of time from the list now. Bishonen | talk 08:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I retroactively concur →Raul654 19:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Belarus

Self-nom. Just another Belarusian article that I worked on and sent through Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- acceptable now Object at the moment. The matter does not flow well. I would like to know about the present flag meaning, but I have to read a lot of the history before coming to it. The history of the flag is also fragmented. Once I finish reading =Use of the flag since 1991= , I would like to know why the flag was changed; but instead, I have to scroll through section after section to come to that information. Also, having information in brackets in the lead is odd. Information presented in brackets digress from the subject, whereas the lead should be clear and continous. Also, what is the meaning of the colours, are they the same as the 1951 flag, and what material is the flag made of? =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I am going to rewrite everything you ask, I have no clue what flags in Belarus are made out of. While I do have two 1995 Belarusian flags made in my possesion, I have no clue what material they are made out of. However, if I take a guess, it could be a cheap silk, maybe rayon, maybe cotton, maybe something else. I fixed the 1991 heading and made it to read 1995. I will try to fix the brackets and I added the meaning of the colors. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Just a comment, because I don't know a lot about this, but as I understand it the main question surrounding the two flags is that of nationalism and by extension the fascist association of the old flag. So the two flags have distinctly different lineages, you might say, with one (the current) representing continuity from the Soviet era and the other representing a return to the symbolism of the Civil War and WWII nationalist/fascist periods. Obviously this has deep political implications and represents a major political divide in Belarus. My point is I'm not sure this article gets at that issue sharply enough, having read through it, although it does deal with it somewhat. But it is well-written and fairly comprehensive. Everyking 08:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite right, I too was thinking about the same thing after I logged off. =Nichalp «Talk»=

I tried to make the article dicuss the political issues the main focus of the article, but if yall allow me, I can make a fork to dicuss the main political issues of the flag. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident

Well-researched, well-written, NPOV article about a relatively little-known, but important subject. ——Preost ^talk contribs 12:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• no Article still seems to be evolving, not in stable state. Gzuckier 15:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Article still not stable, and regularly subjected to POVing by partisans. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Jayjg , this article should have undergone a peer review before coming here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• object a) some key elements are not sufficiently described. For example, the congressional enquiries are only covered from the critical point of view, some kind of "NPOV description" of at least the key ones is needed. b) there are a number of crucial documents referenced with direct links only. Given how volatile this subject is likely to be, proper references including author/date/summary/key points used etc. are needed. This applies particularly to the transcripts and interviews which are used in ways which aren't fully obvious from the text. Some form of footnoting system, e.g. footnotes or invisible references would help considerably Mozzerati 21:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Mild object. Need more sources and info, such as more details on this tantalizing item: "Captain William L. McGonagle, the USS Liberty's commander, received the highest U.S. medal, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his actions during the incident. However, his medal is the only CMH not to be awarded by the U.S. President in a formal event." Why wasn't it presented in a formal event? If the editor addresses the concerns listed here, I will support. --Alabamaboy 01:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object for the reasons above. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

DualDisc

This is a self-nomination. I'm nominating this article because I feel that myself as well as the others who have contributed to it have made this article an example of the style and concisiveness that every Wikipedia article should strive for. DualDisc is a new and exciting technology and will probably prove to be an interesting read for many Wikipedia readers. Please feel free to leave comments. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 03:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object The ASCII image needs to be replaced with a real image, I think. Additionally, it feels like it might not be entirely comprehensive, although I'm not really conversant with the subject. Have you tried a peer review? Fieari 04:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks to User:SPUI, we have an image to replace the ASCII art. --K1vsr (talk) 18:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Good image, I like it, but the article still seems a little short. Here are some specific things I think could concievably be addressed:
      • Who designed it?
      • You mention it was put out as a marketing test, but by who?
      • Who conducted the test itself?
      • The technical details are a little skimpy... the crit section describes how there were design considerations with space and such. That would go well in the Tech section, in prose form instead of list format. This will require reworking the crit section somewhat, obviously.
      • Manufacturing warnings. WHAT warnings have they issued? What's wrong with using DualDisks in those systems? How catastrophic are those warnings? Will it damage a machine, or just not work?
      • The article in general feels a little short, and like there's more to be said. When these points are addressed, there might still be information to be added that I haven't thought of yet. Obviously, an ephemeral statement like "needs more" isn't actionable, but when these points have been addressed, hopefully what more it needs will be more obvious.
        • All these points have now been addressed. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 15:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a good start, but needs a bit more work for FA status. Fieari 01:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Except the last one, which is admittably vague. I'm not sure what this article is lacking now, but it doesn't feel up to the same quality as our other FAs, mostly because I still have this nagging feeling that there's more to be said. I just can't put my finger on what though. I'm changing my object to a Neutral though, until I can actually name more things that can be improved. I'm definitely happy with the improvements made so far though. Fieari 05:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - it is almost totally lacking an introduction. →Raul654 06:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I expanded the introduction quite a bit. If there's more you think it should have, please let me know. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 13:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Introduction looks good now, but it could use some inline references. For example, when I saw that sentence about the possible patent infringement, I expected a link to click to get more information. →Raul654 18:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have now added an inline reference for that section as well as a list under the references section. --K1vsr (talk) 19:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• K1vsr asked me to read over this. I'm going to vote neutral for now - it seems good but slightly disorganized. I'll come back to this in a few days and if I haven't figured out why I feel that way I'll probably change to support. --SPUI (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I have a few problems with this article. But my chief concerns are:
  • The comparison with hybrid Super Audio CDs is not detailed enough - details of this are important because such discs are potentially a major competitor. Specifically a technical comparison would be appreciated. The way I see it these two disc types are two approaches to the same technical problem - how to provide enhanced audio content on a disc that is backward-compatible with traditional CD players. In this way a comprehensive discussion of the technology should offer a technical comparison of the two technologies (though obviously more detailed discussions of Super Audio CDs can be left to that article).
  • The article should explain how spherical aberration may affect playback on slot-loading systems and why deeper pits help get around this.
  • The article needs to include typical sampling rates for the DVD audio content and should also mention that traditional CD encoding is 16-bit stereo LPCM at 44.1 kHz for comparison.
  • It does not reference the patents concerned (link).
  • The article links to the Super Audio CD article through a redirect and hyphenates the title against common usage.
  • The manufacturer warnings are not cited.
  • The apparent downside that disc can have no label and thus are difficult to distinguish between outside of their packaging is not discussed
  • Dual-sided DVDs (DVD-10, DVD-14 and DVD-18) that seem an obvious precursor to this idea are not discussed.

Cedars 11:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• All points have been addressed. Thanks for your comments. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 00:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the work. I have reviewed the article and crossed-out the points I am satisified were addressed. I still believe there needs to be more discussion of Super Audio CDs and a discussion of how spherical aberration relates to problems with DualDiscs. Cedars 04:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK I made all the further changes that you requested. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 19:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Good work on the changes again, however I'm still not satisfied with the explaination of hybrid Super Audio CDs. They work because the wavelength of the laser in audio CD players is longer than that of the high density players. As a result the laser of audio CD players passes through the high density layer but is reflected by the reflective CD underlay. You can find out more about the process on page seven of the whitepaper. At a minimum this information should be added to the article. Other comparisons including those on market acceptance and the availability of players would be welcome. Cedars 10:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I did some further re-working of that section. Let me know if you still think it needs something else. I left out any mention of market share between the two simply because there don't seem to be any hard statistics yet on SACD sales vs. DualDisc since it's still a relatively young technology. There are plenty of sales figures about SACD vs. DVD-Audio discs, but that's not relevant to DualDisc. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 16:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Good work! I am now satisfied with the technical content of the article. I will let you know if I think of any more improvements. Cedars 02:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• object (small) to improve the style I used Wikipedia:Footnote3/numlink2note.pl to convert external numbered links to Wikipedia:Footnote3 style references, however, in the process I discovered several broken links for which I couldn't get bibliographic information. These should be replaced with appropriate references which are available. Incidentally, this shows why direct external links are a bad idea. If there was a proper reference, I could probably have fixed some of those links for you myself. Mozzerati 19:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the formatting change. It looks great. I updated the links to point to new references and updated titles, etc. accordingly. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 13:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I updated the references and improved their formatting. Cedars 01:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

This is one of the best written biography articles. Conforms to NPoV and is based on solid fact. Brings out the major points and summarises the not so major ones. Has lots of interesting info.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Self nom. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now - it would be nic with more inline citations of historicaly important information, and the section 'Role as wartime Prime Minister' has a tag on it requesting expansion. Fix that, and I'm likely to support. WegianWarrior 12:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you mind specifying this objection a bit? Just "more inline citations" is difficult to amend. I assume that you by now have read my take on the question of footnotes as well. Peter ^Isotalo 03:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, there is no inline citations at all in the article - thus making it hard for me to verify the information without reading thru all the sources listed under referneces. May I suggest the system of {{ref|<name>}} and {{note|<name>}} outlined at Wikipedia:Footnote3. I've been using it in articles I've written with good effect. Use of inline citations are an aid to verifiability, which is imortant for Wikipedia. WegianWarrior 09:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Winstonchurchilltimemagazine.jpg needs a fair use rationale. The {{TIME}} tag only covers use in an article describing that issue.
  2. The image Image:Chrost.jpg needs source information and a fair use rationale. It's a particularly famous photograph, so fair use can easily be justified. I think the original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia, [25], has information you can use to track down the source.
  3. The image Image:Church5155.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  4. The image Image:Ac.eisenhower2.jpg is claimed under fair use. It isn't essential to the article, and should probably be removed.
  5. The image Image:ChurchillFuneralProcession.jpg needs a fair use rational. Alternatively, would it be possible to replace it with an image that doesn't have a watermark scrawled across the middle?
• Also, the "trivia" section should probably be eliminated, with the information from it integrated into the rest of the article. --Carnildo 19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• yes, miscellany section needs merging into main body; "churchill as historian" needs subheadings; and "role as wartime PM" could be expanded. Image issues also need fixing. On the TIME image - {{TIME}} indicates use "to illustrate the publication of the issue in question", so the magazine issue should also be mentioned in the text. Quite close to FA but no cigar just yet. Rd232 23:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. Fails to adequately describe Churchill's role in post WWI Anglo-Irish negotiations; implication that his role was pro forma treaty signatory is misleading. Monicasdude 16:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- the trivia should be integrated within the text. I see no reason why we should have Churchill's cabinet members etc. here, move it to another page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• This article is tagged with {{expansion}}, which is utterly unacceptable on a featured article. Either the tag needs to come out, the section be expanded, or both. →Raul654 22:39, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

I hereby nominate this article for Featured Article status. This article clearly explains Canada's constitutional monarchy: How it started and how it works. Monarchy in Canada is a subject that many people are unfamiliar with. For example, many, if not most, people don't correctly understand the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom. This article really has the has the potential to be a great main page article. That's all I have to say about that! --Mb1000 02:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg, Image:Queencanada.jpg have no source or copyright information.
  2. The image Image:HM-tablet.jpg has no copyright information.

  --Carnildo 07:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I think that this is an excellent article and well deserving of featured article status, but the copyrights of those three images definitely need to be addressed. Once that is addressed, I will support. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 17:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The images Image:Queen canada throne.jpg & Image:HM-tablet.jpg have been tagged as {CanadaCopyright} and {promophoto} respectivley. For the third image Image:Queencanada.jpg I'm am requesting information from the person who uploaded it. If no information is found on this image, it could just be removed from the article. --Mb1000 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It is a good article, but still needs some work. It lacks a references section, which is required for a FA. The formatting also needs some work. The article over uses bullet points. Wikipedia articles should be prose not lists and the mass of bolding in the first paragraph is ugly. The "Royal visits" section needs more content than a single link, there certainly needs to be some content on the major royal visits in this article, perhaps in the history section. The point counterpoint arrangement of the "support and opposition" is also not ideal. It would be much better to merge the two sections and go by issue. - SimonP 01:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Object - Should undergo a Peer Review first. -maclean25 01:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object - I agree with SimonP's reasoning. The article contains interesting facts but should be rewritten in a more encyclopedia-like style. Mwalcoff 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Education in the United States

I have worked a lot on this article (self-nomination) and I feel its time to bring it here. It has an excellent reference section and sources to back up figures, and it has seen peer review thoroughly (see the talk page for two lists of issues which were corrected). As far as I know, this is pretty close to perfect and as comprehensive as it can be. Of course, I would still appreciate suggestion.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object: The article contains some boring lists in the level/grade section that should be worked into prose. The article also has several major style errors like links in section titles. Scott Ritchie 00:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the one instance of a link in the section title. As to the list (which I'm not happy with but seems community consensus keeps in place), isn't "Kindergarten consists of..." pretty much just as boring? Never mind, I changed it up some. I think all of the relevent info was already in the article, I just added a summary on Junior, Sophomore, etc. designations, what do you think? And to what other major style errors do you refer?--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Deltonkelloghs.jpg is claimed as "fair use". Since there is no particular reason to use that specific image in the article, it should be replaced with one under a free license.
  2. The image Image:Bayloruniv patneff.jpg is claimed as "public domain". It really should have the source listed so that it can be verified.
  3. The image Image:Harvard05commencement.jpg is of unclear copyright status. The copyright status needs to be clarified, or it needs to be replaced by an image under a free license.
  4. There's no mention of homeschooling.

  --Carnildo 07:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

How about now?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• The source website for Image:Bayloruniv patneff.jpg has a very nice copyright statement at the bottom: "Copyright © Baylor® University". There's no evidence that the statement does not apply to the image in question.
• The coverage of homeschooling is still extremely inadequate.

--Carnildo 06:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Homeschooling is not important and is not a major part of the education system. It doesn't deserve expansive explanation. And really what would I say?--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Homeschooling accounts for somewhere between 2% and 5% of all primary and secondary education in the United States, and is a very complex subject. It deserves something more than the current slightly-POV brief paragraph. --Carnildo 23:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object Except for the section comparing private and public schools, the article is written with an underlying assumption that all students are public-school students. There are multiple places where statements are made that imply or state that certain things appply to al students, when in fact they do not necessarily apply to non-public school students. For example, the article reads "Under the No Child Left Behind Act, all American states must test their students statewide to ensure that they are achieving the desired level of minimum education." The No child left behind act does not apply to private school or home-school students. The amount of supervision each state exercises over private schools and home-school students varies widely, this should be discussed. Home-schooling rates more than a brief mention. It would be nice to see some mention of the (albeit rare) arrangement of Middle School (6-8 grade), Mid-High School (9-10 groade) and Senior High School (11-12). There should be some mention of the large role played by extracurricular activities, especially sports. Dsmdgold 23:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed your concerns. I added a paragraph for homeschooling and a section for extracurricular activities. However, as the Census Bureau points out that less than 5% of students are homeschooled, I don't think it deserves much more discussion within the article than the paragraph. Public schooling is at 85%, after all.naryathegreat | (talk) 01:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please read Homeschooling and reconsider your paragraph, especially the discusion of motivation for homeschooling. The statement "Children educated at home are not required to meet any public standards (i.e., standardized testing), and their parents are not evaluated by the state." is quite simply not true in the majority of states. I have removed it. Some discusion of the amount of oversight states excercise over private schools, and homeschools is still needed. Good write up of extra-curricular activites. An additional concern, the paragraph on sex education is distinctly POV. Dsmdgold 04:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Object: I think this is an excellent introduction to the American educational system. However, no article on a topic of such breadth is going to meet everyone's demands. For my part, here are a few ways I think the article should be improved.

1. I think your separation of K-12 education into K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 is too rigid. True, that's the most common setup in my experience, but I have seen all kinds of schemes (from a district that goes K-2, 3-4, 5-7, 8-12 to a rural district that's K-5, 6-12).
2. Calling alcohol a "destructive substance" is POV. It is potentially destructive.
3. I have never a heard of a state that probihits people from leaving school until they are 18. I don't doubt that such states exist, but how many are there?
4. I believe the U.S. is unique in that high-school and college students do not work toward passing an exam (except in AP classes). In Europe, generally, the entire point of taking secondary-level classes is to pass an exam, such as the British GCSE. The non-existence of national exams should be mentioned with some prominance, as should be the use of coursework grading as the usual method of judging student performance.

Alabama has a statewide high-school graduation exam, passing which is a prerequisite to graduation. Funnily enough, it's only been about six years since the level of this exam was raised to an eleventh-grade equivalency. Previously, the material was at an eighth-grade level. Oh, isn't the world a funny place? Anville 19:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't think most states consider counties to be "municipalities," so you should use the term "local government" instead in the community-college discussion.
2. I think you should better clarify the fact that unlike in many other countries, religious schools do not receive direct government funding for general education.
3. You should consider putting the term "so-called" before "school choice," since it is one of those political euphemisms.
4. The phrase, "Today, sex education in the United States is patchy at best and nonexistent at worst," while probably true, is too POV. There are a lot of good sex-ed teachers out there.
5. Not "every person pays property taxes." Only owners of real property do.
6. You should consider mentioning that in some states, school taxes are subject to referenda, which increases the difficulty in raising funds. This is unique to the U.S.
7. I think the following sentence is misleading: "Some states have a statewide school system, while others delegate power to county, city or township level school boards." I've never heard of a statewide school system. Perhaps every state has a state school board, but none of them actually provides the education. Note that in many states, school-district boundaries do not necessarily reflect local-government boundaries. Mwalcoff 07:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hawaii operates a unified public school system. Judge Magney 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. Broadly speaking, I agree with the comments raised above. Articles with mild but pervasive POV, which I think applies here, can be a pain to fix. It's nice that the article has a "References" section, but we definitely need more footnotes or parenthetical citations in the text which tell which reference was used for a particular piece. Anville 19:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Strong object. Too many of the discussions of substantive matters are superficial and inadequate. The suggestion that "circus families" represent a paradigm for home schooling is ridiculous (and empirically unfounded). I doubt that "most" high and middle schools actually have programs for "gifted" students, and have seen many reports that such programs have been steadily eroded by fiscal constraints. The section on "special needs" students is unsalvageably misguided, and shows no familiarity with applicable laws and practices. The comments regarding the relative quality of public and private colleges are unsourced, and show little more than the author's dubious opinion. The history section is particularly vacant, missing, among other seminal events, the Land Ordinance passed by the Continental Congress. Having said all this, it is essential, for fairness to the author/editor, that the standard of quality applied to featured article candidates involving American governmental functions and institutions has been erratic at best, and in general astonishingly lax; too many resemble high school term papers turned in to undemanding instructors. This article is no worse than several existing "featured articles." The standard needs to raised. Judge Magney 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What people like you have to realize is that articles can't grow indefinitely. Eventually, you have to say "well 45k is long enough" and that's all that's necessary. What do you mean the special needs section is unsalvageable? And most high schools have honors courses, if you think otherwise, you are misguided. I think you are obviously prejudiced, why would quality in American FAs be particularly lax?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I said the special needs section was unsalvageably bad because, inter alia, it does not include any reference to the governing federal legislation, manifests absolute ignorance of such fundamental notions as mainstreaming, least restrictive environment, and IEP, and shows no familiarity with the many sorts of identified disabilities that now trigger special education requirements. I also note that the article has been sanitized with regard to racial disparities in educational opportunities, and that the "history" section includes no references to racial segregation in American education, of the Brown decision and its aftermath. The sections of the text concerning governance and funding show not a trace of recognizing the distinction between independent and dependent school districts (the former have independent taxing authority; the latter must have their budget levels approved by other local authorities with general governmental powers). This is an exceptionally bad article, a poorly informed selection of peculiarly chosen comments that never achieves genuine coherence. In that regard, its brevity may be its greatest virtue. Judge Magney 03:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Suburbs of Johannesburg

Self-nom. I have worked extremely hard on this article and had great assistance from several other people. After User:NicholasTurnbull finished helping me slave away with the map, I feel comfortable nominating this article for FAC. It is an extremely comprehensive look at the suburbs of the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, itself already a featured article. I have tried to look at both the social and economic importance of all the different areas of the city. Previous nomination can be seen here. Thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, well-illustrated, and well-referenced, and I think it gives a good level of detail for an overview article. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons as Mindspillage. Nice job!--Bcrowell 23:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons 82.172.247.104 12:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC) --- Oops, forgot to log in Djadek 12:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No significant discussion of governance or governmental structures. I don't understand why there are separate articles on the city, its "regions," and its "suburbs." Seem to be 3 articles on the same general subject. If the details would overwhelm a single article, should be broken down into individual articles on individual regions or suburbs, not 3 different overviews. Monicasdude 13:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the significant discussion lives at the appropriate place, Government of Johannesburg. And no, the city, its regions, and its suburbs are completely independent entities. Its like asking why there should be an aritlce on New York City, on the boroughs of New York, and the different neighbourhoods of New York. They're related, but completely independent of each other so far as articles on Wikipedia are concerned. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 16:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But there aren't separate articles on New York City, boroughs of NYC, and neighborhoods of NYC. There may be heirarchies of articles like NYC > Manhattan > Greenwich Village. But Johannesburg isn't part of a heirarchy; it's just part of a set of overlapping overviews. And if the suburbs and regions are as distinct as you say, there should be articles on Govt of suburbs of JBrg and Govt of regions of Jburg. The article you cite doesn't explain how subdivisions of Jbrg are governed; it just says the subdivisions have "operational responsiblity for some govtal functions. Monicasdude 17:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is nothing there, its just for the fact that it hasn't yet been written. I don't see these articles as overlapping in any way. And there are articles on the government of Regions of Johannesburg, see Regions of Johannesburg. That articles discusses the government structure of the regions. The reason there is no articles on the government of the suburbs is because there is none, although a few suburbs such as the City Centre have elected to create Ambassadors to the region that are neither police officers nor tourist officials. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sesame Street

Hi all, this is a self-nom, though dozens have contributed to and revised the article. Anyway, it's a notable topic, pretty definitive article, and of international significance thanks to syndication in 100+ countries at some point or another, and many local spin-off productions.

• All of the images have been properly tagged, so far as I'm aware of. I've avoided publicity photos and other fair use images, in preference of screenshots. Sadly, there's very few non-merchandise images that could truely be free, as the set is closed to the public.
• The article has been under the scrutiny of peer review three times amd FAC twice (29 Sep 2004, 26 Oct 2004), all of which should either be found on the article's talk page, or in the recent peer review's template.
• If more references/notes are needed, please state which areas are of most urgency. I've not bothered with extraneous references, as very little of the content can be disputed.
• Finally, the article doesn't fit with the Wikiproject Television template, but I created that template a few years ago, just to fill in some spare time, and forgot it existed. I'll be eventually revising the Wikiproject to better suit what's really the best format for an article.

Fire away! -- user:zanimum (PS, my goal, even if I don't get the article featured in this round, is to have the article as the November 8th featured article on the front page, the same goal I had for the first two nominations.

• Object. It's nice to see that all the images are properly tagged, but since every last one of them is "fair use", the image description pages need to include an explanation as to why use on the Sesame Street article constitutes fair use. See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for information on what should be included, and Sunset Boulevard (film) for a particularly good example. --Carnildo 21:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object. Most of my points were cleared up in the recent peer review, but I'd just like to see all the pics spread out better in the article. They seem to bunch up in sections, with all text in others. I feel its a better look if they are distributed evenly. Thanks. Harro5 22:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I like the article and the only thing that concerns me about the text is that there is very little discussion of the educational element of the program. Considering that it's such a cultural icon, I'd like to know more about how it influenced future children's programming, as well as some expansion on the educational side of it. ie what do its supporters consider it does very well, what does its detractors consider it does very poorly. Also the comments about educational value need to be taken out of the section covering urban legends etc, as that trivializes it. With regards to the images, they're great, but 15 is too many for any article. They really need to be culled as they make the page look very busy &ndash perhaps appropriately for a Sesame Street article :-) - but images, especially fair use images should be used sparingly. Rossrs 05:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Agree with Rossrs, more discussion of the educational element. The mearchandising section is a little short as well and has many red linksAlso need some debate on the shows current health drive (eg the Cookie Monster now advocates cookies as an "occasional food", political correctness gone bananas in my opinion). Zerbey 02:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: It's obvious that a lot of research and a lot of effort has gone into this article, and I'd be pleased to see it as a Featured Article. Sesame Street is an icon in the educational television industry. Would it not be worthwhile to expand on the content in "The Muppets" and reorganize it so that it does not appear so cluttered and disorganized? In an encyclopedic article of such prominence? RogerK 01:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Just a note, the new content on Elmo's controversy, I didn't write that, and it's got valid content, but not written completely POV. It'll be worked on...

---

Martin Guerre

• support. I fell on this article by random. It was very instructive to me. --131.220.68.177 10:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reference, no photos, no inline references. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Can unregistered users vote? Phoenix2 15:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, they can. They can also nominate IIRC. But if all the above by Jerry is true, it's not going to get through anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I have converted the "Further reading" section to "References". I feel confident doing this because any modern English speaker's knowledge of this case almost certainly is derived from the Davis book. The Finlay and Davis articles are obviously the sources for the discusion of the two historians views. I doubt there is a contemporary picture of Martin Guerre, but I will attempt to get the Davis book to see if it has a public domain image that can be used. I see no need for inline references. Dsmdgold 23:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Panama Canal

Self nomination (though most edits under former username: Raskolnikov The Penguin). This article was a fac afew weeks ago, referred to peer review, and sent through peer review. Now all coyright issues are worked out, and it is a comprehensive and up to date article on a very important waterway. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 17:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• It is disturbing how this worked; I saw your edit about the lake (just adding a word, it was about 30 minutes ago), I took a browse through the article and thought, "Hey, ya know, this article might just be FAC worthy. I wonder if it is" but I didn't nominate it right then because I'm the touch of death for FAC noms. ;) And lo and behold, here it is. Support. --Golbez 17:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• The old FAC nom is now archived here. The Peer Review is here. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• object a) there are some sources given, but it's very difficult to guess which reference to look up important facts in. Some form of inline references would really help. b) the problems stated(all the ships are to big to fit and there are too many ships going through) seem contradictory. Something should clear this up (maybe something like "although currently business may seem healthy, XXXX has predicted a sudden irrecoverable collapse in 10 years due to inadequate width and the arrival of competition") Mozzerati 19:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I did some editing on it and added some source links around the problems ections, and also cleared up the seemingly contradictory problems. But can you elaborate on what you mean by inline references. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 22:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Support-- I enjoyed reading the article, and I found no real reason why it shouldn't be Featured. Although the above issues due need to be worked out I am quite sure that it can be done before this entry reaches the bottom of the page. TomStar81 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object but has lots of potential. -- First of all, great article, however, there were some issues I noticed which could be addressed, then I'll of course reconsider. I want more information on the pricing scheme for the toll, it should be easy to calculate (so people know in advance). I found a few holes in your History section, especially concerning Nicaragua over Panama. See this whole site, lots of great info[26]. What is Panamax? The term should be defined explicitly. I'd like a good map of the overall layout of the canal, showing the S etc (the pictures linked from S-shap could probably be cropped and put in the main article). Image:Panama Canal MK1888 kl.png is absurdly small. Otherwise, great work! -- Rmrfstar 23:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I added some info on the toll: price by TEU, and what a TEU is. That site proved very useful and was used to elaborate upon the history, also changed Image:Panama Canal MK1888 kl.png from 200px to 300 px, and added link to Panamax, which I just realized we had an article on. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Weak object, much better, but I think it can still be filled out more. I'd like to see a section on influence/impact etc. theres a great section on that in the link I gave you before. -- Rmrfstar 12:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now – 1) the table of contents are lopsided and badly structured. 2) Don't use capital letters in the headings unless a proper noun. 3) Inline refs are not formatted correctly. See Australia for the style. 4) There seems to be two spellings to Gatún. Which is correct? =Nichalp «Talk»=
  • I linked the references to the article, changed the table of comments and headings, and fixed Gatun spellings. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï
    • I've cleaned up the headings and units, but the inline references are still incorrectly formatted. I also feel the grammar needs to be tidied up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - would like to support but I think there are a few flaws at the moment. A good map is essential, I think, and I am not sure I like the false colour computer-generated looking NASA image at the top - would suggest this one [27] as a possible alternative general canal view. It is not correct to say that before the canal, rounding the Horn was the quickest way to get from New York to San Francisco - Cornelius Vanderbilt set up the Accessory Transit Company during the California gold rush to take passengers by ship to Nicaragua, up the Rio San Juan, across Lake Nicaragua and then from the west coast by ship again up to California. A good proof read could be useful, I spotted several spelling errors. And particularly in the 'Current issues' section I would prefer to see less chunks of text taken from elsewhere and more paraphrasing instead. Worldtraveller 15:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I had to link Accessory Transit Company - please write the article: it sounds fascinating! -- ALoan (Talk) 16:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the around the horn remark, paraphrased much of the info in the current issues section (except for quotes released by the canal authority), and added the sattelite pic. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 17:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Inadequate discussion of the significance of the canal, both commercial and military, when compared with alternative means of transport. There's barely a paragraph of anything between 1914 and 1999 — this is the topic that would most help in fleshing out this gap. --Michael Snow 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I apologize for not presenting the problem section clearly. Next time I make a change to an article, I will edit it more thoroughly. crazysword20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Denis Law

Self-nom (I've written around 90% of it) about one of British football (soccer)'s most notable players. It's been peer reviewed and I think it meets all the criteria (I could rename Notes to References if anyone objects but other FAs haven't). It would really be improved with a picture, but with Law's career having started in the mid-fifties non-copyrighted pictures of him are not easy to find. I might be able to get some screenshots or a book cover image as fair use though - comments about whether this would be good or bad are welcome.

If you have any objections, please detail them as clearly as you can and I'll try and sort them out while the article's still on FAC, and leave you a message once it's done. CTOAGN 12:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object Really needs pictures tbh, European Footballer Of The Year template should be at bottom, Notes are too small, no reference section. All should be easily fixable tho. (unsigned comment by PopUpPirate 18:25, August 11, 2005)

Support now, great work --PopUpPirate 11:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed the Notes section. I've seen the page on a few different systems and strongly prefer the smaller text, but it did look a bit too small with some browser/screen setting combinations. I've increased it from 75 to 85 percent of normal size – does that look better? I really don't like long References sections at full size – they just seem to get in the way.

With regard to the EFOTY template, I think the most logical place for it is at the end of the article text and before the reference sections, as most readers won't scroll down to the bottom and will just miss it. Do you strongly disagree?

I'll see what I can do about images. I'll be able to scan in a book cover at the very least, although whether I can remove the text around the image seems to be a grey area. I don't think I can use the link that you left on my user page but I'll look into it. CTOAGN 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Life's too short to strongly disagree :D , but personally I'd put it right at the bottom, thats generally where navigation goes, just above categories. The image I sent you I personally reckon would be fine, it's deffo promo? Any probs with removing text around an image, email it us and I'll give it a crack on photoshop! --PopUpPirate 23:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

While using, say, a cover of his autobiography (or some other book) to illustrate is probably kosher under fair use, I don't think fair use allows retouching it to remove the text... you'd have to leave it as is. IANA copyright lawyer, though. Qwghlm 10:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded some screenshots under fair use. I'll have a go at improving the quality of them tomorrow. I think that's everything now. CTOAGN 01:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional object Apart from the mention of the '74 World Cup there isn't much on his international career (debut etc.), which is odd given he's Scotland's joint-top goalscorer. If you add some on that, and sort out the fixable minor problems outlined above (picture excepted), I think it's good to go. Qwghlm 12:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

His international career was less notable than you'd think, as Scotland didn't qualify for the World Cup from '62-'70, so it's not all that interesting. His latest autobiography just goes on about how he was disappointed not to qualify for each one. I've put the date of his debut in though. All the points raised by Pop Up Pirate have been dealt with. CTOAGN 01:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

International careers can still be interesting even if you don't qualify for a World Cup... in particular I'd like to see a reference to Scotland's 3-2 defeat of England in 1967, which Law scored in (what were his recollections? He must have been pleased with that). Qwghlm 09:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I added some stuff on the match you mentioned and the 9–3 defeat he played in, and mentioned that the match gave him more satisfaction than winning the league. There isn't much on his emotions during the match in his book - there's stuff on how he felt the Scots treated beating England as being more important than qualifying for tournaments but nothing that would really belong in an encyclopedia article. CTOAGN 15:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, that looks good enough to me - change my vote to Support. Qwghlm 18:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. All the images are under a license of "fair use". Since Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, the use of fair use images should be kept to a minimum. Image:Denis Law Manchester City.JPG and Image:Denis Law FA Cup Final 1963.JPG show pretty much the same thing, so one of them should be removed. Whichever two images remain need to have a fair use rationale included; see Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what should be included, and the image description pages at Sunset Boulevard (film) for a good example of how to do so. Also, if possible, try contacting Denis Law for an image under GFDL or a Creative Commons license. --Carnildo 06:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, in the first picture Law is playing for Manchester City (in a blue shirt), while in the second he is playing for Manchester United (in red). I think they're sufficiently different to both warrant inclusion. Qwghlm 09:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Iran

All Iran-related articles have been subject to a WikiProject for quite a while. I think it is time for all the hard work to pay off. Therefore, I am nominating this article. Newguineafan 15:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Object--no references section; the "Culture" section is little more than a list of links. Meelar (talk) 18:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Meelar. In addition, are all those links to Iranian gov't sites really appropriate? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Azadidown.jpg is tagged as being a copyvio.
  2. The image Image:Iranmoney.jpg is claimed as "public domain". I find this unlikely: does Iran have no legal protection on images of its money?
  3. The image Image:Afrigha.jpg is claimed as "fair use". There's nothing particularly special about this image, so I don't think this claim is acceptable -- it's easy enough to create a replacement.
  4. The image Image:Tehran stcok exchange external view.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  5. The image Image:Iranparliament.jpg is claimed as "public domain". In view of the copyright questions surrounding other images in this article, I'd like some evidence to back up this claim.

  --Carnildo 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object, the lead should expanded somewhat; the politics section is overly long; the order of sections should be closer to that suggested by WikiProject Countries; a topics box like that in India] or Australia should be added to clean up many of the stray see alsos and lists; the external links are ridiculous and should be reduced; there should be inline references for statistics; the culture section is too short and should mention media in Iran. --nixie 02:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object – the article is incomplete. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not an actionable objection: it doesn't give any details as to what is needed to get the article up to featured quality. --Carnildo 06:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough: 1) Politics section is too long. 2) Images are not presented properly. 4) The provinces section creates a horizontal scrollbar at 800x600. The image should be reduced. 5) culture is incomplete. 6) the lead needs to be expanded. 7) external links should be pruned to topics which relate to Iran as a whole. 8) Is there a need for so many categories? 9) Inline references not formatted correctly. (see the discussion in Chennai below) 10) The history of iran template should not be there in this page. 11) no references 12) incorrect use of hyphens; use &ndash; instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Proceed. When was the last time an article about Iran was featured? Probably never.--Nightryder84 04:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by proceed? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Proceed means I do not object.--Nightryder84 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I Do not object.--Zereshk 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I give two thumbs up! Why shouldn't we do this? I do agree that the links to the government departments are a little much and should have their own page. But that is no reason! THIS IS A FEATURED ARTICLE!!--Aytakin 01:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

John III of Portugal

Partial self-nomination. Underwent several improvements and Copyedit has been done. I believe it's now a fine article.--Gameiro 00:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object as before, only more so. The images Image:Order of Aviz.gif, Image:Lisbon 16thcentury.jpg, Image:Portuguese flag 1495.gif, Image:Macau oldmap.jpg, Image:Portuguese elm.jpg have no copyright information. --Carnildo 06:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Copyedit note. Come back after improvement drive is done with its work. Has potential, but there are too many short sections and tiny paras. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Much of the article seems to be written in present tense. Everyking 05:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Its looking very good now, I suggest everyone reconsider after the BioCOTW period is over. . Falphin 02:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Queen's Guard Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Trafalgar A very good article on the book that goes beyond simple plot summary. (Cf. Cry, the Beloved Country XP) There are some sections that are virutal duplicates of ones that appear earlier in the article. I'm hoping to go through and edit those out over the next few days as soon as I get the time. --User:Jenmoa 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support --User:Jenmoa 05:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Please do that BEFORE nominating, then. No reason to nominate it when it's not yet ready. Scott Ritchie 09:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object please refer to peer review, as there are still several items that need to be fixed. The lead is much to short, there are no references, and also no images. - SimonP 16:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; Related reading section has movies in. Retitle section as something more appropriate? -shuri 09:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I am going to object on not just the basis of whats wrong in the article, but also the fact that you stated it in the summary. The article, however is good, and after a decent peer review will be worthy of becoming a featured article. Please give it a peer review, and then renominate it for support here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

Self-nom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. On a topic that is unfamiliar to 99.9 % of Wikipedia's reader- and editorship, it is not possible to know that it is NPOV just a week after the article's creation. I strongly suggest that you postpone the nomination for at least a month so that the article can mature, especially since it is on a potentially contentious subject. So far, it has only been edited by the nominator. If you can get a few editors from be:Галоўная старонка and ru:Заглавная страница that are familiar with the organization, that would ease my fears. As to clearly-addressable objections; the article does not go into how the organization is structured at all. Where is it based, is it divided into chapters? How is its leadership selected / elected? How large is it? How much funding does it have? Is it free to be a member? Are there other organizations with similar goals that enjoy the same benefits? — David Remahl 05:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As for other editors working on it, I do not think it is even possible. I, pretty much, will probably be the only person working on the article. Also, the reason why I placed it here is that the past few times I went to peer review, I was not getting anything on my articles because of the obscurity of them all. As for your objections (which, you do not need to apologize at all and you were not questing my objectivity, I tried to make it as NPOV as possible), they are valid. Yes, they do have branches and I will list the ones that are listed on the BRSM website. As for the actual scructure, I will also find that too. I do need to list the number of BRSM members, though the last figures I got were from 2003. While the BRSM is funded by the Belarusian Government, I do not have the exact number of what they got. I do not know about memembership details, but I can also find that out. I found a list of other such organizations similiar to the BRSM, but only the BRSM is supported by the government. The organization is based in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:Lukashenko 2005.jpg is claimed under fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible. If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 06:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The current copyright of the image is © 2001-2005 Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus. The source of the image is at http://president.gov.by/ii/gallery/mrsh/2.jpg. I used this photo since President Lukashenko is wearing a ribbon, which is part of the "For Belarus!" campaign by the BRSM to promote patriotism inside Belarus. This also shows Lukashenko's support of the BRSM, a youth group created and sponsored by Lukashenko and his government. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The law cited in the "public domain" tag does not appear to apply to the image. It is not a formal document, a state symbol, or a work of folk art. --Carnildo 04:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will revert back to the fair use tag and claim. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object – I too feel that it should be allowed to "gather some moss" by wikipedians. A fresh article on a relatively obscure and potentially POV topic should be left alone for about two months before nomination. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • But, as I said above, the only person who would touch this article is me. While if yall want to check the POV out and see if the article is NPOV, I have sources from the US Government, Belarus Embassy in the US, President Lukashenko, the UN and the IWPR. While I still need to fix some things the first user brought up, and explain my fair use claims, I will try to add more content if I can find anything. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is, Wikipedia's strength comes from many eyes. If an article is not exposed to many eyes, and I fully believe you when you say it won't, then it is not "Wikipedia's best work". — David Remahl 07:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • And, the reason why it will not have many eyes because not everyone focuses on Belarusian topics. That was why I took it straight here, since I would have received nothing on peer review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Zscout, I've been in your shoes. I'd nominated Gangtok in January when it was absolutely brand new and I was the sole author. Despite having references etc., it failed then on the same count "too fresh", but I renominated it in May?June and it succeeded. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok. At least when I run this a second time through, I should have most of my ducks in a row. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I understand. It will probably get useful feedback here. But if people on the English Wikipedia don't focus on Belarusian topics, then they shouldn't be featured articles. Unfortunate, possibly even self-fulfilling, but true. — David Remahl 07:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
          • • I know before working on this article that there is a bias against Belarusian articles. The only FA article that deals with a Belarusian topic is the Hero of Belarus title, which I also started and built up. I got some attention, but mainly people inserting POV against Lukashenko. While, yes it is true that he has been declared a dictator by our government and by free Europe, the article was about the medal itself and its honorees. However, this article is about a youth group started and run by Lukashenko's government. While there could be more of a POV issue there, I tried to balance it out the best I could. I will follow Nichalp's suggestion and just give it a few months to let it gross moss. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object: no category, and too few ilinks (for example, the lead should link terms like youth group, moral values, propaganda, Lukashenko and several others. I also think that an article should be given a little more time, and go to peer review before FAC. Nonetheless, this is a good article, and I will support after the above objections are adressed. I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud Zscout for doing excellent job on Bielarus-related articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I added two categories, added some more ilinks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• comment currently the references are just URLs. It really helps to keep author/date/title/summary information, and preferably to say what has been taken from each. The reason is that it is possible for the contents at the end of your URL to disappear or change; if you keep biblographic information it's much easier to find the same material again later. Mozzerati 06:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will fix that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal from the Order of Canada

Self nom: another article fork from the Featured Article Order of Canada. However, as a word of caution: WP:WIAFA requirement 5 allows for FA's not to have pictures. However, because of this, I know it will not be Featured on the front page and I can easily accept that fact, mainly since the main article is featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've added the Seal to this page. -- user:zanimum
  • Cool thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support It looks good, however I have a few problems, first I think a phrase needs to be bold in the introduction. Second I think the whole section about David Ahenakew became confusing. The last, very long paragraph needs to be seperated into at least two seperate paragraphs. And this sentence: "Ahenakew could be using the same tatic Eagleson used..." is speculative, who is speculating this? The Notes section should be renamed to accurately state the information it contains. Also where does ref 17 in Notes lead? --MechBrowman 17:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Ref 17 is supposed to be going to note 13, but I need to fix the templates. Second, I removed the sentece you discussed and I split the paragraph. I will probably go over the paragraph and write the whole thing. Also, what should be bolded in the lead section? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think either "honour revoked" or "formal removal process" would work --MechBrowman 01:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I bolded "formal removal process." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good, but Notes section still needs to be renamed into something more appropriate, something that describes the content of that section. Ex: Other ways to leave --MechBrowman 13:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can fix that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. -- user:zanimum

Appointment to the Order of Canada

Self-renom. It failed before due to either lack or participation or because of my choice of photos. [28] Well, sadly, most of the photos I have found are either CanadaCopyright or an even more restricting license. Some, I can only find on Government websites. Well, let's see how this works out, again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Object. not well-written. This reads like the stuff I write in the morning before coffee kicks in. Example: "The other exception, which is not listed in the Order's Constitution, is that Canadians who are either politicians or judges serving in either the federal government or any provincial or territorial government. The Order is also not permitted to be awarded posthumously." Monicasdude 13:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reworded it as follows: "Canadian politicians and judges that currently hold office are also not eligible to be appointed to the Order. Membership the Order cannot be awarded posthumously." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

When an editor objects to an article, cites a general problem, and provides a specific example, fixing the specific example does not fix the general problem. I don't know how else to respond prudently. Monicasdude 17:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

While saying a general rewrite is a good idea, some people cite examples of confusing text. I will try to rewrite the whole thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the article, what do you think? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made examples of the kind of changes I think the text needs in the first part of the article. I think the writing needs to be more compact and more direct. Monicasdude 21:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you exposed a weakness of mine: I tend to make things wordy. Some of the material I removed are already present on the main Order of Canada article. I still have one more section to go, but other than it being too wordy, is there any problem you see? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't buy the idea that it took 13 years to find a date when Wayne Gretzky was free, but other than that . . . Probably a link to the Order's constitution, which is referred to, if it's online. (note: if/when my last concerns are met, I'll just withdraw the objection; I don't think it's appropriate to actively support without any real knowledge of the subject matter). Monicasdude 00:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Source of the Gretzky tidbit: http://slam.canoe.ca/Gretzky/orderofcanada.html. I have a link to the Order's Constitution at my references section (twice, actually). I just made it more noticable. As for other objections, just let me know what else you wish to be fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [29].

---

Stonewall riots

Nominator(s): Moni3, Dank55

previous FAC

What fun this article was to write. Never will you see so colorful a description of surreal rioting. I had a ball working on it, and I hope you enjoy it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 70 (Christopher Park..) is lacking a last access date.
• Same for current ref 140 (Dunlap...) and the National Historic landmark nomination ref.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Got 'em. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - for a well-written, excellently researched and engaging account. I can't see any issues with the images or sources but there are a few disambiguation links that need fixing—according to the checker. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a disambig for "hustler" that could mean any and all three of those listed in the disambiguation page. Similarly for "lighter fluid" I don't know enough chemistry to decide which one of those is most accurate, and my sources didn't specify. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Graham, but I've got questions about some of them. "They were the first instances in American history when gays and lesbians publicly protested against a government-sponsored system that persecuted homosexuals": well, I wouldn't say that, exactly. The 1965 Philadephia protest was public, for instance; it just wasn't something the media were interested in.

"During the last years of the 1960s, however, many radical political organizations": at the time "radical" was an even more charged word than it is now, and some will complain that calling the entire African American Civil Rights Movement "radical" is POV. I think that's probably why Moni put it the way she did.

"Police raids were routine on gay bars": I'd prefer "Police raids on gay bars were routine"

"Tensions ... tightened": tensions tightened? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a note in some of the edit summaries to revert any unhelpful suggestions. I didn't like "tensions exploded" perhaps it would be better to find another word for tensions? And, would it be a good idea to mention the the earlier protests? With regard to "radical" is it a non-neutral word? Graham Colm ^Talk 08:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying "erupted"; possibly trite, but the other ways I would usually try to fix this aren't available here. Spiro Agnew's favorite phrase was "radical liberals", and "radical" has been POV most of the time it's been used in American politics. I reverted. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: I did some copyediting for this article, and found it to be both well-written and exhaustively researched. In other words, it's a Moni3 piece par excellence. Well done! Scartol • Tok 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I don't think I have read an article with better referencing etc. Nice layout too. Dincher (talk)`

Comments I've just copyedited this again. It's very close. I left a bunch of hidden comments about some questions I had. Maralia (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• On your blind edits: in an article about how it was necessary for gay people to be secret and there were no places to go, I think it's worth pointing out that organizations like the DOB and Mattachine could only meet in private homes.

• Hm. Not to split hairs, but do you realize that we haven't explicitly said that about either Mattachine or DOB? Nothing is said in this paragraph about where Mattachine met, and about DOB, we only said that the women met in their living rooms to form it. Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Both Mattachine and the DOB formed in private homes, and met there for the first years of their existences. Let me think of how to incorporate that. If you're sharper than I am right now, Dan, feel free to add it. I'm drawing a spectacular blank. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can add a ref that covers it, Intimate Matters by D'Emilio and Freedman, later tonight. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I take that back, this might not be everything we need. The ref is "D'emilio, John, and Freedman, Estelle B (1988). Intimate Matters, Harper & Row. ISBN 0060158557". The quote from page 320 is: "During the fifties, these groups struggled to exist, as they operated with scanty resources, no models for how to proceed, and the ever-present threat of police harrassment. But they did survive, establishing chapters in several cities..." That's something but it doesn't talk about where they met. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Naw, man. I have the sources (Mattachine: Marucs, p. 24-25 and DOB: Gallo, Marcia (2006). Different Daughters: A History of the Daughters of Bilitis and the rise of the Lesbian Rights Movement, Seal Press. ISBN 1580052525 p. 1-5) but after my little drinking binge there, maybe I can take another look at integrating the fact that both groups formed in private homes. --Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A'ight. I expanded at the pleasure of Maralia. --Moni3 (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be the dirtiest thing anyone has said to me all week. What have you been drinking? Maralia (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish cream. But my statement there was a play on presidential appointees who "Serve at the pleasure of the president". If you took it dirty, that's all you, guttertramp. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Elephant Walk Bar in San Francisco was famous in the mid 1970s, in part, for being the first gay bar to have plate glass windows out front. The plywood at the Stonewall was seen as necessary (as reported by my sources) to keep the police either from seeing into the bar from the street, or coming through the windows during a raid. While raids were routine almost down to procedural in the bar, the police didn't necessarily respect the property of bars they were raiding. Having to chop through plywood was a deterrent.

• Okay. Could we change "to prevent the police from raiding the bar" to "to deter police from raiding the bar"? Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what is causing the confusion in Rejection of gay subculture. If I can explain it here, I will. Just let me know.

• The section that confused me was this:

The Stonewall riots marked such a significant turning point that many aspects of gay and lesbian subculture developed before Stonewall were denied and forcefully ignored. Historian Martin Duberman writes, "The decades preceding Stonewall ... continue to be regarded by most gays and lesbians as some vast neolithic wasteland". In particular was bar culture, or reflections of secrecy and shame that were developed out of necessity.

The last sentence refers to something prior ("in particular was"), but it's not clear what. Additionally, "reflections of" doesn't make any sense to me. Is the gist of this bit (excluding the quote) something like "The Stonewall riots marked such a significant turning point that many aspects of prior gay and lesbian subculture, such as the bar culture and decades of shame and secrecy, were forcefully ignored and even denied"? I'm not asking you to adopt that phrasing - only trying to understand your intent so I can better explain my confusion. Maralia (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you nailed it, Maralia. Done! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Everything else in a blind edit I will be changing here in a moment. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Here are some comments:

• Why is "undersecretary of state" in the first section not capitalized? I believe this is a proper title. And, who was the Undersecretary of State at the time, who made the statement. Since you are providing a quote, I suggest being more specific here.
• "The case eventually went to the Supreme Court, which in 1958 ruled that One, Inc. could mail its materials through the U.S. Postal Service." - might it be better to link "the case" or just "case" to the article on that case, rather than liking "went to the Supreme Court"? and the "Supreme Court" could link to the Supreme Court of the United States.
• "Tthe social repression of the 1950s " - typo there.
• There are some New York Times citations in the article. Are these articles available online? if so, they should be linked.
• The sources appear all reliable.

Not specifically related to this article, but I noticed the 1969 photo of Stonewall Inn was submitted by the "Contact us" OTRS system. Do you know if the New York Public Library submitted it? are they submitting others? or did the photographer submit it? Having this image in the article adds a lot, and it would be good to get others for other articles. --Aude (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Undersecretary capitalized, I think. Maybe I need Dank55's help on that. I don't know. I mean, an office should not be capitalized unless it's a title: The senator from Illinois said... vs. Senator Barack Obama said... similar with "president". Ack! Dan!
  • You're right on the money with "president" and "senator" Moni3, but anything would look slightly awkward here ... undersecretary of State? undersecretary of state? I'd go with Undersecretary of State X, where X is their last name. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'll get the guy's name in my source, which is at home right now. Give me 8 hours or so.
• If only because I wanted the Supreme Court case linked to a larger word than "case". Because "case" linked by itself seems like overlinking. If you want it changed, I can do that, though.
• I blame the Tt on Maralia's very helpful copyedit *cough* but it's changed.
• Some of the NYT stories are pay-per-view. Do you still want them linked?
• I contacted the New York Public Library (Tom Lisanti in the digital collections department) for this article and for the images in Barbara Gittings. I wrote a very humble and almost apologetic email asking for permission to use the images. For Gittings' article, he allowed only two from the Kay Lahusen/Barbara Gittings collection. But he seemed a lot more agreeable to use the Diana Davies image of the Stonewall Inn. So be nice if you contact him. I, however, submitted the actual image to OTRS. Image:Stonewall Inn 1969.jpg I actually uploaded to Wiki, attached it to the permissions given by the NYPL, but an OTRS volunteer also uploaded it to Commons. Li'l bit o' confusion there, but I sent them the image, which is what I think you were asking.
• Thanks for the review, Aude! --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - With the changes, the article looks good. It's well-written, solidly sourced, etc. Also, thanks for the answer regarding the NYPL. I have seen material from Library of Congress and other such sources appear on Flickr, so was hoping the NYPL photos were part of some project (that I was unaware of) to submit content to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, it's good to see they were willing to help out in this case. --Aude (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the OTRS aspect, Moni3 forwarded us the email with the photo attached, and since I couldn't find it on Wikipedia or Commons anywhere, I uploaded it myself. I probably shouldn't have put the source as the Contact us page, but I like to advertise that wherever possible. :) howcheng {chat} 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Cat

In the past this article has had some edit wars, likely because everyone wants a picture of their cat somewhere on Wikipedia, but those have been resolved. This article is very detailed, covers every aspect, goes into the history of cats, and has plenty of inline citations and references. Toothpaste 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral a good resource and an interesting read but the tone in some areas are not encyclopedic. Instances: "Virtually all...", "cats are very clean", "Indoor cats will also benefit from", "Cats enjoy many plants", "Cats are said to be 'the perfect carnivores'" Who said it? A reference needed. The diet, social and hygiene sections can do with some tweaking. Will support only after changes are made. Q: Does cats urine glow in the dark? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed the parts your first two quote reference, but I didn't write it, and I don't have reference material, so I can't say who said it. Having a cat, I could say that cat urine doesn't glow in the dark, if you're willing to accept my original research as an answer. Thanks for the commentary. Toothpaste 10:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) I'm still not happy with the "perfect carnivores" claim. See WP:AWT. From what I've seen on Animal Planet there are many animals who can also dispute this claim. 2) "It should be cleaned daily and changed often (depending on the type of litter—clumping litter stays cleaner longer). A litterbox is recommended for indoor-outdoor cats as well." This reads more like a guide for keeping cats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I found some of the parts relating to cat behaviour to be questionable. As I understand it the best interpretation of purring is that it is connected to calmness: a cat that is calm will purr automatically, but a cat that needs to make itself calmer (eg if it has been injured) will make itself purr to calm itself down, slow down its heart rate etc. This isn't mentioned in the article. Also cat signals through displaying its tail are not mentioned: tail straight up to indicate interest and friendliness, tail curled to indicate concern and questioning, tail wagging to indicate frustration and anger, tail down to indicate defensiveness. And nothing about the cat's continuing belief that to really make friends, humans need to smell their cat's rear end, and continuing bemusement when even the friendliest human declines the offer. David | Talk 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is an interesting nomination in that nearly everyone believes themselves to be an "expert" by virtue of having loving relationships with their cats. That compells the authors to meet a higher standard than is required for other featured articles; similarly to a highly controversial topic (GNAA comes to mind), every claim must be stated in careful NPOV language and clearly referenced to a demonstrably authoritative source. Otherwise, loads of people will object to any old thing, or point out tidbits to add. Whether or not this is "fair", it is what must be done for this article to pass this FAC nomination, and rightly so. As for myself, I'm no "expert" (cats make me sneeze!), so I'll count myself out of this one and watch from the sidelines. Bantman 18:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Doesn't mention that they taste good. --SPUI (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Things that in my opinion need inline links to references:
    • "the oldest-known cat lived to age 36"
    • "There are 32 muscles in each ear and the cat can move each ear independently."
    • "Humans and cats have a similar range of hearing"
    • "Cats can judge within three inches the location of a sound being made one yard away."
    • "A domestic cat's sense of smell is about 14 times stronger than a human's."
  • Calico and Tortoiseshell is listed as a variety but the former is a redirect to the latter.
  • "...Some environmentalists claim" - what enviromentalists?
  • —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:27:50, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
    • Unless these are actually controversial statements without consensus among biologists, only the "some environmentalists claim"-passage needs a specific reference. Wikipedia:Verifiability is about making sure we can support our claims with decent literature lists, not to pepper our article with an excess of footnotes. We have a quite serious over-usage of footnotes in a lot of our FAC's. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not much of a fan of footnotes myself, but here I have to agree with Sig - these are facts that could reasonably be questioned or disputed by a good-faith reader of the article; therefore they should be footnoted. - Bantman 18:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • How can one reasonable question any one of the facts except the weasel wording "some environmentalists"? All of the examples appear to be perfectly straightforward statements of physical facts, the kind than can even be proven beyond any reasonable doubt with practical experiments. If biologists are not disputing any of these facts, then there is no need to use footnotes just because people might be too lazy to actually reference the sources themselves. Footnotes can be very disruptive to a text either by distracting the reader or making it seem more academic than it actually is. They are not intended to state the obvious; that's what we do in the actual text, which is then scrutinized in the FAC process and approved by community consensus. Even if I personally don't know if these specific facts are true or not, I consider it completely unreasonable to question them merely on the basis of my own ignorance. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great article! Very thorough. --K1vsr (talk) 20:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans Mint

Self-nom. I created this article about an important architectural landmark in New Orleans. I feel that I've made the article about as comprehensive as I can think of, and I've tried to provide many images to illustrate the important parts of the text. I think it's worthy of being a featured article. User:Absecon 59 05:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:NO Mint Booklet 2.jpg is claimed as GFDL. However, it appears to be a "slavishly accurate" reproduction of a two-dimensional work, and thus is not eligable for copyright. Further, the subject of the image may be copyrighted, in which case the only possible license terms would be "fair use" (which would be hard to argue: this image is not essential to the article).
  2. The image Image:NOmintpostcard.jpg is claimed in the upload summary as GFDL, but again, it is a "slavishly accurate" reproduction of a two-dimensional work. I don't know what the copyright status of the original is, but judging from the date, it's probably public domain. This needs to be sorted out.
  3. The images Image:1899O.jpg, Image:1898-OMM.jpg, Image:1898-O SD.jpg, Image:1846-O Quarter Eagle.jpg, Image:1855-O Half Eagle.jpg, Image:OMINTMARK.jpg, Image:1894-O-Eagle.jpg, Image:1852-O 20 Dollars.jpg have no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 06:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- Ref to Peer review – 1) No lead -- should be triple the current size 2) image sizes are huge and badly formatted 3) Presence of a long list at the bottom. 4) As far as I can see the article only deals with the mint's history. If this is the case then the title should be renamed 5) No references =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object per Nichalp -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hatshepsut

Self-nom. The article is over the 18th dynasty Egyptian ruler, Hatshepsut. The article has been reviewed, at my request by otherss so it has undre gone a peer review. If featured this article will become Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt's example article. -JCarriker 21:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The image Image:Hatshepsut.jpg is claimed under GFDL. However, the source is stated as being a cropped scan of a book cover. The two statements are not compatible: if it's from a book cover, it can only be used as "fair use" unless the original artist/current copyright holder released the cover artwork under the GFDL.
  2. The image Image:Punt.jpg is claimed as "no commercial use". This is an unacceptable license for Wikipedia.
  3. The image Image:Hatshepsut in Civ4.jpg is claimed as fair use. However, I don't think it can be used under fair use in any article except one on Civilization IV.
  • In general, there is no reason to use "fair use" images in this article. Since the subject is over 3500 years old, there should be no shortage of out-of-copyright images. --Carnildo 22:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your thoroughness and intentions in the first picture you are mistaken it is not a scan of a book cover, but a digital picture taken and edited by me. It have the idea, and I it was given to me by theresa knott I belive, that you cannot copyright a picture of a picture. Since the picture on wikipedia was taken by me and altered by me it should be able to be realease under the GFDL. I did not upload the Punt image or add it to the article, if you believe it to be a violation of policy please remove it. As for the Civ4 image, it is certainly fair use in the Hatshepsut article since the section is on her influence in pop culture, per her inclusion in Civ4.- JCarriker 03:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

A digital picture of what? In terms of copyright law, there is no difference between a "slavishly accurate" picture of a book cover and a scan of a book cover: they both are ineligable for copyright. The copyright status of the original remains, and the copy is considered a derivative work. If the license terms of the original do not permit derivative works, then the copy is what is known as a "copyright violation".

I've removed Image:Punt.jpg from the article and tagged it for speedy deletion.

As for the Civ 4 image, the section is on Hatshepsut's portrayal in pop culture. A screenshot from Civ 4 isn't really a portrayal of her in popular culture: she isn't the subject of the game. --Carnildo 06:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's not really a slavishly accurate copy, the top of the picture was rounded- I squared off the top by extending the background. I respect your opinion but I have been told such adaptations were acceptable by others. Perhaps a picture of the entire book cover would pass for fair-use? I disagree on the Civ4 pic, civfanatics.com pre-release info uses the same pic and Hatshepsut is still not the subject of the game. -JCarriker 06:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding the book cover, I see no reason why any fair use image should be included in this article. There are over 3400 years worth of non-copyrighted images of Hatshepsut: let's use some of them. Your modifications to the original image may be under GFDL, but if my understanding is correct, you can't distribute them under any grounds except fair use until the copyright on the original expires.
• As for Civ 4, just because someone else is breaking the law doesn't mean we should. --Carnildo 07:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I can change the notice on the lead pic if you want; my point on the second pic is that I don't think they would do it if it were against the law, and I think they'd be caught quickly if it were since the site is known to the games creators. Please remeber the pics are released to promote the game and are expect to be distributed on the internet. If you insist I can try to contact the company for guidence on their policy it. -JCarriker 07:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should be using "fair use" images at all in this article. --Carnildo 18:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's very difficult finding good images of her that aren't fair use. Most of the scholarship done on Hatshepsut has been done since the 1920s. There just aren't alot of photos taken of her statuary before then, and many of those that were are highly POV such as including only the stautaury where she is wearing the false beard, and even then they aren't readily available. I respect your opinion, but with all do repect: I've been looking for good pics for the Hatshepsut article for over a year- you have been doing so only for a few days; if there were other pictures of the same quality I would have used them. -JCarriker 18:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Question: In childhood, Hatshepsut was favored by the Temple of Karnak over her two brothers, neither of whom surviced into adulthood. Am I right in assuming she was favored as pretender to the throne? If so, this sentences should be clarified. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Writing about ancient figures can be somewhat problematic; the short answer is that all we really know is that she was favored by the temple over all of her siblings. Biographers like Eveyln Wells would likely say that they did favor her as a pretender; while Joyce Tydelsely would likely tell you that she was just the court favorite.- JCarriker 03:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Suggestion: it would be really good to have some documentation of the change in perception of her over the course of the last century or so. Perhaps contrast how some work like the 1911 Britannica handled some aspects of her life vs. how the same aspects are handled by a recent scholar? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'd like to suggest that Carnildo, as an exercise, attempt to collect a dozen non-free non-fair use images for any one personage or event from more than a few centuries ago. I have not tried to submit Battle of Chalons for FAC consideration for this very reason. I think that Jay has done a good job, considering that handicap. -- llywrch 01:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support but the image issue should be addressed. Most pressingly, the image tag on the top image should be changed, probably to {{Bookcover}}. Are there no two-dimensional depictions of Hatshepsut, perhaps from a wall painting? Photographs of ancient two-dimensional artwork are immune from copyright under current US law, I believe. Anyway -- if an article can be featured without an image, surely it can be featured without a non-FU image. -- Visviva 15:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Photographs of two-dimensional works are immune from copyright if and only if they are "slavishly accurate" reproductions. --Carnildo 19:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weakly support. A bit more detail would be nice, eg on military aspects. And it's slightly disconcerting that the article doesn't note her original tomb was KV20. Rd232 17:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. IANAL, but my opinion is that a non-creative photograph of ancient Egyptian art had its copyright expire long long ago. At the very least, however, it is fair use, which is acceptable. --Peter Kirby 09:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right. You aren't a lawyer. Any photograph or other two-dimensional reproduction of a three-dimensional work is creative, and thus copyrighted. --Carnildo 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Carnildo, just for clarification, do you have a legal background? There's no indication of it in the brief biographical remarks on your user page. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • No formal legal background, but after several years of following IP-related issues, I've got a fairly good grasp of the basics. --Carnildo 06:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I was under the impression that Violetriga [30]closed this nomination as a failed FAC. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the support; just seeking clarification. -JCarriker 04:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Backgammon

Support: This article is thorough and has been lingering for a while. With the exception of Chouettes one thinks this article is interesting and accurate.

The fact that Backgammon is one of the oldest games in history is especially enticing and appealing. The pictures represent some of Wikipedias finest work.

• Oppose. While the early pictures are certainly very good (especially the first one), the article needs some areas addressed. No references, no note and ref system, and effectively a cleanup notice on the choutettes section. These issues all need to be addressed before the article can become featured. The "fact that Backgammon is one of the oldest games in history is especially enticing and appealing" also doesn't really factor in here...Harro5 09:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Images "Bg sg start.png", "Bg sg w1.png", "Bg sg b1.png", "Bg sg w2.png" lacks copyright information. The section on the rules is not an easy read - might be benefitial to branch it out as a seperate article and just give an overview in the article on backgammon. The subsection on Other variants ought (IMO) to be placed under the section on the rules, as it's variations on the rules. Red links should at least be stubified, or taken out (I just don't like red links in a featured article). And as Harro5 mentioned, references really should be added. WegianWarrior 10:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Allow me to start from the top:
  1. Expand the lead paragraph and 'History'. They are way too short for a featured article.
  2. Sort out the accuracy dispute concerning 'Choulettes'.
  3. Merge 'Backgammon in the Middle East' and 'Other variants' into one section: 'Variants'. They are too short on their own.
  4. Turn 'See also' into a list; makes it a lot neater.
• I strongly suggest you put this through Peer review. --JB Adder | Talk 01:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the above two points form one vote. --JB Adder | Talk 01:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is too short, no references, large unwikified sections. Peer review is a must, this is not yet close to FA standard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Sociocultural evolution

previous FAC

Sociocultural evolution

Self nom. An overview of one of the most important theories in sociology and anthropology, also reffered in those respective fields as just social or cultural evolution(ism). From classical unileneal evolutionism to multilenal, with neoevolutionism, sociobiology, modernisation theory, post-industrial theory and yes, I even managed to mention singularity theory in the text :) Lots of big words :) I await your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Danielbell.JPG and Image:Vinge1.gif do not have copyright or source information.
  • Removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. The images Image:FranzBoas.jpg and Image:Alvin toffler.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, information on the current copyright holder must be given, and a rationale as to why fair use may be claimed must be provided for each page that the image is used on.

  --Carnildo 21:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Removed. They are not essential. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object. Support A good article there are, however, a couple of problems. First of all, the lead section is too long. The contents of the lead are good, so perhaps a large part of it could be siphoned off into an "Overview" section immediately after the lead? Less importantly, I'd like to see more pictures for the length of the article (not critcal). --Oldak Quill 18:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead is long, but I am not sure what can be moved out and still make it comprehensive - this is a complicated theory, actually composed of several subtheories over the course of many theories. I like my leads to be as comprehensive as possible to fit the Wikipedia 1.0 reqiurements. I am not sure if an Overview section is a good idea, it sounds like a second lead to me - but if you have a vision of how it may be done, by all means, plese try to fix it. As for the pics, I am not sure what pics other then some portaits may be relelvant here. I tried to add a pic of everybody mentioned, but many have none, and half of those have copyright problems Carnildo pointed out above. I am open for any other pic suggestions, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • After having read the entire article, I have to agree. It is excellently written in a very clear manner. Keep up the good work. --Oldak Quill 11:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The introduction is excessively long, composed of three paragraphs, each of which are way too long. Furthermore, Piotr reverts any attempt to correct his stylistic errors. I tried to seperate the intro into multiple paragraphs, and then to move some material to the article body, both of which were reverted immediately by Piotrus. Short definitions of uinlinear and multilinear are appropriate to the lead. Not this attempted whirlwind history of sociology. Also, the terms in bold should be handled more legibly. --goethean ॐ 14:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but the recent attempt at lead rewritting is against Wikipedia:Lead (recommended three paragrahps, not 5-6) and even worse, it was not comprehensive (one recent attempt simply moved 4/5 of the lead into the next section). As I explained above, this is a complex matter and the lead cannot be short if it is to remain comprehensive. The lead fits on the screen, I see no problem with this. I will see what I can adapt from the new version. I am happy to see discussion here, after few days of near inactivity. I am sure that working together we cn create a 'leaner, meaner' lead :) I am not sure what you mean about illegibility of bolded terms? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein fixed the problem with bolded terms. Your point regarding three paragraphs is ruleslawyering. Why extend the paragraphs to unreadable lengths and then point to a 3-paragraph policy to revert changes? --goethean ॐ 17:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

After some work we seem to have created a smaller, better lead. Do you still have grounds for objection? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• CommentThat whole article only had one reference? And I think the use of inotes is detriemental to the article, and at least some of them should be visible similar to other articles. MechBrowman 15:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support The article is very well written, and I changed the inotes my self --MechBrowman 14:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, long story short: this article is merged from two others, none of which had any references. I expanded this with info from referenced source, plus some material from other wiki articles, again lacking references. After a glance at the references, I see some of them are actually mentioned in the text (especially online version of some 19th century) text and thus may be moved to references. As for inotes, I am not a fan of them, I prefer footnotes - but due to the explained scarcity of references, there is really no need for them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not enough references. Dave (talk) 20:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not aware there is any specified number or references >1 for FA articles. I explained above why there are so few referenes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I consider good referencing to be necessary for Wikipedia to be considered authoritative. WP:CITE (which isn't policy, but which has consensus) says that it's important for veryifying facts, preventing sneaky vandalism (changing a date and hoping no one notices), convincing skeptical readers an article is accurate, and avoiding various kinds of confusion. The guide also suggests that you add sources for existing articles on Wikipedia. In general, I prefer in-line citations. Since you didn't write this, and you have no sources, how do you know anything about its reliability? I'm maintaining my objection. Dave (talk) 21:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have added some references, and will add more - there are books (often classics) mentioned in text (like 'White wrote in his book that...') that should add a few more, when I have some time. Article has 4 references now, using footnotes, and will have several more - does this solve your objection? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Have you fact-checked the article yourself? Dave (talk) 14:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
          • To the best of my knowledge (I read the Sztompka's book, nearly memorised his chapter on this set of theories :>, checked all external links plus some other articles, books and ecyclopedia's entries mentioned in the article (most of which I added)) and I think it is factually correct. I do think it fits with our standards. I admit I have taken much of the info from previous wiki articles, which had no references, on good faith, but they do seem to be confirmed with other materials I found off-wiki (many of it academic class) I read. Wiki being wiki, with other editors beside me constantly improving this article, I can't guarantee personally that all the facts are and will be 100% correct, but I can vouch that to the best of my knowledge most of them, when I read it last time, seemed consistent with referenced/further reading/external links material. If you see any factual errors in the article, do let me know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The article is thorough, and I congratulate all who contributed. The new article is much more thorough and organized than either of the two original articles. However, I have two concerns:

1. More is needed to highlight the distinction between social / cultural evolution (the modern scientific theory) and social evolutionism, the (unilineal, essentially racist) worldview. Some information about this is in the article, but I think it's important to distinguish between the theory and the practice.
2. As discussed above, the lead is too long. I realize that a shorter lead is not comprehensive, but would argue that a lead is never meant to be comprehensive. A lead's only function is to summarize the topic for the reader, and hopefully entice him/her to read further. Every pool needs a shallow end to be accessible. The first paragraph could be considerably shortened or broken up. For example:

Sociocultural evolution is an umbrella term for theories explaining the development of societies over time, borrowing the term "evolution" from biological theories about the development of living organisms. Early social scientists attempted to identify the stages that all societies must pass through as they mature, and sometimes ranked societies from least to most developed. More modern Anthropologists and Sociologists have rejected this approach, noting that human societies can develop along a wide variety of different possible paths, and that it is difficult to label any society as more or less "evolved" than any other.

Even that is too long... Details in the current lead--about the diversity of the thinkers involved, the specific interpretations of the theory, etc.--will be apparent from the article itself. The lead really only needs to refer to three things: development of societies over time, early theories were unilineal (and often racist), and modern theories are multilineal.

I regret that at the moment I cannot spend more time assisting you in developing this article with more constructive examples of what I mean. However, I generally feel the new article is quite good, and with some fixes would make a great candidate for a front page article.

--Pariah 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for your comments. Regarding the lead, Wikipedia:Lead states that The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. and For the planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one consensus recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. . I try to make all leads I work in follow this guidelines. Btw, we have already shortented the lead by 1/4 since the FAC process begun. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but effective writing is a nested process. If we say that all the writing before the first subheading is the lead, then the very first paragraph should be a micro-lead, and the first sentence should be a nano-lead. The reader should be able to get a quick definition of the topic from the first sentence. This is esp. important on a wiki, where every link is potentially a black hole of information. The language could be simpler without detracting from the complexity of the information.--Pariah 16:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Enzyme

My first self-nom. Please don't be too harsh, guys~ :-D By the way, this biological article is pretty informative. The diagrams were well drawn to give a much clearer picture of the mechanism of enzymes. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support - looks great --PopUpPirate 15:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very comprehensive and well-explained. Easy to understand with even a very basic knowledge of chemistry. Phils 16:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support It took 2 minutes to load all the pictures on my computer. Very impressive Karmafist 17:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although I would recommend moving the list of enzymes to a separate page. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object, reluctantly. This article still needs some work, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results once these objections are addresssed:
  • Monomer discussion in "structure and function" is unclear
    • What do you mean by unclear? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I mean that it doesn't define its terms. My (very limited) background in chemistry tells me that monomers are single elements that, strung together, make a polymer like plastic, DNA, or a polypeptide. The article seems to be referring to polypeptides as monomers, which I find confusing. Assuming I understand the first few lines of the paragraph, either changing the word "monomer" to "polypeptide" or saying "each monomer is actually produced as a long, linear chain of amino acids..." earlier in the paragraph would help
        • Reconstructed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Applications table is hard to follow (add lines to separate rows and/or columns)
    • Technical problems...could anyone help? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "protein folding" should be linked to from something less ambiguous than the words "general principles," as the reader has to move the mouse over the text or click it to find out what's being linked to.
    • Any suggestion? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Fixed
  • The section on rate of reaction should probably be expanded. Saying it depends on "many factors" isn't really enough.
    • There is a sub-page. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC) fixed
  • In-line references (footnotes or parenthetical citations) would go a long way towards making this article more authoritative. Right now, it's difficult to verify many claims the article makes.
    • Is that really necessary? I saw some FAs like evolution that are without in-line references... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Editors are allowed to have their own guidelines/requirements for supporting articles, and this is one of mine, especially for scientific articles. I didn't support evolution. You could almost certainly get this featured even without addressing this objection, but only if you address everything else. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

**Long sentences like this one are hard to follow, even for a biology major like me:

Because the precise structure of each region tends to be fairly critical to correct function, and because the frequency of a mutation which would produce a nonfunctional active region is proportional to the length of the chain separating the amino acids involved, evolution works against having the amino acids from an active region widely dispersed, instead tending to keep the amino acids involved in each active region compacted fairly closely together in the chain and conserved against mutation, separating these regions by long stretches of 'spacer' amino acids where mutation is much less critical (although some mutations in these regions can also inactivate the product).

• • • Corrected sooner or later.
      • There will still be other readability problems even after you fix that sentence. I'll try to help. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Reconstructed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The discussion of energy in the structure and function section could probably be streamlined. I like the analogies, but it's hard to follow.
    • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
  • Links to names should be fixed: Fischer is a disambig (including two nobel-prize winning chemists, among others) and Koshland is a blank page. First names should probably be included as well.
    • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
  • The article needs a copyedit. Three examples include "short0lived" (lock and key hypothesis section), "fromevidence" and "breakdown" (in the induced fit section)
    • Fixed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Making the kinetics section more accessible to non-biochemists may not be possible, but I hope someone tries.
    • Yup...pretty difficult... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• If all (or even most) of these are addressed, I'll support. Good luck! Dave (talk) 01:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

You know what, I could hardly find people knowing one or two about biology during the peer review. You are one of the guys who could give pretty clear and constructive feedback. :-) Btw, could you give us a hand in improving this article, please? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the process is sort of dumb. No one (including me, most of the time) pays attention to peer review. Maybe I should. I'll see what I can do with the article, but nixie is more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. I'm sure she'll give you a hand when she has time if you ask. Dave (talk) 13:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Support-This is a very interesting and well done article. It is exceptionally informative and explains the concept of enzymes quite clearly, even to someone who isnt in the field. I also like the diagrams, they add a lot to the article in terms of clearity and make it much more readable. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• For now I have to object. As a biochemist I noticed that there are several things that could be improved, there is little discussion of coenzymes (vitamins and metals), multi-subunit enzymes and where enzymes are actually active within a cell eg. organelle specificity, enzyme inhibition/allosteric enzymes. Basically this article should cover everything in the chapter TOC for a textbook like Matthews, Van Holde and Ahern or Voet and Voet (two widely used undergraduate level biochem texts).

As an editor I think the specific enzymes section should be renamed and include some more examples, and that the list is unnecessary given the link to the list on another page. The tables should also be fixed so that they are outlined.

As a general reader, the order of text could be improved, for example, the reader is hit with The advantage of enzymes compared to most other catalysts is their sterio-, regio- and chemoselectivity and specificity before something like this Enzymes are essential to living organisms, and a malfunction of even a single enzyme out of approximately 2,000 types present in our bodies can lead to severe or lethal illness - which is much easier to understand and would interest a general reader. There are similar examples throughout where diffuicult concepts are explained before the easy ones.--nixie 03:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not the original editor, who seemed to have put the materials you are demanding into the page Rate of enzyme mediated reactions. Any ideas to improve? :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Coenzymes and other enzyme cofactors are now mentioned. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• For now I object.

1) I reconfigured two tables at the bottom and noticed there was a lot that could be improved in those tables. A lot of copy editing of the text in the table is required.

• Any suggestion?

2) I then looked at the main article. I did not get past the structure function section. Why the emphasise on monomeric versus oligomeric (quaternary structure)? Surely the most important thing is the residues at the active site (tertiary structure).

• This part would be deleted.

3) You cite the active site of the enzymes figure 2; I could not find firgure 2 (do you mean your first 5a-c figure?). Why is figure 2 cited in the text before figure 1? It looks like you have reaaranged everything without correcting the order of the figures. You have two figure 4's and two figure 5's. The second figure 4b has two panels a) and b. Worse your first figure 4b (i) ( as opposed to figure 4b (ii)) also has an a and b panel. Do you see how crazy this is? All the figures need to be relabelled since they are not consistent with the text or each other. If the figure has panels a) and b) you cannot label it 4 a) Label it 4 (a-b) and the second panel, 4c. For example, the succinate (is succinic correct?) dehydrogenase panel should be a 4c not a 4b.

• An anonymous user rearranged the figures. Problems fixed sooner or later.

4) The next sentence after the incorrect figure citation is "Sometimes enzymes contain additionally other binding sites." This is poor grammar and I presume not up to featured article standards. As with the tables, it looks like this article needs some proof reading.

• Any suggestion?

5) A quick scan through shows that you do not define EIS nomenclature.

• Enzyme-inhibitor-substrate

6) Is this correct with respect to non competitive inhibitors? "they disable or enable the ability of the enzyme to turn over its substrate" I don't think they can enable. You may be thinking of allosteric enzyme with regard to this statement.

• I don't write this. Let's see what we can do with it

7) Is metabolic feed back beyond the scope of this article? That is getting into the regulation of metabolism.

• If you read any book about enzyme, this part is often mentioned for good reasons.

8) Modifications seems to be too early in the article. That would be better suited with regard to the feedback control and the regulation of metabolism.

• Good advice.

9) Prosthetic groups seem to be an add on at the end. These should be discussed with respect to the active site right at the begining of the article.

• I don't think so. It's a kinda cofactors, which in most cases are discussed in the later parts. It's not desirable to have it next to the active site.

10) One of the most important aspects of enzymes that is absent in this article is conformation changes that occur during catalysis. These conformation changes are critical for enzyme function. Hexokinase is a good example of an enzyme with a large conformation change, almost like a Pac-Man.

• Induced-fit hypothesis? Did you see it?

:11) The thermodynamics section needs work and might not be appropriate for this article. The following is another example of a sentence in dire need of copy editing. "For instance, the high energy compound ATP is generated in the cell by coupling its synthesis to the oxidation of sugars, which releases more energy than the synthesis of ATP requires; then the ATP is broken down in turn by other enzymes coupled to other processes, releasing the energy stored in it to drive other, otherwise energetically unfavorable, chemical reactions."

• • Fixed. -- User:TimBarrel 21:10, 10 August 2005
• Well, it's worth mentioning as seen in all reference books. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this article has a lot of potential but it really needs to be cleaned up a lot before being a featured article. David D. (Talk) 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you don't hang around with the editing. I'll read it over more thoroughly and do some copy editing. I have already made quite a few changes to the table, I'll edit that some more too. I think your solution of just removing the figure numbers is perfect. Wikipedia does not need to be like a review paper. David D. (Talk) 05:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you're so good, man. Thanks a million dollars. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:46, 14 March 2008.

---

Neptune

previous FAC

User:RJHall has greatly improved this article since its last nomination and I think it is now ready for an FA. Serendi^podous 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to article stats, RJHall is the main contributor; is this a co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. He's not around right now, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind. Serendi^podous 15:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I've been contributing a few (mostly copyedit, formatting and talk) for the best month to this article. And I think it finally meets everything. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Upon doing extensive research on Neptune, this article gave me everything I needed in a clear, well-cited, and detailed manner. Excellent article, deserves featured status ASAP. Teh Rote (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Only read up to the Naming part, but it's very well done. But a comment:

• Though still a student at the Berlin Observatory, Heinrich d'Arrest suggested...

His name is rather random in my opinion; give a bit of intro for him. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support another great solar system achievment. And now all planets get featured status. igordebraga ≠ 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—I believe the article is FA worthy, but I'm a little biased so I won't say "support". The one issue I had was an inability to access any issues of Icarus. So I wasn't able to dig up much information on core models or internal convection. Otherwise though, I think it is reasonably up to date and comprehensive. Thanks for your support and any corrections you may find.—RJH (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I don't mean to sound flippant - but this article is 'out of this world'! All the extrenal refs check out, the images are great. What's not to like? --Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• See contribs: Slicedpineapple (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Flummoxed; the same issues have repeated in every recent planet FAC, when these items have been covered before. FAC is not Peer review, and these issues could be cleaned up pre-FAC. Is Voyager 2 italicized or is not? Publishers are missing on sources, endashes are incorrect in citations, there are MOSNUM and dash issues in the text, missing conversions, and incorrect use of bolding. You don't have to correct endashes manually; it's a simple matter of asking Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run a script. See WP:GTL, templates are incorrectly placed at the bottom of sections, they go at the top: For a timeline of discovery dates, see ... What is this: Because of the distance of Neptune from the Earth, the angular diameter of the planet only varies from 2.2–2.4″;[5][8] ... ? No consistency in citation formatting, no consistent biblio style. Please review recent planetary FACs and correct the recurring issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to clear things up in peer review, but peer reviews very seldom get any responses at all. Serendi^podous 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, it would be nice if PR worked better, but it often doesn't work so well. At a minimum, we should take care of this stupid problem with formatting on space probes. Italicize them or not; blue link them or not. Let's decide on something. Marskell (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, I did have the citations looking pretty consistent at one point. =) However, a number of changes have been made since that time, so I went through and massaged the templates again. I'm not sure what you mean by inconsistent biblio style; all of the books use the same templates (down in the "Book references" section). I changed the >>″<< to arcseconds; I hope that clears up the angular diameter issue. (Otherwise I'm not sure I understand the problem.) I attempted to clean up the other issues.—RJH (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support: An excellent article. The hard work shows. Deserves FA status. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It's there. Good content, good form, core article. NTK (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Saw a bit of a problem at one point in the Weather section
  • By contrast, Neptune exhibited notable weather phenomena during its 1989 Voyager 2 fly-by.

Might need a cite for that. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 07:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Note 10 really should have approximate signs rather than equal signs (alternatively, put equal signs and the measurement error) Randomblue (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only to two decimal places; I don't think we need to be that finicky. Serendi^podous 14:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Support -Ravedave (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, thank you, thank you for having a ref on the pronunciation, that's so rare to see.
  • Shouldn't it be "Neptune's trident" rather than "a stylized version of Poseidon's trident."? I know they are synonymous so you might as well use the namesake name.
  • "After reviewing the documents, some historians now suggest that Adams does not deserve equal credit with Le Verrier." - Why?
  • The Energy generation section could be better arranged (the 2nd paragraph should probably go 1st, but they probably need to be merged) It also contradicts itself - "the outermost part of its atmosphere, is at an anomalously high temperature" - "the upper regions of the atmosphere reaching a low temperature of 52 K. "
  • "In 2007 it was discovered that Neptune's south pole was about 10 °C warmer than the rest of Neptune which averages approximately −200 °C." - At which level? [31] That source seems to say the tropopause.
  • "Before the arrival at Neptune, it was hypothesised " - The arrival?
  • Orbit and rotation - "Neptune will return to its original heliocentric point of discovery on July 12, 2011,[60] when it will have completed the first full orbit since its discovery in 1846." - Isn't that saying the same thing twice?
  • That same fact is repeated in Observation
  • "the seasons last for four decades" Earth or Neptunian decades?
  • The rings aren't mentioned in the lead
  • Why does 'exploration' skip right to Voyager 2's last flyby, and not cover the earlier 1986 run?

Fixed your issues, except for your last comment. There was no "earlier 1986 run" at Neptune. You're thinking of Uranus. Serendi^podous 11:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. However, I think the energy section still needs more work. The atmosphere goes Very hot, cold then hot again, right? Right now the paragraph describes in this order: Middle, bottom, extreme top. You'd think it would go from top to bottom. Don't expect the readers to know that the exosphere is outside of the troposhpere etc. I appreciate your efforts so far but that paragraph really needs a good re-arranging and some re-writing/ -Ravedave (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed your main issue. If you still feel the atmosphere section needs expanding, let me know. Serendi^podous 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's all been said. Well done. --GrahamColm^Talk 14:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment (Support)
  • Need a cite for Neptune's ring mention in the lead
  • You might want to explain how Neptune is the furthest planet instead of Pluto

Oops. ^

And that's all I found --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 13:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Still: within the lead ...

Neptune has been visited by only one spacecraft, Voyager 2, which flew by the planet on August 25, 1989. ... Neptune has a faint and fragmented ring system, which may have been detected during the 1960s but was only indisputably confirmed by Voyager 2.

Is Voyager 2 italicized or not? See WP:ITALICS, ships are italicized, are spacecraft?

I just went through an italicised every instance of the term. I personally believe that Voyager 2 should be italicised, if for no other reason than it is italicised in its main article, and at the very least, Wikipedia itself should be consistent. Judging whether or not a craft should be italicised is difficult, because many sources follow a policy of not italicising anything, ships, spacecraft or even movie titles. I have, however, seen many instances of the names of spacecraft being italicised, so yes I think if it is Wikipedia's standard practice to italicise the names of ships and space shuttles, then spacecraft names should be italicised as well. Serendi^podous 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable citation, Wiki is not a reliable source: 102. ^ See the respective articles for magnitude data. Missing publishers on citations, example: 89. ^ Boss, Alan P. (2002). Formation of gas and ice giant planets. Retrieved on March 5, 2008. Endashes and minus signs still not addressed; I fixed a few. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

brightorange just ran his en-dash bot, so I suppose it is fixed. I will check the sources a bit later today. Samuel Sol (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

About ref 102, it is just a note since putting one ref for each object brigthness would be a little too clutered. So what do you think it is better, remove it altogether or making one ref for each? Samuel Sol (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it.—RJH (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

About that, I think it would be better to go with the more concise one but supportive and go one for each. Unless that gets in the way...

• Perhaps there should be a small mention on how Neptune was the second furthest before Pluto got kicked off the planet list? No? --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I added one a while back. See here. Serendi^podous 07:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicely written, but you need a couple cites for the facts, such as the discovery of the Kuiper Belt relating to Pluto's questionable planet status. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please. How much longer? Serendi^podous 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you pinged Ravedave and is his Oppose resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now. But (and here I ask merely for information) when someone makes a complaint about another article, and another person addresses it, is it not the first person's responsibility to follow up? If said person decides not to return to the discussion, the issue can't have meant that much to him/her in the first place. Serendi^podous 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you've asked someone to revisit, and they don't, just leave me a diff on the FAC so I'll know. (I'm pretty sure that is part of the WP:FAC instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the time in Minnesota?--GrahamColm^Talk 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why?--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's 7:53. I just put the Kid to sleep. I will re-reivew right now. -Ravedave (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Appointment to the Order of Canada

This article is a fork from the Order of Canada article, which is also Featured. I do not know if fork articles could become Featured, so I will give this self-nom a shot. And I hope Raul is not getting tired of the Canadian articles that graced this page in the past few weeks either. :) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment--all three images are under crown copyright, which states "Information has been released by the Government of Canada with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use", thereby forbidding use by mirrors. This isn't compatible with the GFDL. Any chance we could get some more-free images? Meelar (talk) 15:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Two photos came directly from the Governor General's website. I can see what I can do about the photos, but I am moving into a house today. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if nothing better is available, I suppose it'll have to do (I'm not sure "no free images" is grounds for objection). The actual article is very well done. Meelar (talk) 23:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Having non-free images can be an objection, since a requirement at WIAFA states "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured." However, if I can only find images that are Crown Copyright, then I should have to justify why they are fair use. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support However I think a phrase needs to be bold in the inroduction --MechBrowman 17:13, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • What phrase should that be? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I recommend "appointed to membership in the Order", also you might want to briefly mention that a non Canadian can be nominated for the Order somewhere in the intro. --MechBrowman 01:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

This is partly a self nomination. There are no facts in the article that are not referenced, and this is a detailed and comprehensive view of the GNAA.

Please note! featured articles are not necessarily main page articles! Objects must be actionable, so if you dislike the GNAA and wish to object solely based on this criteria, your objection will be discounted.

Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Note: I have created a list of what I noticed from the FAC to see what we need to do in order to make the article up to par: User:Zscout370/GNAA to do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note 2: don't ask us for information that is not available. This is contrary to no original research. We are not investigatory journalists. Anyone who asks for sources that require extensive investigation and the creation of a primary source (as Wikipedia) is making a non-actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I dispute that note is a correct analysis of policy. Taken at its extreme, an article about a extremely obscure topic could be featurable as a stub merely because no more information is available. Similar issues were raised on the failed FAC nomination for Thursday October Christian: Not every article actually has the potential to be featured. David | Talk 11:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going to work to get this article Featured. While I admit it got very complicated when people began to dispute objections, but I am willing to work with everyone to get it Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What you seem unable to grasp Ta bu shi da yu is that if certain basic information is unavailable, there is no way to make a proper article on this subject. Before there can be an encyclopedia article, there must be primary and secondary sources that required extensive investigation to create, so the encyclopedia article can accurately and extensively summarize the subject. There is a lot of information in the article, and the individual incidents are well-referenced, but writing a good article on the group itself appears impossible due to a lack of basic facts. Even if (and that is a big if) there is no way to properly document the membership, the article needs to discuss the methods, goals, etc. of the organization or it is just a receitation of specific trolling events that cannot even be 100% positivelky linked to the group as opposed to copycats and provide little incite into the impact of the group as a whole. While the incidents are verifiable to the extent that we know what happened, the who, why, and how remain shrouded in mystery and the subject of nothing more than speculation. Perhaps a few more years and a bit more research will lend the necessary facts to make a good article, and this stuff can certainly stay on wikipedia in the meantime, but it cannot represent wikipedia's finest work in its current state due to the unprofessional standard of the research and therefore should not be a featured article. Indrian 19:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • With respect, I would disagree with you. This is not to say I don't understand the argument, indeed I do. I believe an FA can become featured if we have enough information to describe the actions of the group. Someone has already noted the Weathermen who's leadership is still unknown. and I believe we possibly could have got Deep Throat to FA status before W. Mark Felt was revealed as DT. I know that you are not saying this, but I'm finding that many people are objecting to the group itself, and not necessarily the article.
    • The objections so far is that it is too short (it is in fact 15.4K long, IMO not too short), that it is unverifiable yet there are too many references (go figure that out), that it is prone to edit wars (not any more) and that it shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia (after 6 VfDs it is now exempt from another one, so it should exist). Your objection is possibly the most valid (though I disagree with it).
    • You should all also note that I've been described as a troll for submitting the article to FAC, and also have been told I'm a vandal and that I'm submitting this as bad faith to keep controversy going. This may explain why I've been so short with some of you. For the record (this is for those who don't know who I am), I have submitted many articles to FAC and got them through: among them are Windows 2000, Architecture of Windows 2000, Btrieve, Architecture of Btrieve, CUPS and Exploding Whale. I have almost always used peer review. So when people tell me about my "bad faith" I start getting a little pissed off (though I know I should stay frosty cool). The fact that I have to defend myself like this at all tends to tell me that people aren't reading Wikipedia:Assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I will certainly go on the record to say that I do not believe you are a troll or acting in bad faith in making this nomination. I think there are people on both sides of this debate that have acted horribly, but you are not one of them. If this article becomes featured, it will not herald an end to all standards in FAC, but I will stand by my position that this article is not ready due not to the quality of what the article contains, but rather to the importance of what is missing. Indrian 03:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • At thais point, the article will probably not be Featured, mainly since I still need to add substance to the article. However, I and others have solved objections. Also, everyone is welcome to edit the To do list I created (see the link above). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

---

• Support. I have been working with Ta bu on this one, and we took the trolling out and made this article into something special. I do agree that this article should not appear on the front page. It will be asking for trouble. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is way too short for a featured article. Ambi 07:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • While a formal requirement for length is not present, if we are missing things and can beef up the article size, this objection IS actionable. If I can fix it, I can listen to any objections. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an entirely actionable objection if you had bothered or were capable of reading all of four lines down (The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own) Ambi 00:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I was replying to your original objection, which consisted solely of "This is way too short for a featured article." -- BRIAN0918  01:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • People only make one objection on an FAC. I'd clarified it by the time you posted, and I'd appreciate if you could remove your misleading comment. Ambi 01:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you should specify exactly what information you're missing, or at least I would consider the objection inactionable. /Peter ^Isotalo 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What information is missing? The length is only a problem if stuff is missing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own. Ambi 10:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • This objection is actionable provided that the information you've requested has previously been documented. -- BRIAN0918  01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd add that the article is not that much shorter than Heavy metal umlaut, over half of which is a list of sightings. Circeus 22:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Object Unlikely ever to meet the stability criterion - plus all those VfDs!!! jguk 07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article, where it clearly states that "stability" refers to the edit history (ie: no edit/POV wars), and not petty vandalism or VFDs which do not change the article's contents (plus, there will not be any more VFDs). -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The VFD's have been stopped, and plus (surprising enough), the last additions to the article mainly deal with the hoax related to Harry Potter. Though I do agree it is short, there is nothing much we can add that can be considered factual and could borderline on trolling. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Really? Article is very stable. The only thing not stable was a short disputed sentence and the fact that I think the logo is notable enough to include in the article. That's about it really. As for VfDs - well, there will be no more of those. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 24 foot notes for a very short article. I know we all like referencing and notes, but this is going overboard. It's disruptive to any reader that isn't used to notes (the overwhelming majority) and will annoy anyone who's used footnotes enough to know that an average of one note per sentence is nothing short of disruptive (most academics). Keep the objective in mind here, everyone; it's an encyclopedia article, not a paper. /Peter ^Isotalo 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article and Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is entirely actionable. A featured article must follow the style standards of the rest of the encyclopedia, and having seven references in a not particularly disputed paragraph is just not done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of academic papers. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Unactionable objection. The objection is also contrary to Wikipedia:Cite sources. I must say, this is the first time I've every heard anyone complain of too many references. However, if you don't like notes, then may I suggest that you check out how to hide them by going to Template talk:Ref? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not contrary to Wikipedia:Cite sources. It's not being argued that there shouldn't be references, but instead that this is an insane number, even for an academic paper. Thus it is very actionable. Ambi 09:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry?! Every fact has been disputed at some point, so every fact has been referenced. Ambi, this is not an actionable objection! For the record, however, which of the sources would you remove? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
        • As an example, why on earth do we need seven references to illustrate one small incident about releasing Apple screenshots? This is excessive. Not to mention that I think it's pretty damned rude to go around declaring every objection unactionable before making any attempt to fix it. Ambi 10:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Rude huh? Sorry you feel that way. However, what's wrong with the 7 references? If you've been paying attention, everything about this article was controversial and all activities were disputed, so this is why there are so many references. This was demanded, and so this was provided. As for "fixing" what I consider unactionable - just exactly how did you think I was going to do that?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Perhaps if you'd actually thought about the objection before denouncing it as unactionable. I know the article was controversial, but don't you think seven references for one small incident is a bit of overkill? Ambi 11:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
              • This is just as actionable as saying there are too many pictures in an article. Any reference that exists solely because of dispute on the talkpage should be looked over for example. /Peter ^Isotalo 15:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed some redundant references already from the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would say this is not so much "unactionable" as "shouldn't be acted on". Would that more of our articles were so strongly referenced. This actually has the apparatus to let someone verify it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • That other articles are poorly referenced doesn't excuse the fact that this article is over-referenced. If an article is over-referenced it makes it harder to actually concentrate on the information that is relevant. And I really don't like this suggestion that eventhough the objection is actionable, it should be ignored; that's just bad manners as well as a bad precedent. /Peter ^Isotalo 10:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
        • The thing Ta bu is trying to say is that whatever event or thing the GNAA pulled off, we have to reference it or people will consider the page is just being used for trolling. Of course, we could send some references to the external links section of the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Why? The Apple incident needs one reference. It doesn't need seven for people to realise that it happened. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree here too. If there is more than one footnote for a single event (at least for what is recognizable as a single event to outsiders), all but one should be removed. The reader to keep in mind when writing should preferably be someone who has neither heard of GNAA before nor participated in any of the VfDs or other lengthy debates about them; to this person the massive array of referencing will just seem odd. If you're adding references just because of a metadebate with other Wikipedians, think the decision over. If possible, try to use inline citations whenever possible. I'd rather see "person X said/wrote/proclaimed flame bait Y" than a footnote that is merely a link to a longer quote. Also, there's no need to use3 footnotes for several different parts of the GNAA website when the text actually says "...according to their website". That's a very good reference in itself./Peter ^Isotalo 14:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
              • If multiple references are ever necessary for one thing, it may be better to have one superscript which links to a footnote which then links to those multiple references, rather than have each reference separately documented one-per-line. -- BRIAN0918  17:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Down to half the footnotes with some clever summarizing. Good work; objection withdrawn. /Peter ^Isotalo 14:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Gnaa.png is used under "fair use". As such, the current copyright owner needs to be listed on the description page, and a rationale as to why it can be used under "fair use" needs to be provided for each page that the image is used on. --Carnildo 08:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Meets all the criteria for a FA, is well written, appears stable from the history... just because I don't like the GNAA don't mean I can't support an article about them on Wikipedia. (Vote by User:WegianWarrior on 03:54, 30 July 2005).
• Object. Too short for a FA and too many references (yes, this is an actionable objection, because it makes the article hard to read). Also violates the third rule of what a featured article is: ("Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).") In all honesty, this reads lke an advertisment for a troll organization rather than an featurable article. The fact that it's been nominated as an FAC could be looked at as an act of trolling itself. --FuriousFreddy 18:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). Also read Wikipedia:Cite sources.-- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an actionable objection, per what I said above. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Object to objection as I asked Ambi, the length of this article will only be a problem if information is missing. Also object to being called a troll, when I am clearly not. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "Could be looked upon as", meaning not definite, but possibly. I apoligize if it was not your intention (although you should be able to see how it could very easily be interpreted as such). Now, when this article was first nominated, it was clearly not of featured quality status. It is significantly better now, but I'm still not certain that this article is "non-controversial" and does not have "ongoing edit wars". As such, but since my previous objections were rectified, I am changing my vote to neutral.--FuriousFreddy 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • From WP:WIAFA, "non-controversial" doesn't refer to just any old controversy, but to neutrality and factual accuracy. Are you suggesting that the article shouldn't be supported because it is not neutral or not factually accurate? "Ongoing edit wars" doesn't refer to petty vandalism, but to significant and repeated reversion/edit wars over content (for neutrality/factuality concerns). Do you see evidence of this in the article's recent history? (If you are referring to a VFD, that is not an edit war or concern over neutrality/factuality, but a concern over notability, and the fact that it has easily survived 6 VFDs should indicate that the majority of people consider the article to be notable and its content to be at least decently written so as to make sense). -- BRIAN0918  14:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is not that much shorter than Heavy metal umlaut, over half of which is a list of sightings. Circeus 22:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Heavy metal umlaut would not hold up to current FAC requirements: it's short, almost all lists, and has no references or citations. It became featured during a period when FAC requirements were dirfferent.--FuriousFreddy 22:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Most, if not all of these objections are objectionable. —RaD Man (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object. While I don't agree at all with the constant calls for deletion of this page, I don't think it's Wikipedia's best work. I agree with Ambi's objections above (which are actionable). It would be interesting to note whether GNAA has objections to file-sharing/blogging/internet forums (as one source seems to indicate) or whether they're just having fun. Dave (talk) 20:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • This objection is actionable in part (wrt file-sharing/blogging/internet forums), provided that such information does indeed exist, which is unlikely. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This objection is entirely actionable. I laid out problems with most of the article which still haven't been fixed, and I think information on their motivations is kind of crucial. I'd be very surprised if there isn't any information about it around, considering the amount of GNAA material around. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's too short, and I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place? David | Talk 22:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). As stated below, these people are anonymous and any speculation about who they are or what their motives are would be original research. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Once again, this is perfectly actionable if Brian reads past it's too short. What about I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place don't you understand, Brian? It is pertinent information - we have virtually nothing in this article about how they work. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I did reply to his entire objection. You may want to read my entire reply before accusing me of not reading an entire reply. -- BRIAN0918  05:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How exactly do you want us to do this when they are all (very deliberately) anonymous? If I did write something, it would be original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • In all their years on the internet, I'm sure GNAA must have said something about this. Are you telling me you've both read everything there possibly is to read on the subject? If you can't be bothered to research something, then fine - but don't you dare call people's objections inactionable because of it. Ambi 01:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I have been around for a long while. If a GNAA member was revealed, then we most certainly would have heard about it because something would have been done to them (prosecution, revenge, etc). Nothing is known about the membership. Objection remains unactionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You can't just assume "they've been around for so long, so there must be more information out there that you have not found" (appeal to probability or some other fallacy). You can suggest that you would like to see information on ____, but if no information is ever provided, you can't claim that the article is incomplete unless you know for a fact that the information does exist. -- BRIAN0918  05:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • My objection is perfectly actionable. Firstly, 'too short' has always been considered an actionable objection to a FAC: it means the article is not sufficiently comprehensive. Secondly I do not accept that the only possible writing on what life is like inside the GNAA must be original research. It isn't exactly the KGB or Mossad and there are plenty of books available which explain what people working for them do all day. Are there not former members around? And anonymous people are not necessarily silent. This information does exist (because there are some members of the GNAA), and I simply do not accept that it can't be found. David | Talk 08:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. In the lead, it says the name was chosen because people are still uncomfortable talking about gays, and because "nigger" is a slur, but then it later says the name was derived from the movie Gayniggers from Outer Space. If this is sufficiently clarified in the article, assume I support. It's an informative look at trolling techniques and the internet's methods for stopping them. For those opposed to it's supposed shortness, read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). -- BRIAN0918  05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object - The article does not discuss the motivations of the group. Without this information, reading the article is unsatisfying. (Addition: It would also be helpful if the "Activities" section was broken up using subheadings). Thanks to Zscout370 for addressing all my concerns. Cedars 12:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • IIRC, it does say their motivations are unknown, which, unless someone on Wikipedia is able to find one of them and have a sit-down interview, I think it will remain true that their motivations are unknown. If this is correct, then there is no more information that can be added, so it would be complete. In other words, your objection is not valid/actionable. -- BRIAN0918  16:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • What makes you so sure that there is no information around? The GNAA has been on the internet for years, and I'd be very surprised if they hadn't talked about their motivations somewhere. Just because you're too lazy to research an objection does not make it unactionable. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • How did I become a contributor to the article? I simply replied to the FAC page for the article. I am not one of its contributors. Also, your reasoning is chock full of fallacies. Have a nice day. :)  BRIAN0918  06:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If there is information around, please provide it. I happen to know that the information that you are asking for is not available: this is a quite deliberate action on the part of the GNAA, as they are intensely annoying, and some of their actions could be seen as criminal. Do you think that the slashdot owners wouldn't have taken measures if they knew who they were dealing with? No offense Ambi, but either provide the information or please refrain from asking for information that is non-existent. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I launched the GNAA an email, seeing what I can get from them. I asked for their motivations, why they hate blogs and how many members they have. Well, it will be ironic that they hate file-sharing networks since they admited to using Bit-torent to share the movie Gayniggers from Outterspace. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Symbolic object on the grounds that I feel this should not be an article at all, although I am aware that is an invalid grounds for objection. Everyking 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you'll be fine with me crossing it out :)  BRIAN0918  23:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Objection - The article is about a small group of Internet trolls: it is barely worthy of an entry separate from Slashdot in the Wikipedia, let alone featured article status. A number of the external links that either broken seem to be broken at the moment or go to advertising messages or "register with our site" text rather than good credible sources. The article doesn't appear to represent Wikipedia's best work. --Mysidia 00:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection for obvious reasons. At most it could be a weak/minor objection with respect to the external link problems, but two bad external links does not a featured article not make... or something like that.... -- BRIAN0918  00:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree... the subject itself can't be actionable. This has been covered by VfD several times now. Has a point with the broken links, however we often have a last retrived section. Will look into this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that this is the worst behaviour from article nominators that I have ever seen on FAC. The whole idea of objections is to see that they're fixed so the article can become a better FA, not to try and find reasons for discounting them (which here amounts all too often to "I can't be bothered fixing them"). If you want the objection to be dealt with, fix the external links issue. It would take you all of two minutes. But then again, you'd rather declare it inactionable because you can't be bothered, like you have with all of the rest of these. Ambi 01:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If it only takes, as you said, two minutes, why don't you fix the external links yourself? —RaD Man (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I will fix them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I removed the Netsys link, but I will put a note that you must be a member to see the Something Awful link. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's a better referenced article than many other featured articles on Wikipedia, and does a good job treating the subject of trolling organizations. —shoecream 05:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• This is not a valid, actionable nomination. --Golbez 06:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable objection to a nomination... - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen, I finally got a motive for these attacks. They target sites that they deem pro-Zoinist. See [34], and [35]. Also, they mention other groups they work with and the people who did the attacking. We can describe the users in a section of the article, and another section for the groups they work with, like ANUS [36], [37]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Now we're getting somewhere. There's still massive holes in the article, but it's nice to see that someone is responding with further research instead of denouncing the objectors. Ambi 10:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your work Zscout370. It has really improved the article. Cedars 13:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Except... that motivation is by a known troll. I don't think it's a valid motivation: I think it's shit-stirring. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It is something, at least something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object: For the same reasons that I have been in favor of deletion: No names, no addresses, no motives, no verification, in other words. Encyclopedia articles are for verifiable subjects. That there have been attacks by people who refer to GNAA, that there have been attacks that other people say were like the GNAA, is one thing, but until names and documentary history can be presented, this is original research. The other axis for objection is that of importance. An FAC on a polypeptide found only in fish in the arctic ocean is on a subject with stable reference, verifiability, and, as well, on a thing with more significance than the most celebrated Internet circlej "phenomenon." When the authors can say something about the real people, we can be sure that there is a single group involved and not just a name tossed about for jollies. When the authors can demonstrate that the group, which is definable by motive, objective, and identity, has a place either as an off-shoot of a larger political act or as an ongoing struggle, then they can demonstrate that the so-called GNAA is significant enough to be a featured article. And, having written this, queue the petulant foot stamping accusations against me for daring to vote according to Wikipedia standards. Geogre 12:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • To Ambi: It is this level of objection to the article's contents (ie verification that actions are actually by the GNAA) that has required so many citations to be used in the article. -- BRIAN0918  19:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To the objector, we can publish user names, but I do not think we can post contact information in the article. That will amount to it being spam. For those who wish to speak to the GNAA, they can just go to their website. We cannot verify an address too, but when have they ever done stuff offline anyways? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support: The large amount of attention and controversy have made this article quite accurate and well-referenced. Distasteful though it may be, this is now a mature and stable (once the VfD trolls have been taken care of) Wikipedia article. --TexasDex 19:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Support because there are few articles so carefully looked over as much as this one. This falls into probably the top ten percent as to peer review, and is rather high in popularity. I cannot see people objecting to this except on the basis of content, which is not a valid objection. Ich 19:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Completely Strongly Oppose. Article is way, way, way too short. Lacks any images other than the logo. It's existance on Wikipedia is disputed. My opinion of the nominator, after the Doctor Who 'joke' and nominations such as this has unfortunately waned. Hedley 23:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I added two images last night: one of their sig and one topic they crapflooded. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My opinion of the objector, after reading this nasty little personal attack, has also waned. And don't give me that Doctor Who crap: I have apologised for this many times, and that has nothing to do with this FAC nomination. I have not done anything like it since then. The article will remain on Wikipedia as it has passed 6 VfDs and you know it. There is more than one image on the article. Please explain what information is missing from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Its existence on Wikipedia is not disputed. It has been disputed in the past, but the disputes have always come out in favor of keeping it. Not a valid reason. Images have been added since your opposition. Besides, it was never a valid objection since Featured articles in the past have had no images. The only objection that might be actionable is the "too short" statement, although this isn't in WP:WIAFA, and can only be actionable if content does exist that can be added. It's that simple: if an article is allowed on Wikipedia, and is comprehensive, then the length shouldn't matter (unless it is too long; ie: overly-detailed). -- BRIAN0918  14:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh really. So if I go and VfD it now, which is perfectly in my rights, it isn't disputed? Hedley 15:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I would suggest reading WP:WIAFA completely. As it says, the only thing close to talking about not being "disputed" refers to neutrality/factuality disputes. You can go ahead and VFD it if you want, I'm sure the Wikipedia community will like you for that. Until then, its notability is not disputed, and its neutrality/factuality is definitely not disputed. -- BRIAN0918  15:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• I have added more to the article, I was wondering if yall want to come back and read it again, seeing if I am missing anything else. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• See [38] for a comparison of then and now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. The article can still be improved a bit. For instance, more information on the members can be found in one of the l0de radio hour recordings ("meet the gnaa" AFAIR). As for the motivations, Why your Movable Type blog must die, even if a personal essay, seems to give a good example of a target (the blogs) and why the GNAA hates them. Sam Hocevar 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I will try to listen to it, but I am moving into a house today. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. When an encyclopedia article cannot provide a name (other than "TimeCop") for the founder and president of a movement, I'm inclined to believe that there isn't enough information available to write a feature-article. And yes, that's an actionable objection. --Scimitar ^parley 15:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not "actionable", because there's nothing anyone can do about it. The only thing your objection could apply to in WP:WIAFA is comprehensiveness/length, but if we've both defined an article's subject as being notable (as we have through 6 VFDs), and the article's content as being comprehensive (no other known information exists that can be added), then I don't see how it's a valid objection. -- BRIAN0918  16:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One could apply your argument to articles such as the Weathermen: who founded the movement? Who exactly were the leaders? How bad is it for the reader if this information is not known, since what is important is the actions and declarations of the group, not the identity of its individuals. Would you have objected to Deep Throat as well two months ago? And anyway, it's not impossible to find timecop's real name. But since for all his GNAA actions he is always referred to as "timecop", not his real name, he probably does not wish this information to be publicised. Sam Hocevar 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if it's possible to get TimeCop's real name, get it, include it, and my objection will disappear. Thus, it clearly is an actionable objection. As for the fact that he may not want his identity published, the concerns of an internet troll are not that high on my priority list. Since the information can be obtained, and is not included, but probably should be, the article is not comprehensive enough. --Scimitar ^parley 17:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it's not actionable if it requires original research (which it will - there are no secondary sources that mention his real name). We are not investigatory journalists. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. based on the guidelines, this does not meet FAC standards. #3: "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." (emphasis mine) the GNAA article although quite well written is a constant point of contention, see the 5 or 6 VFD's its had, not to mention which it is a constant troll/vandalism target. To me this hits the "ongoing edit wars" part square on the head. It also does not meet all of standard #2: "Be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written." as a subject of vandalism and edit wars it does not classify as stable IMO. Thats my $0.02 anyway. 64.222.238.123 16:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (oops forgot I wasnt logged in.)  ALKIVAR™ 16:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • All articles are subject to petty vandalism (especially main page featured articles). Vandalism is not an edit war. This article isn't undergoing edit wars. As the standards stated, "uncontroversial" refers to neutrality and factual accuracy, which has nothing to do with notability (the reason for the VFDs). -- BRIAN0918  16:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've merged/removed several of the citations and references. A suggestion for lengthening the article would be to quote some of the press releases/references within the article. This will help expand some of the small paragraphs and make the article seem less like a bunch of random incidents. -- BRIAN0918  17:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'support this article has really made it to feature status Yuckfoo 18:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:GNAA press release.jpg is claimed as GFDL. I don't think you can do that, not when it's a screenshot of two copyrighted programs, has at least four trademarked/copyrighted logos prominently displayed, and is a screenshot of a large block of copyrighted text -- and there was no creative effort involved in making the screenshot. --Carnildo 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. :)  BRIAN0918  18:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And unfixed by Zscout370. --Carnildo 20:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Based on my conversation with Carnildo, I had to place it as Fair use. The image has to be fair use since I cannot take a press release screen shot and make it GFDL. Also, to those who wish to add screenshots, please try it using Firefox and save yourself the trouble of dealing with copyright issues. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This cannot be a featured article in its current state. While this is a group that may be gaining notoriety on the internet, too much of the information is entirely speculative. All of the information on members, policies, goals, leadership, etc. is speculation. As Geogre points out, there is currently no way to create a verifiable encyclopedia article on the group, which therefore puts this into the realm of original research. While many individual events are well-chronicled and well-referenced in the article, it is impossible to discern how these individual events relate to the organization as a whole due to the lack of neccessary background information. I am sure someday this group can be put into proper perspective and perhaps be turned into a first-class encyclopedia article, but it cannot be today. Indrian 18:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't exactly "actionable" in that nothing can be done about it. -- BRIAN0918  18:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • These objections are actionable. To gain my support one would merely have to provide the proper documentation and perspective. If the objection cannot be acted upon because such information is unavailable, then the article should fail as a matter of principle. Indrian 18:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not necessarily that such information is unavailable, but that it doesn't exist, and any speculation would be original research. So essentially nobody there is "no action that can be done to correct your objection", so it's "not actionable". -- BRIAN0918  18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • We expect the best from our featured articles. If the subject matter does not allow for the best, then the subject matter does not warrant being featured. You seem to think being featured is the natural state of an article, and all objections must involve ways to bring it up to FA status. Sometimes, based on current information, it's simply not possible to bring it up to FA status. Imagine a very well-written, well-sourced article on the seventh Harry Potter book - would you vote to feature that, even though it is entirely unverifiable? Perhaps I should say This is not a valid objection to a valid, actionable objection? Simply put, Indrian gave you the possible action - that you are unable to undertake it is your problem, not his. That you are unable to fix the article does not render it automatically good for FA status. --Golbez 18:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well said. If Mark reads nothing else from this entire monstrosity, I hope he reads Golbez's comments above. Dave (talk) 19:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • How is it my problem? I did not nominate the article nor do I care to do the necessary research. I'm simply replying to the various (expected) objections as I see fit. I do believe all articles can become featured. If any information is not known or cannot be known, then one simply says "this information has never been documented", such as in the Deep Throat article before his name was revealed. -- BRIAN0918  19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- The fact that I can almost always be sure that Wikipedia will have content relating to developing social themes and trends remains one of WP's strongest attractions for me. This article helps to demonstrate the scope and immediacy of WP's content. Some of the objections made here strike me as unduly pedantic -- the article is well sourced, long enough to be informative, and worth featuring. -- Adrian 19:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I mean Support (what, this is not a VfD? yikes!) Now seriously, the article is well written and meets the criteria. The subject itself is not controversial, rather the existence of the article itself is, and that existence has been established definitely after 6 VfDs. I also support as per Adrian's comment above. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 01:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good piece of work on something obscure. pamri 02:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I believe that this is a bad-faith nomination and oppose the attempt to bring the ugliness of VfD to FAC... — David Remahl 06:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • **rolls eyes** Think whatever you like. You are wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, and support. — David Remahl 05:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Relax. This is ridiculous. I know second graders who are more polite than the some of the users posting here. Addressing objections does not require explosive and insulting responses. I'd like to thank Zscout370, as he seems to be one of very few calm and rational wikipedians contributing here and to the article itself. If possible, I want to see more of his kind of contributions, relating to the individual members and activities of the organization. There are several very short sections, and more information related to those topics would be great. Even so, this is a support, because it's unclear whether or not more information like this is available. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, one more thing—why the link to a dead IRC channel? --Spangineer (háblame) 23:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words and I have removed the dead link to the GNAA IRC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Support. It's as comprehensive as an article on the subject could be, without being too detailed, and I didn't see any edit wars when viewing the page history. However, after reading other people's remarks, I'm still unsure about the copyright status of Image:GNAA press release.jpg. If it is tagged correctly, assume my full support. Extraordinary Machine 00:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The question about the image was resolved above. I had to make it fair use, since I cannot take a screenshot and make it GFDL, especially if I am using IE. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Zscout cleared the confusion up for me on my talk page, so I have change my vote. Extraordinary Machine 00:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article is on a source where little information is known. A short article is therefore expected. Having long been a reader of FAC, and having most of WP:WIAFA memorized, I know this article can pass muster. By the way, if you copy the entire article and paste it into Microsoft Word, it is eight pages long. If you copy and paste the enitrety of this ridiculously overwrought FAC discussion, it is 17 pages long as of this posting. RyanGerbil10 04:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Why not. --Golbez 17:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, I am not sure anyone knows this, but Raul654 has removed this from the main FAC section and another admin closed this debate by placing a template on the GNAA talk page notifying us about it's failure to get FA status. I sent this article to peer review so I can let the folks from here tell me what I have to do to get this article Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't a properly closed FAC require a vote tally, and require the counting admin to reveal himself? --Golbez 17:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not think so, but I can perform a tally if you wish. I am just going to count the supports and objections, but I will also count those that are disputed, since everyone was (except for one symbolic objection). Once I figure that out, I will add to my To do list and see what happens at the Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • (A) The FAC is not a vote; one major objection is enough to kill a nomination; (B) the "counting admin" (the person who failed this nom) is me; on the FAC, it's (almost) always me (with maybe 3 or 4 exceptions in the last year). →Raul654 18:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm coming in late here, but could you please point out which objections were not addressed? Please see Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections for a summary. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I was actually thinking more of FPC, which almost always carries a vote count at the end. --Golbez 18:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, off the peer review I go. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois

This article has been subject to a lot of work over the last few weeks and I feel it is one of Wikipedia's best. We have been working hard to correct the objections brought up in the peer review, and all of them have been dealt with. The article was also re-organized to the standard set by WikiProject Cities. It now provides an in-depth look into nearly everything one might want to know about Chicago and finally does the city justice. --Gpyoung ^talk 18:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support --Gpyoung ^talk 18:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support- comprehensive, well-written. Just a comment: I would remove the hours of operation and phone numbers from the museums and galleries; they seem irrelevant. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support - for the reasons stated above, and because not only is it a well written article, but one of global import being that Chicago is a city important to global culture and economy. Agriculture 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

With the changes that have been made, I now strongly support this article.

• Weak Support - Overall, the article is very well written and comprehensive. Much improved and has addressed past recommendations well. The reason I am voting with weak support is mainly because of the skyline photo at the top. While it is an improvement, the alternative viewpoint of the city focuses on other areas. For example, the Sears Tower (the tallest building in the US) is barely visible in the background - personally, I think that should be one of the major things visible, since that is most commonly associated with the city. Dr. Cash 19:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Article looks good! A very important city and an excellent example of how to write a good city article! Dr. Cash 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object
  1. The image Image:Chicago lit.jpg does not have information on its copyright status. "May be in the public domain" isn't good enough: either it is, or it isn't.
  2. The image Image:Home Insurance Building.JPG does not have copyright information.
  3. The images Image:ChicagoWinter.jpg, Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg, Image:Secondcity.jpg, Image:SoxPark.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, fair use images should be avoided if at all possible. Of the four images, only Image:Secondcity.jpg cannot be replaced by an image under a free license. That image needs to have the copyright owner listed, and to include reasoning as to why its use on Chicago, Illinois constitutes "fair use". The other three images need to be removed from the article and replaced with free-content images.

  --Carnildo 19:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The city logo is still of a very bad quality resolution, and I agree with Flcelloguy's comment about the contact details of the museums so much so that I must oppose. Also, here's a link to the recent peer review, and I'm disappointed to see that none of the points mentioned seem to have been addressed fully. Harro5 07:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have removed the phone numbers and hours of operation from the Museums section and I have also found a better, higher resolution image of the city seal. As for the peer review, the vast majority of the chages proposed there have been implemented; the {{Chicago}} template has been reduced in size, the location maps have been totally redone for greater clearity, prose has been added to the Museums section, Health and Medicine was made its own section, and the images that were not tagged have been. If there is anything else that you would suggest please feel free. --Gpyoung ^talk 17:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Unless a pressing objection surfaces, I'm happy. Harro5 07:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support-I think this is one of the best big-city articles out there. I too agree that the Muesums shouldt have hours listed, this is afterall an encyclopedia, but I see that it has been fixed. POlsen 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I think maybe this is a good article, about an important city. 內布拉斯加 00:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose -- 1) The article size is too long. I believe I have commented on this in the previous nomination. For my reasons on page size please see the Louisville nomination below. 2) Misuse of headings. Avoid the numerous headings. Its bloated. 3) History is too long. It should be a summary of the History of Chicago, not a mirror image of that article. 4) Units are poorly formatted, it does not follow the Manual of Style. I've corrected them in the climate section of the Louisville section, it is visible in edit mode. Please make the appropriate changes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree with the article size being too long. It currently states that it's 41 Kb. Sure, in the land of 300 baud to 14.4 dialup, this might be significant, but on today's world of broadband, I hardly see this as a problem. Chicago is a very large city, and there's a lot of information to include about the city. I would rather see as much general information about the city as possible on the main city page, rather than having to click for more information on every major subsection. I also noted in the Louisville FAC discussion that the Seattle, Washington and San Jose, California (currently both Featured Articles) are both larger in size than both the Louisville and Chicago articles. Dr. Cash 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You haven't read my latest post in the Lousiville article on the size. Its NOT about the bandwidth, let me repeat; its about highlighting the salient points about the city. Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, this article is not long because it isnt summarized, it is long because it includes many different topics and tries to cover as much about Chicago as possible. It is long because of an abondance of content, not because of lack of summarization. I and many other editors have tried to cut down on the "fluff" in the article, but not much can be taken out as we seek to completely cover the city of Chicago. --Gpyoung ^talk 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - I really want to support this article, but I can't yet. My main gripe is that the article is not cohesive - it reads like a bunch of small sections thrown together, not a single article. This makes the article unable to convey what Chicago means, what it is; the article is currently more like a broad collection of factoids. While I realize there are some complaints about length, it does not cover enough ground. One obvious point is a complete lack of discussion of the many distinct neighborhoods and districts of Chicago (in addition to discussion, a map of these would be fantastic). This article should give a better, "broad-stroke" impression of the city, and summary style should be employed more fully to really cover the topic. There is no reason to need fair use images for a topic like this; I'm sure we have hundreds of editors that live in Chicago and can go out and snap some shots for us, making fair use claims dubious. - Bantman 19:01, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object - Most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review, but since then the history portion has been subdivided into far too many short sections. I also second Carnildo's objection about the images. We really shouldn't have fair use images like Image:Chicagocityhall.jpg that can be replaced by anyone with a digital camera. No featured article can have unverified images, as this one does. - SimonP 00:57, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have re-organized the history section of the article in order to group similar sub-headings while still leaving the newly added content, now it is back down to four as with was during the Peer Review. I hope this helps. --Gpyoung ^talk 19:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Support - I feel this is a comprehensive, well-written article that is very qualified to become a featured article. In my comparison of Chicago to San Jose, California (which was a featured article), Chicago's intro and history sections seem smaller, so I don't understand why people are complaining that they are too long. The article does not seem bloated to me, I would rather see more important information on one page than scattered about several sub-pages. A lot of work has gone into this article to have it conform to the standards of WikiProject Cities and the article is now ready to be a featured article. -- Shoffman11 03:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment (not a vote either way), shouldn't there be a mention of Carl Sandburg's 1916 poem "Chicago": "Hog Butcher for the World/Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat/…They tell me you are wicked and I believe them…/And having answered so… I give them back the sneer and say to them:/Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive…

Similarly, no mention of the Haymarket Riot? Of Studs Terkel?

The section on music makes no mention of Chicago's massive (if perhaps belated) role in the folk revival: in the 1970s, Chicago had pretty much taken over from New York as the center of that musical movement, with the likes of John Prine and Steve Goodman and venues like the Earl of Old Town, Somebody Else's Troubles, and (later) Holstein's, not to mention the Old Town School. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The lead, at least, is now featurable, and I really desperately want Chicago to be a featured article, as fascinating and complex as it is. I'll probably tweak the article some more (under my IP address) to maske it even better. Dralwik 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I believe the article is a wonderful example of how a Wikipedia city article should be written. It is comprehensive and well written. I also love that through the history of the article itself many of the contributors have taken chances and have tried different things even though they don't always conform to emerging standards. I've seen this influence and filter into other city articles everywhere which in turn influences the aforementioned standards. This is an example of the beauty of Wikipedia. Many minds all building something for the masses and taking different viewpoints to get there. The day Wikipedians stop taking these chances is the day Wikipedia becomes stale and dies.

Now, while I understand the POV of some who believe the article is too long I disagree with that sentiment. It is my belief that from a usability standpoint readers would prefer lots of summary information with links into deeper articles rather than a list of a bunch of links to deeper articles. Proper use of a TOC prevents massive scrolling if one would like to jump to the section they want. If the article becomes big, then so be it, Chicago is afterall a large global city and much can be written about it. Jasenlee 21:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Asteroid

This article gives a lot of good information. I think it has the ability to be a featured article. Rentastrawberry 23:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While this seems to be a comprehensive and well-written article, it needs references. --DanielNuyu 00:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object-Although the article is very comprehensive and well wirtten from what I can see, I do agree that it needs references. Also, I think more pictures have to be added into the article. I understand that there are not many "different looking" pictures of asteroids, however something has to be done to add pictures that do not all look the same if at all possible, and the pictures that are already there can be moved around the spread them out in the article if no new ones can be added. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

- After reading the objections to the previous nomination, I belive this article is ready to become FAC. SVera1NY 17:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The old nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1 --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The images Image:Pjp2b.jpg, Image:Giovannipaolo 2arms.jpg, Image:Dalai Lama.jpg, Image:Jp ii wailing wall.jpg, Image:Pope and Christodoulos2.jpg, Image:Qur'an.jpg, Image:Toronto.jpg, Image:Yad Vashem.jpg are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, "fair use" and other non-free images should be avoided if at all possible. If fair use images must be used, the source for the image must be given, and a rationale as to why fair use can be claimed must be provided for each page the image is used on.
  2. The image Image:Pope-shot-26.jpg is claimed as public domain, which is clearly incorrect.
  3. The rationale for why Image:Pope John Paul II with Pinochet.jpg is in the public domain is confusing.

Object, the prose isn't exactly brilliant, there are very few paragraphs over 2-3 sentences, much of the article reads like bullet points without the bullets.--nixie 23:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The nominator seems to have deleted the old nomination in preparing this one, but I seem to remember it wasn't all that long ago that there was a HUGE list of objections, and I can't see any evidence that any great progress has been made.Harro5 08:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • The edit summary indicates that the old one has been moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Object. The old nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope John Paul II/archive 1. Most of my objections still stand. The Pope deserves a perfect article, and this is not it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object- he he, edit conflict. I basically typed the same thing as Piotrus, but it seems like because of the edit conflict, it "lost" my comment. Anyways, I have planning to rewrite/expand this for a long time, but haven't found the time yet because I've been quite busy. Many of the objections from last time have not been addressed yet. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Military history of Canada

An article I started back in 2003 that has since been much improved by a number of editors. In the last few weeks I've worked to cover the last omissions and bring it up to FA standards. It recently went through peer review, and all concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 22:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Support- a great article that is comprehensive. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. What can I say, this is a really good article! Very well written, very articulate, and quite comprehensive. Really deserves to be on the main page. --Mb1000 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support, the only thing thats a bit flat is the opening sentence. Otherwise its a great article--nixie 06:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support - good stuff. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object- Although the article is well written and comprehensive I can't help but notice that it seems a little bit to positive at times. I'd like to see less emphasis on the 'for a country of only ... inhabitants' aspect, however unique it might be. The sentence 'Canada fully committed itself to the alliance against Communism being a founding member of NATO and signing the NORAD treaty with the United States' should be rewritten in my opinion, since it was an alliance against the threat of the Communist bloc and its sphere of influence, not an alliance against the idea itself. Also, according to the Wikipedia article on the Vietnam War, 'thousands of Canadians joined the American armed forces and served in Vietnam' which should be mentioned in the article. Regards, Lankhorst 13:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Astrophysics Data System

The ADS is a vital research tool for astronomers, and contributes as much to annual astronomical output as all the astronomers in France. My PhD would probably have taken me about 40 years to do without it, so I thought it was deserving of a good article. I've worked on it over the last few days and thought I would propose it here as I think it is comprehensive and hopefully reasonably interesting and enlightening for non-astronomers. Worldtraveller 16:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. A good summary, but it seems to fall short of comprehensiveness. Note for instance the length of the sections. Everyking 17:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What more would you like to know? If you tell me I'll include it. Which sections are shorter than they could be? Worldtraveller 18:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of the sections are only a paragraph or two long. Everyking 18:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A section doesn't necessarily need to be long to be comprehensive. Please indicate what you think is missing so I can rectify it. Worldtraveller 18:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support from this ex-astronomer. Well done, sir. ADS was fortunate to be there just as the web was taking off. Query whether it is worth mentioning other on-line sources of academic journal articles, such as http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph ? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point - I'll add details of astro-ph and ADS's integration with it. Worldtraveller 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • done that now - Worldtraveller 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Looks pretty good to me, and meets all the criteria. Giano | talk 19:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support, well organized and seems to provide a pretty comprehensive range of info. Uber nemo 04:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object- for now. My main issue is with the references. You have them, but there is no way to tell what fact leads to what reference. (Subsequently, the requests for reference I list here would probably be solved by simply writing what the cite is, like this: People choking on chicken nuggets is bad for business (Smith, Jonsey) where a reference by Smith and Jonsey is listed in references below.) Okay, so what is the cite for these statements?:

Several studies have estimated quantitatively how much more efficient ADS has made astronomy; one estimated that ADS increased the efficiency of astronomical research by 333 full-time equivalent research years per year...

"one [study]" - which one?

...and another found that in 2002 its effect was equivalent to 736 full-time researchers, or all the astronomical research done in France.

"another [study]" - which one?

ADS has allowed literature searches that would previously have taken days or weeks to carry out to be completed in seconds, and it is estimated that ADS has increased the readership and use of the astronomical literature by a factor of about three since its inception.

Estimated by whom?

In monetary terms, this increase in efficiency represents a considerable amount. There are about 12,000 active astronomical researchers worldwide, so ADS is the equivalent of about 5% of the working population of astronomers. The global astronomical research budget is estimated at between 4,000 and 5,000 million USD...

Who's estimate is it? To put weight to the following statement, some verification would be helpful.

so the value of ADS to astronomy would be about 200–250 million USD annually. Its operating budget is a small fraction of this amount.

Not as an actionable objection, but as a matter of curiosity, what is its budget?

Studies reveal that the highest per-capita users of ADS are France and Netherlands-based astronomers, and while more developed countries (measured by GDP per capita) use the system more than less developed countries; the relationship between GDP per capita and ADS use is not linear. The range of ADS uses per capita far exceeds the range of GDPs per capita, and basic research carried out in a country, as measured by ADS usage, has been found to be proportional to the square of the country's GDP divided by its population.

Which studies?

ADS usage statistics also suggest that astronomers in more developed countries tend to be more productive than those in less developed countries.

Is there a link to this study?

Statistics also imply that astronomers in European cultures carry out about three times as much research as those in Asian cultures, perhaps implying cultural differences in the importance attached to astronomical research.

"Statistics also imply..." Which statistics? Can you provide any more information on the implication you provide, offer a counterargument to the implication, or provide a reference or link to one who has made it?

Citing these few things would also put weight to the significant claims mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Additionally, and this is just my curiosity again, to your knowledge does any search engine in wide use by the public contain language / code / technilogical advancements introduced by ADS? What about other scientific fields (medicine, for instance). Or is ADS's innovations remain limited to ADS itself. Also, does NASA fund ADS exclusively, or does it recieve help. And do journals have to pay to be listed?

Don't get me wrong, this was an amazing article about a fascinating subject. I look forward to changing my vote in the coming days. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jeffrey, for your very detailed and helpful comments, and sorry it's taken me a few days to respond fully (thanks to Raul for letting the nomination stay up for a few days longer as well). I've now added cites to the references used for these various claims. Regarding the Asian/European cultural claim I can't find any papers countering the claim made in the one I've referenced unfortunately. I've also not been able to find out yet what ADS's annual budget is, but will make enquiries. As far as I know, ADS's technology has not been directly adopted by other journal search engines, probably because it was designed by astronomers for astronomers and may not be easily applicable to other disciplines. NASA does fund ADS exclusively at the moment, I'll add a line about that to the article, and no, journals don't pay to be listed - they're included purely on the basis of astronomical merit. Thanks again! Worldtraveller 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Great work, and thanks for looking into that information. Enthusiastic Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support without reservation. —Theo (Talk) 13:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Jet Database Engine

Self nomination (one of my focus articles). I think this is pretty comprehensive now! I have referenced it thoroughly, and attempted to explain the various database concepts as well as I can to the layman (one of the peer review comments). I have also got a table that details versions for the history - I realise that the history text is quite dry, but nonetheless necessary. Hope to have this up to scratch before moving on to MDAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, very readable (espesially considering the subject matter). Only (minor) thing that ought to get dealt with is the red links. WegianWarrior 09:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  Hmmm... I'll be getting to it :) Thanks Wegian! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Phroziac (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Really an "object", but I'll be away the next few weeks, and I don't want to stand in the article's way because of some obsolete old objection that I couldn't strike out due to my absence. I trust Ta bu to address my points anyway. While this is good work, there are many open questions: Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I'm unsure whether the longish and yet superficial explanations of "Locking", "Transaction processing", and "Data integrity" really belong into this article. Wouldn't it be better to have full-blown articles on these subjects and just give summaries (with "Main article"-links) here? After all, it's not as if Jet was in any way special: these mechanisms are/were commonplace. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Hmmmm... good point. I have created Lock (database). There are some specific things in that section to do with Jet, though. Transaction processing already exists, and I have Jet specific stuff in that section, so don't feel that a {{seemain}} would be appropriate for this section. I quite like the "Data Integrity" section, and feel that it is necessary background information. It's possible that it should be placed into its own article. Not sure, what do others think? The queries stuff is very much specific to Jet, same with security. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  2. I'm worried about the accuracy of these descriptions. The article states, for instance, that "With pessimistic locking it is guaranteed that the record will be updated." This must be qualified by "if the user obtained the lock", otherwise the obvious question a reader will ask is "then why use optimistic locking at all?". The point is that you may get more lock conflicts with a pessimistic policy, which is why optimistic schemes were invented based on the observation that most transactions won't conflict anyway. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Hmmm... my understanding might be faulty here. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

     OK, I see what you are saying. I have updated the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  3. What locking policy (policies) did Jet employ? 2PL? See also concurrency control. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Gulp... don't know! OK, definitely something that needs sorting out. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  4. I presume Jet has read and write locks, but the article talks about locking only in the context of updating. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Another fair point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  5. "Until the transaction is committed, the only changes that are made are in memory and not actually done on disk." Yeah, really? What about logging and/or file caches? Was caching left entirely to the OS? Strikes me as unlikely, but what do I know what Microsoft did... Maybe safer to rephrase to "Until a transaction is successfully committed, changes are only recorded in temporary storage and not yet in the database itself." or some such. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     I got that from a Microsoft article. Will dig it out and add a footnote. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

     Got this from Microsoft themselves:

     "Since the operations in a transaction are saved up in memory until the entire transaction is committed, application developers can benefit from their use even when a transaction would not otherwise be necessary" [39]

  6. The article fails to explain what a "user" is. I take it that it is a software that uses the Jet DLLs, hence if one human user runs two different programs that both use Jet to access the same database, these two programs would be two "users" in the context of this article. Is that the intended meaning? If so, explain it; a layperson might think the word refers to a human user. If not, also explain it! Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     OK, will do. This is good stuff! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  7. "Queries" talks about SQL queries, but the lead-in paragraph of "Architecture" states that the ability to run SQL queries was only added in later versions... Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Good point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  8. The lead paragraph states that Jet has been obsoleted by Microsoft SQL Server. When? When did MS stop selling applications based on Jet? Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Will check the MDAC article - it says it in there somewhere. I know it is definitely not being produced any more. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  9. Is it "jet" or "JET"? The lead paragraph has both... Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

     Good point. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

     Now fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  10. Some minor grammatical/stylistic things such as the use of "till" instead of "until" (I'm a foreign speaker, so I may be mistaken, but "until" strikes me as more formal and more appropriate for an encyclopedia article; I've changed that myself) or "a Jet dynamic link library (DLL) that could directly manipulate Microsoft Access database files (MDB), which was a modified form of an Indexed Sequential Access Method (ISAM) database", which doesn't parse well because the singular last clause (on ISAM) refers to the plural mention of MDB, not to the singular "Jet DLL". (I haven't come up with a good idea how to rephrase this.) Another problem is that some paragraphs are written in the present tense and others in past tense. Lupo 08:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

      Ya. Agree it needs a good copyedit. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support, especially like the table in the History section. Phoenix2 03:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object I read the intro and couldn't work out what was going on. Needs to be restyled so that a layman can understand what it is (by all means have a few technical details later, but at least allow a layman to get an idea of what a Microsoft Jet Database Engine is, why it's important and what it does, jguk 07:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, the table and graphic down the bottom (in the "History" section) are way to wide... Alphax ^τεχ 10:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to 300px. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to support, much betterer now! Very detailed article on a difficult subject. Alphax ^τεχ 15:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cochineal

I would like to self-nominate this article because it's balanced and informative. The article provides interesting facts from arround the globe, so it should be interesting to read. DariusMazeika 12:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• refer to peer review mild object Support This is a good start at an article toward featrued quality, but: 1) Cite your sources in a References section. 2) The lead section is inadequate for an article of this length. 3) The article lacks the Taxobox that is used on other articles about animals. slambo 13:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks better, thanks for making the changes so quickly. On the references, they should be formatted as is shown on the page linked above, especially important for online references is the date that they were accessed. Some editors like to see inline citations (like are described in Wikipedia:Footnote3), but I'm still indifferent to footnoting. The lead is better, but the article body now needs more information about the species to be comprehensive. A good comparison for other animal articles is Island Fox which was promoted to featured status about a month or so ago. slambo 15:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have introduced the changes proposed for the lead section and the references into the article. Comment again, please. Thank you. DariusMazeika 21:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Steady improvement, thanks. I've only skimmed it this morning; I'll re-read it later today and reconsider. slambo 11:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Just re-read the article, upgrading my vote to Support. Well done! slambo 02:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I've just adjusted the reference system and given it a good copyedit, it has potential but is not ready yet. Going over it thoroughly there is still room for expansion particularly in the section where the life cycle is described, more could be added to the usage too. There is a mix of metric and imperial measurements. The exact range of catci (seems to eat cacti from two genera, but there is only list of species for 1) needs to be researched and included. There are lots of red links, and quite a few blue ones that link to substandard articles, like carmic acid, which redirects to carmine and they're not the same thing but they are both relevant to the article. Also the cost of cochineal compared to the artifical dyes seems relevant but is not mentioned--nixie 01:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Lifecycle & usage have been expanded, details like pricing, current markets and normalised list of species added. DariusMazeika 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, some more stubs for the red links, would be good before it appears on the main page. Nice work on getting the photos. --nixie 00:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comments 1) Actual images would be better over drawings of the insect. 2) I think the biology section could be expanded. 3) The history section makes no mention of the pigments cochineal replaced. Circeus 12:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for comments. I am going to improve the article after a weekend - on Monday-Tuesday. DariusMazeika 10:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The article improved according to comments 2) and 3). Currently I was unsuccessful in finding a free macro photo of the insect for 1). New images are on the page, a macro images are expected, too. DariusMazeika 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It could be improved, of course, but I'd say it's good enough for FA status already. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Mild support I'm just a little concerned about the second paragraph being where it is; I'm thinking maybe it should be in the Dye--History section instead of where it is. Does anyone agree with me on that? --JB Adder | Talk 23:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason why I have put this paragraph on top, is because it describes what the rest article is about: not only the biology and the dye (as the first paragraph suggests), but also the farming, history and current market, like the second one does. DariusMazeika 07:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. Now that I know that, I'll give my full support. --JB Adder | Talk 07:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are a number of orphan paragraphs that are only one or two sentences that either need to be expanded or merged as the create poor prose flow. There is also a fair amount of poor grammar and sentence structure that appears as if it was written by a non-native english speaker. Nothing wrong with being non-native, but it still needs to be fixed. I'll see what I can do, but some of them I won't be able to fix because I won't know what the intent of the author was. Here's one specific one: "The dried bodies of the females or eggs are the main source of carminic acid which is used to make an expensive crimson or carmine red coloured dye primarily used as an food artificial colouring or for cosmetics named after the insect." As I understand it the dye and the coloring are known as cochineal, not the cosmetics they are used in. The sentence is not clear on which is correct. - Taxman ^Talk 16:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've wound up the short paragraphs and fixed the remnant grammar problems.--nixie 06:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • All improvements, and I've done some more, but there is still a lot of very stilted, poorly flowing prose. No offense to anyone, but the writing is far from brilliant. I'll give a little leeway on prose difficulties arising from collating sources, and trying to be careful about the research, but even that can be improved, and there are many cases throughout the article that aren't even due to that. There is also a question of fact, the 'Host cacti' section refers to the cacti being introduced into Australia to produce cochineal dye, but Opuntia tells a different story, and emphasizes the results very differently. Come to think of it, "Side effects have caused a havoc:" is hard to think of as NPOV. Also, from the coloring section: "Each method produces a different colour which results in the varied appearance of commercial cochineal. The immersion technique produces grey grains known as grey cochineal [3]. Heating technique produces almost black grains known as black cochineal." Then where the heck does the red color (or related shades) come from? - Taxman ^Talk 21:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bart McQueary

• Support, he's planning on running for government office and this will be a great "pre-emptive" move to get people aware of who this guy is before any of the lies or mudslinging starts69.154.189.180 05:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is used for pre-emptive strikes?66.32.122.233 19:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds more like grounds for deletion than grounds for featuring. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Carnildo 20:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object. In addition to needing a massive NPOVing, there is no copyright information on the pictures used.

WegianWarrior 05:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support, I'm sure that Bart couldn't be happier than to be featured on Wikipedia. He's determined that everyone will know his name - he subscribes to the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity." He makes it a point to make people dislike him. If he runs for office, he surely dosen't expect to win but rather use the publicity. He dosen't accept any money. So all it can do is help him. Go for it! 66.32.122.233 06:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Even though your comments have been noted and your zeal for participating in Featured Articles votes are appreciated I must inform you that your vote will not be counted when it comes time to count the votes, This is not personal and I urge you to create an account so that you can have your vote officially counted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Terribly written, not at all notable or worthy of Wikipedia's time, no referencing system, no real information of any value...this nomination should be removed. Harro5 07:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No Harro5 you are wrong. It says on the discussion page "A well written article that also will help serve to raise awareness."

In responce to the unsigned comment by 66.32.122.233; the article don't seem very well written to me. As it stands it is in need of NPOVing (I notice that a number of things that are, how to put it, less flattering have been edited out) as well as a rewrite to make it easier to read. WegianWarrior 10:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think more references should be cited, the lead article needs to be longer and the page could use a cleanup. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: Right now, it's a "he said" and a "and then he did this, and then this" format, more like a news report than an encyclopedia article. Structurally, the page is focused so much on following every exploit that it's a celebration of him in the guise of a condemnation, and both POV's need to be removed. So far, he has had nearly zero effect on the world and only some slight effect on the digestion of Internet junkies, so it's not really dealing with a significant bit of history or news. The writing is choppy, and, most of all, there just isn't any logical presentation of the subject. And to the IP editor: these are actionable objections, and lawyering about it is absolutely no use. Geogre 16:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article definately needs a ton more references and a much more NPOV. Many times while reading this piece I felt that I was reading a self-promotional brochure about the guy instead of an encyclopedia article.--Alabamaboy 17:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  1. The images Image:Bartley.jpg and Image:Bart 2.JPG have no copyright information
  2. The incidents described in "1.4: Internet Presence": is there any significance to this, or is it just normal forum squabbling?
  3. Overall organization: How is it organized? It certainly isn't chronological, but it probably should be.
  4. Health problems: How is his sleep apnea and other problems significant? And why is it important that he took time out from the announcement to call someone names?
  5. References: The article is completely lacking in third-party references, and much of the "so-and-so says" statements are completely unsourced.
  6. I'm sure there are other problems.

1. --Carnildo 18:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: the article is up for WP:VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bart McQueary 2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre

Self Nomination. I have been working on this article for eight months now, with the help of countless contributors. I believe this article now exemplifies the qualities for featured article status. It has been peer reviewed twice, and was a featured article candidate two weeks ago. Almost every portion of the article can be supported with facts and information found through official investigations and several sources around the internet. It is comprehensive, concise, and should be featured as one of wikipedia's best works. - PRueda29 - 15:08 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - I haven't read all of the article yet, I'll read that when i'm not studing. I looked quickly at the pictures. You need to expand the fair use rationale for pictures with the fairuse tag. Guidelines can be found here. Furthermore, the pd domain pictures, don't seem like they are taged right to me, please elaborate why they are pd. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Srong Object. This article was a featured article candidate just last week and was rejected (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbine High School massacre/archive one). While the article has been improved since then, it still has not addressed several of the issues I raised, such as listing references for the sections Long-term impact and Aftershock (although this last section now has two of them). The reason these sections need plenty of references is they contain possible POV issues and interpretations that would have to have outside sources. For example, this paragraph: "In the weeks following the shootings, media reports about the two killers portrayed them as part of a "goth cult" known as the "Trenchcoat Mafia." They were portrayed as outcast "nerds" who were unpopular and ostracized by much of the school's population; later such characterizations were revised as both Harris and Klebold were documented to have both a close circle of friends and a wider informal social group. (However, they were not "popular" and could best be described as being members of the school's "rejects", although by no means were they isolated.)"

This paragraph contains several items that need referencing, such as saying "they were not "popular" and could best be described as being members of the school's "rejects", although by no means were they isolated." Who said this? If the editor said it, it is POV. If an outside source said it, it needs a reference. Finally, in its previous FAC, the article was recommended for Peer Review. According to the date tags on Wikipedia:Peer review/Columbine High School massacre, this was done on Aug. 14, but all of the review comments came on Aug 21. One day is too short for peer review comments, especially when it is renominated for FAC that same day. The article's talk page also needs a links and template tags for the old FAC comments. My suggestion is to take the time to let this article be improved by references, especially more in-line one. --Alabamaboy 19:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. After the recent edits and the addition of inline references, I fully support this article. I know I was initially hard on the article, but that was b/c the subject matter had to be fully researched and sourced to avoid future trouble with reverts and edits. In response to concerns raised , PRueda29 has done some amazing work on this article over the last day and it fully deserves to be a FA at this point.--Alabamaboy 12:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Several peer reviwes were done to the article starting on August 14th, but I accidentally deleted them.

That's good to know. I still feel uneasy, though, with renominating an article for FAC so soon after the previous nomination. However, others don't have a problem with this then I won't worry about it too much. Also, if references are inserted for those two sections, that will remove my major objection to the article.--Alabamaboy 21:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image copyrights are probably the worst mess I have ever seen pass through FAC:
  1. The image Image:Columbine High School.jpg is claimed under fair use, but has no fair use rationale. Further, it is unlikely that the image copyright is held by http://www.chsmemories.org/, as it looks like a screen capture of a news helicopter's imagery.
  2. The image Image:ColumbineHighHarrisKlebold.gif is claimed as public domain, but I see no evidence of that.
  3. The image Image:ColumbineLibrary.jpg is claimed as fair use. However, it is quite possible for a replacement for this image to be created by a Wikipedia: there is no reason to use a fair use image here.
  4. The image Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg is claimed as "public domain under a fair use agreement". What the heck is that supposed to mean?
  5. The image Image:Evacuating Columbine.jpg is claimed as fair use, but has no source or fair use rationale.
  6. The image Image:Columbine Breaking News Photography.GIF is claimed as fair use, but has no fair-use rationale.

  --Carnildo 03:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Object - Good points. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment - "public domain under a fair use agreement". What the heck is that supposed to mean? - This comment has made me laugh, a lot. I'm sorry, I'm new at posting pictures and had no clue how to do it, but I've had some help from experienced users. I hope they're tagged correctly now.

Columbine High School massacre

• Support. In the past six months this article has been greatly expanded. All the information in it has been acquired via official police investigation reports. It does suffer from routine vandalism, but those who moderate it are quick to act upon this. The article is consistant, accurate, well-written, and comprehensive. Also, the topic is popular and significant. -PRueda29 02:12 (UTC) August 13, 2005.

I have added the refferences, they were hidden within the "external links" section. - PRueda29 02:28, 13 August 2005, (UTC)

While I do agree with the copyright status of the pictures, I don't believe the article needs footnote refferences to be considered a featured article. The current featured article for August 13 - "Helen Gandy", has no in-line refferences and still made featured article status. Please consider this. - PRueda29 - 21:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While the article is well written and seems factual, there are no references at all. Considering how much coverage this has received, until it is completely referenced I can't support it.--Alabamaboy 02:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. While that helps, I'd still like to see some in-line references (see Wikipedia:Footnote3), especially in the sections such as Long-term impact and Aftershock and the search for reason. --Alabamaboy 02:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The copyright status of Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg needs to be determined. This is a tricky one: any product of creative effort is automatically copyrighted, but is installing a security camera a creative act? I think the image is in the public domain, but I am not a copyright lawyer.
  2. The image Image:Columbine Breaking News Photography.GIF is claimed under fair use. As such, it needs to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. In particular, the source and copyright holder of the image needs to be specified, and the rationale as to why use on Columbine High School massacre is fair use needs to be added.

  --Carnildo 07:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review. The description of the massacre is long-winded, and there are many formatting and wording problems throughout the article (e.g. some time stamps had AM or PM, while others did not). Also, since the event continues to provoke strong emotions, it is best that the article be looked at more thoroughly. Pentawing 22:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)