Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Today's featured article

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wehwalt (talk | contribs) at 16:35, 19 July 2008 (→‎July 29). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.

  • The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR.
  • The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that:
    • The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
    • The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system.

If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand.

It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

 – Check TFAR nominations for dead links

 – Alt text

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.


II.
Write the nomination.

On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page.

Your nomination should mention:

  • when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out);
  • when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks);
  • and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
III.
Write the blurb.
Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
IV.
Post at TFAR.

After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article):
===February 29===
{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}

Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date.

It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary.

If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.

Scheduling:

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Proposal to change the points/instructions on the talk page.


Currently accepting requests from July 25 to August 24.

The chart will be updated regularly by editors who follow this page:

Date Article Points Comments
Jul 29 Astrophysics Data System 6 NASA 50th ann., also Joseph Francis Shea
Aug 8 Yao Ming 2 Olympics
Aug 16 Peterloo Massacre 3 Anniversary
Aug 18 Noble gas 4
Aug 21 William IV of the United Kingdom 3 or 4 Birthday; points contested

Requests

July 29

Logo
Logo
The NASA Astrophysics Data System (usually referred to as ADS) is an online database of over 7,000,000 astronomy and physics papers from both peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources. Abstracts are available for free online for almost all articles, and full scanned articles are available in GIF and PDF format for older articles. New articles have links to electronic versions hosted at the journal's webpage, but these are typically available only by subscription (which most astronomy research facilities have). ADS is an extremely powerful research tool, and has had a significant impact on the efficiency of astronomical research since it was launched in 1992. Literature searches which previously would have taken days or weeks can now be carried out in seconds, via the sophisticated ADS search engine, which is custom-built for astronomical needs. Studies have found that the benefit to astronomy of the ADS is equivalent to several hundred million US dollars annually, and the system is estimated to have tripled the readership of astronomical journals. Use of ADS is almost universal among astronomers worldwide, and therefore ADS usage statistics can be used to analyse global trends in astronomical research. These studies have revealed that the amount of research an astronomer carries out is related to the GDP per capita of the country in which she is based and that the number of astronomers in a country is proportional to the GDP of that country, so the amount of research done in a country is proportional to the square of its GDP divided by its population. (more...)

50-yr anniversary of NASA, 4 points; promoted in 2005, 2 points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - pretty darn significant anniversary...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Sounds good. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the ADS really get the four points? After all, it is not the ADS's fiftieth, but the database's owner.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so, the intent is to honor NASA's 50th, and this is all we've got. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport Even without the fiftieth, it has plenty of points. I'm beginning to agree with others... This article doesn't meet the FA criteria anymore. I'd rather have Sirius as the TFA for NASA's 50th. Wrad (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with or without the points for NASA anniversary. It has been waiting a while. Halgin (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good date connection Gary King (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Good date, but I would consider sending it to FACR given the lack of references. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Feel free to. At the least, it could use the improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on lack of referencing. Is 20 days sufficient to bring this up to scratch? The principle author, User:Worldtraveller hasn't edited since 2007, and the article's had little serious work from any other contributor since it went to FA in 2005. --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It may be FA by 2005 standards, but by today's, it might not make GA. NASA anniversary or no NASA anniversary, it's not fit to be on the front page. Bring it up to speed, post a comment here, and I'll look at it again. But for now, I oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the Opposes, prefer Joseph Francis Shea, who also commemorates the same NASA anniversary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking over that article, I think it would be a good replacement. That's what? ... The fourth time we've adjusted this slot? :) Wrad (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My fault; I reviewed the category at FA, and missed Shea completely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd support changing to Shea. That article is in much better shape. Karanacs (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OOPS ! Has everyone read that article all the way through? Not sure it's a tribute to NASA, because it talks so much about the fire -- could be a bad choice??? Not sure ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the article. Maybe the Apollo 1 fire was not NASA's finest moment, but it is a part of its history, for good or ill. And this is a rather fascinating sidelight on it. I'd support it if it were the July 29 requestee.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are we going to replace this article with Shea, and have a vote on him, or not? If not, we're kinda sorta like the "Any Premier League team" on the requests template.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The concern here is a political one (that the Shea article could be viewed as a dis by some NASA employees, since it deals with the fire) and the articles have the same number of points: is it possible to leave the decision to Raul, giving him an option in case he shares the concern? If not, I don't care which one we leave up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oops, incorrect: I think Shea has five points, not six, but still enough to keep either one on the page, which is why I suggest we let Raul choose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, perhaps what makes most sense here is to put Shea in the slot, with five points (since Astrophysics Data System has opposition), but indicate to Raul in the note that Astrophysics Data System is an alternate in case he has issues with Shea? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Wrad (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to do that? I'm afraid of building those boxes :-) Then we can offer to Raul the Data System as an alternate, if he's uncomfortable about Shea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should avoid having the ADS article. Perhaps when Raul is notified, he can also be informed there is considerable opposition due to the poor quality of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shea is an eminently suitable article and should replace ADS which is not. So it talks about Apollo 1? So what!? If we were going to pick NASA (were it an eligible FA), it would inevitably have sections on Apollo 1 and the two shuttle disasters. We are not writing articles for 12 year olds here. We take the good with the bad. ADS is an article that will need, to put it kindly, considerable work to survive a FAR. I'd rather honor NASA with a fine article which takes the good with the bad, then pick a lousy article because it might make NASA smile. And no, this is not Yao v. Tibet again, this is a question of the quality of the article. I'd replace it myself if I didn't have the King on the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, go ahead and replace it; we have consensus. I don't know how to do the box thingie. By the way, I disagree with the entire notion that we can't run an article on the mainpage that isn't up to snuff; getting it scheduled for the mainpage is often enough to encourage editors to bring it to standard, but I still agree with putting Shea here first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the ADS editors haven't done it. If this were the only NASA article, I'd grit my teeth. But it isn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

Yao Ming is a professional basketball player who plays for the Houston Rockets of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He is currently the tallest player in the NBA, at 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m). Yao, who was born in in Shanghai, China, started playing for the Shanghai Sharks as a teenager, and played on their senior team for five years in the Chinese Basketball Association (CBA), winning a championship in his final year. He entered the 2002 NBA Draft, and after negotiating with the CBA and the Sharks to secure his release, he was selected by the Houston Rockets as the first overall pick of the draft. He has since been selected to start for the Western Conference in the NBA All-Star Game in all six of his seasons, and has been named to the All-NBA Team team three times. However, the Rockets have not advanced past the first round of the playoffs since he joined the team, and he has missed significant time due to injury in each of the past three seasons. Yao is married to Ye Li, a former player for the China's women's national team. He is one of China's most well-known athletes, with sponsorships with several major companies, and he has been the richest celebrity in China for five straight years. He has also co-written an autobiography of his life with Ric Bucher, and his rookie year in the NBA was the subject of a documentary film. (more...)

On the opening day of the Olympics, who better to feature than China's most famous athlete? One point for date relevancy. Noble Story (talk • contributions)

I'm adding another point as Noble Story is a significant contributor to this article and has not had another article of his/her's on the Main Page before. two points. Wrad (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Yep. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support:Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Definitely, a good rationale for it. ~ mazca t | c 12:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, highly relevant in spite of low points, and if one has to go, I see this as more relevant than Dickinson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - will he be competing in the Olympics? If so, I'd strongly support. If not, I'd oppose it if there was an alternative proposal to feature an Olympian or topic connected with the Olympics, rather than China. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He had the surgery, he's back in training, and he's "looking good" according to a teammate.[1]. And I saw an editorial that says he'll be carrying the flag again. China is last in the parade of athletes, a high point of the Opening Ceremony (in my view, but I've been to two). And he'll be leading the Chinese team, 550 or so athletes into the stadium that day. Seems to me he's a very good candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I know, he'll be returning to play for China at the end of July. In any case, he wouldn't miss the Olympics for the world. So, he'll be fine for the Olympics. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As above. Unless we find out in the next week or two that he won't be there. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good choice; I thought this had been on the main page before, actually Gary King (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment I would urge the primary editors of this article to continue to keep it up to date right up to the Olympics. News is constantly coming in about this guy and his recovery (which seems to be going well). Wrad (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per good date relevancy. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good date relevancy Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

The Peterloo Massacre (or Battle of Peterloo) occurred at St Peter's Field, Manchester, England, on 16 August 1819, when cavalry charged into a crowd of 60–80,000 gathered at a meeting to demand the reform of parliamentary representation.

The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 had resulted in periods of famine and chronic unemployment, exacerbated by the introduction of the first of the Corn Laws. By the beginning of 1819 the pressure generated by poor economic conditions, coupled with the lack of suffrage in northern England, had enhanced the appeal of political Radicalism. In response, the Manchester Patriotic Union, a group agitating for parliamentary reform, organised a demonstration to be addressed by the well-known radical orator Henry Hunt.

Shortly after the meeting began, local magistrates called on the military to arrest Hunt and several others on the hustings with him, and to disperse the crowd. Cavalry charged into the crowd with sabres drawn, and in the ensuing confusion, 15 people were killed and 400–700 were injured, among them many women and even children. The massacre was given the name Peterloo in ironic comparison to the Battle of Waterloo, which had taken place four years earlier.

Historian Robert Poole has called the Peterloo Massacre one of the defining moments of its age. In its own time, the London and national papers shared the horror felt in the Manchester region, but Peterloo's immediate effect was to cause the government to crack down on reform, with the passing of what became known as the Six Acts. It also led directly to the foundation of the The Manchester Guardian (now The Guardian), but had little other effect on the pace of reform. Peterloo is commemorated by a plaque close to the site, which has been criticised as being inadequate. In a survey conducted by The Guardian in 2006, Peterloo came second to the Putney Debates as the event from British history that most deserved a proper monument or a memorial.(more...)

I am putting this article up for consideration as I believe it has one point as it's my first nomination and one because it's a relevant date. I'm not sure if there are any more points available yet but I'll check up on that as soon as I work out how to do it. Richerman (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: date connection, and Malleus hasn't had a mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, if the King gets a point for being studied in British schools, so does this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if Emily Dickinson is a notable topic so is this. She's notable in the USA and Peterloo is notable in the UK. And to clear up any confusion about the reference to Malleus, he proposed this article first of all but gave up because the process is somewhat difficult and I volunteered to nominate it as one of the other major contributors. Richerman (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However many points it had, it did not have more points than the hurricane season, and points were certainly claimed for it in the discussion (I guess no one had yet filled in the box, but it did not say zero). If we're going to follow the rules, I suggest we revert, and then discuss.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I got it wrong I'm quite happy to replace the Emily Dickinson article instead, the reason I didn't do that is that it seemed to have a lot of support. The problem as I see it is that US centric articles will always get more support than those from other countries because of the size of the US population. No one is claiming that Emily Dickinson is not notable enough for the main page and the article still has 2 points in the table, but I've never heard of her before and as far as I remember was never taught about her in my British schooldays. The main claim for notability seems to be that all US 12 year olds are taught about her. Can anyone else see the disparity here? Richerman (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question your good faith. The thing is, if you come blind into this, you read a rule and you think it means one thing, but in point of fact, the actual intent was something else or it is to be determined by consensus. And the reason you did not remove Dickinson is understandable, but what we spent two weeks discussing was a system that would leave you with no choice about which article to replace, by carefully crafted (it was thought) rules. Which seem to be out the window.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest I'm not comfortable with removing any nomination - I'd rather see a different system more like the one on the DYK page where you just keep adding nominations in a given time slot and they stand or fall on their own merits. The one used here seems guaranteed to cause conflict. I'm afraid I have to tell you that I was the only one on our project willing to nominate this as the others were all put off by the complicated rules. However, having stirred up a mini hornets nest it's now 2.45 am here and I need to get to bed as I'm up for work in 5 hours, so I'll see what the morning brings. Richerman (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A new day dawns.....I don't think there has been a similar article within three months of the requested date, so can I claim another point for that? Richerman (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Priestley Riots, June 13. I think two British civil disturbances, etc. etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was just looking at that one and trying to decide if it came under the category of "similar" or not. The Priestley Riots were certainly a civil disturbances but Peterloo was a peaceful demonstration that was broken up by the military and led to civil disturbances later. I can see similarities and differences but I'll let others decide what's right on this one. Richerman (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is splitting hairs. To use the hurricane example, the requestor could have argued that one of the articles that was already TFA was about a cyclone, not a hurricane. The fact that they are both big spinning atmospheric disturbances, with lots of wind and rain, and form over the ocean wouldn't matter in his eyes!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds reasonable to me Richerman (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment - There were two British monarchs within a month of each other: George I (June 11) and Edward VIII (July 8). By August 16, the Priestley Riots will have been on the main page over a month beforehand and its status there will probably not be remembered in the minds of most Wikipedia users. —PolishName 19:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support yes I'm a major contributor to this, but looking at this objectively I think this article makes for a more-than-appropriate TFA, and is inline with the criteria/objectives set out above. Of course as I'm a major contributor you're welcome to take that as you wish, but I sincerely think this is a great article to take the main slot and wanted to share my support. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

The noble gases are the elements in group 18 (previously known as group 0) of the periodic table. These elements are characterized as nonmetallic and chemically inert, and are all gaseous at standard conditions. The six noble gases that occur naturally are helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and the radioactive radon (Rn). So far, three atoms of the next member of the group, ununoctium (Uuo) have been synthesized in a supercollider, but very little is known of its properties due to tiny amount produced and its short half-life. Chemically, the noble gases are very stable because they have the maximum number of valence electrons that their outer shell can hold, and as a result they rarely react with other elements. Under standard conditions, they are odorless, colorless, monatomic gases. The melting and boiling points for each noble gas are close together, differing by less than 10 °C (50 °F); consequently, they are liquids only over a small temperature range. The noble gases show extremely low chemical reactivity, and therefore only a few hundred noble gas compounds have been formed as of 2008. Neon, argon, krypton, and xenon are obtained from air using the methods of liquefaction of gases and fractional distillation. Helium is typically separated from natural gas, and radon is usually isolated from the radioactive decay of dissolved radium compounds. Noble gases have several important applications in industries such as lighting, welding, and space exploration. Helium is often used in scuba diving to replace part of the breathing mixture. After the risks caused by the flammability of hydrogen became apparent, it was replaced with helium in blimps and balloons. (more...)

2 points (140-year anniversary since the discovery of the first noble gas) + 1 point (notable topic) + 1 point (underrepresented topic). So that's 4 points. It may also receive 1 or 2 points for no other chemistry articles appearing on the main page in the past few months, but I'm not entirely certain of that. Gary King (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kids study noble gases in fifth grade?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth grade was my misstatement; it's seventh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12-year-old is grade 7 in my country. If they study the periodic table then the noble gas will also be in there. Which I think is the case. Gary King (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sister is about that age and is reading a book about them. Wrad (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a random web search and found that most of them mention grade 8 (age 13) when also mentioning periodic table; like here. Gary King (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to make the point that better language is needed there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atom was July 9th, so I think no point count on main page representation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I wasn't sure if that is considered "similar". I was thinking that similar could also mean the same FA category, which in that case it'd be in "Physics and astronomy". I guess "similar" is done on a case-by-case basis then. Gary King (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, June 30 was Oxidative phosphorylation, a series of chemical reactions. Don't know much about chemistry . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how we count this particular point category. It has previously been strictly limited to categories on WP:FA (see the footnote), so to not count the point here would be a big change. I can see the connections you're making, but it is a break with precedent. This is a very different thing from whether a similar article has been up recently and is strictly intended to benefit FAs in categories without many. Wrad (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused; one of us is mixing up Diversity and Mainpage representation. He gets the point for Chemistry being underrepresented in the FA category, but similar is defined more narrowly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, no "he", this is about the content, not me :) From what I read, "similar" is even narrower so it would mean perhaps anything to do with the periodic table. The two that come to mind are Hydrogen and Helium, but I think they were on main page several years ago? Gary King (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the things being brought up are within a month of this date, so... Wrad (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, doesn't matter anyway (4 pts won't get knocked off, and more than a month). But I suspect we just found another problem with the instructions, because it seems like Gary isn't reading "similarly" as we understand it. Talk page material? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

William IV (William Henry; 21 August 1765 – 20 June 1837) was King of Hanover and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 26 June 1830 until his death. William, the third son of George III and younger brother and successor to George IV, was the last king and penultimate monarch of the House of Hanover. He served in the Royal Navy in his youth and was, both during his reign and afterwards, nicknamed the Sailor King. He served in North America and the Caribbean, but saw little actual fighting. Since his two older brothers died without leaving surviving legitimate issue, he inherited the throne when he was sixty-four years old. His reign saw several reforms: the poor law was updated, child labour restricted and slavery abolished throughout the British Empire. One of the most important pieces of legislation was the Reform Act 1832, which refashioned the British electoral system. Though William did not engage in politics as much as his brother or his father, he was the last monarch to appoint a Prime Minister contrary to the will of Parliament. During his reign, his other kingdom, Hanover, was granted a short-lived liberal constitution. At his death William had no surviving legitimate children, though he was survived by eight of the ten illegitimate children he had by the popular actress, Dorothea Bland, better known as Mrs. Jordan, with whom he cohabited for twenty years. He was succeeded in the United Kingdom by his niece, Victoria, and in Hanover by his brother, Ernest Augustus. (more…)

I’m proposing this for August 21, which would have been King William’s 243rd birthday. The article has been FA for over three years, had a recent FAR as a result of which it was tightened up considerably, and is relentlessly sourced. It is entitled to two points for age, one point for date relation, one point as a notable topic. While I am a primary contributor, I was also a primary contributor for the Borat movie article, which went TFA last year. The last British Royalty article was Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, more than a month before the requested date, so it neither gains nor loses from that.

While some of the royalty articles, in my view, are rather dry, this one is less so, and gives a full portrait of a colorful character who is one of the more overlooked monarchs in recent history. He was nearly kidnapped at George Washington’s orders, was close friends with Lord Nelson, blackmailed his father into making him a Duke by threatening to run for Parliament, cohabited with the most popular comedy actress of the day for twenty years, and finally came on the throne at an advanced age with next to no training for the job, and did a decent job steering the Ship of State for seven years, with good sense and informality that according to his biographers, restored respect and popularity to the monarchy. It, in my view, is an eminently suitable TFA. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice proposal! Looks like three points as of now. Wrad (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/Wrad, see 3 points here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two years is two points, birthday is the third, and I felt it was basic research for a twelve year old. A number of notable events happened during William's reign, and biography is about as basic as it gets.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps 12-yos in the UK study him; not universal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to allow the point. I'd bet people in Canada, Australia and other places might study him, too. Can anyone verify? Wrad (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, this is why we should add points to the pending template so we can hash these things out in advance on talk, rather than here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edward VIII on July 8. By August 21 that will be quite awhile ago by TFA standards. Wrad (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be over a month since Edward VIII will have been Main Page. And as for the school history, I ran a quick search for "William IV" on a UK history quiz/learning game site [2] and results include several for 11-14 year olds.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Yes, that's too many Kings. I contest the additional point, as it's not of global interest, in only a few countries do 12-yo children study this. I also suggest we discuss on talk adding back a point that we used to have that got deleted in the planning (–1 point for within two months), because this is overkill on Kings, and we need a point deduction to account for that. There are too many other articles that need to be scheduled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current criteria do not require "global interest" among 12 year olds. We can add that in if we want, but it's not there now. Wrad (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't even be required that 12 year olds be taught it, simply that they'd use it for basic research. And as for the two month thing, well, Sandy, it is your privilege to oppose, but slightly raised eyebrows at changing the rules to change a specific article's number of points.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can keep your eyebrows in place; we wouldn't change rules immediately, and it was in our original proposal, but somehow got dropped. 12-yos in most places don't learn about every King, and this would be three Kings recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I added a point to the others as well; the 12-yo was intended to measure basic things all 12-yos study, not specific curriculum items in some countries. If the point system is going to be overused this way, Peterloo and Yao Ming also get a point, and NASA does, too. There's no limit if it's applied this loosely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yao Ming isn't likely to be a research topic, neither is the ADS thing (for a 12-year-old) It's really just up to what consensus says right now. Wrad (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a strong encyclopedic article which Wehwalt has improved over many months both before and after I took the article through FAR. We've already forgotten who or when the previous King was featured, so I don't think either this article or visitors to the Main Page will suffer from exposure to William, who has been waiting for his debut for a long time. DrKiernan (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aren't we being a little Anglocentric here? We list William (Wilhelm) first as King of Hanover, and we haven't had a King of Hanover on main page since George (Georg) IV in 2006!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (if I can) - Why not wait until September? The last four times I've looked at the main page, I've literally seen British monarchs. Sure, I love them (who doesn't?) but still. Is that saying something about my main page viewing habits? Probably, but still. I clicked on main page just today to see if there was a British monarch there today. I was surprised that there wasn't. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there a date related to this article in September or do you think not more British monarchs until September? Halgin (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really wouldn't know. The above was true, but also quite funny for me. But, because you ask, how about September 1st? Really, I don't think any of this matters until other FA requests are made (its hard to tell without any competition, no?) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is. September 8. The anniversary of William's and Adelaide's Coronation in 1831. I was keeping that as a backup.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! And see if you could get a notice in "On this day" to coincide? That would be delightful. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, thanks for the advice, but I'm going to let this ride a while. Not everyone consideres three kings to be something to dismiss out of hand.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Otava, Selected anniversaries have a practice of not repeating content in other segments. On the last anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, for example, the entry was omitted because that day's PotD was Johnson taking his oath. Waltham, The Duke of 10:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a shame and a waste of good content combinations. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=226651891"