Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2005

Edgar Allan Poe

This article has been subject to a peer review and a previous failed FAC. The article has been improved since the last FAC, and is deserving of another consideration for featured status. Harro5 04:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Am I missing something, the peer review request was just put up on May 23--nixie 06:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Non-comprehensive, poor formating and referencing. Emily Dickinson is closer to FA-status than this is. Neutrality^talk 06:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: This is very interesting but has a poor layout, the links within the text would appear better as footnotes and too many very short paragraphs. Giano | talk 08:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with the above. The lead section should be longer, and the current layout and structure does not do the article's content justice. A good example for this is the Legacy and Lore section, which has too many small paragraphs and thus feels disjointed and hard to follow. Phils 15:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor layout, not especially a comprehensive article either Jtkiefer 05:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Fitz Hugh Ludlow

An edited GFDL release of a biography written by one of the two Ludlow experts who are currently on-the-case. It's got a bit of everything: Hasheesh eating, the underground railroad, the Mormon exodus, an awful love triangle, the bohemian literary community of New York and the incipient literary community of San Francisco (including a young Mark Twain).-Moorlock 00:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Opppose. I think there are POV issues in this article. For example the second paragraph. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Phishing

This artical has been used twice as a source for articals written about Phishing in general. I believe that because of this, this artical has what it takes to become a featured artical. --ZeWrestler 18:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to Peer Review - This article could be FA worthy, but it doesn't read very well right now. I see several run-on sentences (such as the first sentence of the lead section), and the grammar isn't quite clear in other places. Rather than a text copy of a sample scam email, better would be a screenshot of an email client with a scam email displayed (to show that they usually will include html code that loads real-looking graphics). Only two references and those to online news sources? There is a lot more information on the internet about phishing, like all of the information released by the United States Federal Trade Commission [1]. slambo 19:19, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Peer review. Agree with Slambo's excellent feedback. Harro5 00:10, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Object for reasons described above Giano | talk 08:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Bob McEwen

Self nom. A profile of the former six-term Ohio congressman who is running in the special election to replace Rob Portman. Yes, I know it needs a photo (there's some here if someone would like to add them), but it is detailed, has references, external links, see alsos, etc. PedanticallySpeaking 18:11, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong oppose--very POV. In the first sentence, e.g., there was "who denounced government spending, unless it was to be in his district". Accurate as it may be, it's pretty clearly making a judgement about his fitness. Further down, the same assertion is made. It also says that (paraphrase) "his attention to foreign matters led to his receiving a zero from the Consumer Federation of America". Should we really be attributing causes this way? This article is problematic. Refer to PR. Meelar (talk) 21:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have redone the lead to attribute the bit about pork spending in his district. The Consumer Federation bit was to show that he was criticised for his attention to foreign affairs at the expense of domestic ones. PedanticallySpeaking 18:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Still object, but improving. A couple problems with this article. First of all, there's the section on "In the spotlight in his last term". The last half of it, essentially, is one long, critical quote. It's not really an encyclopedic treatment, nor very neutral. Secondly, there's this sentence: "His attention to foreign matters over domestic ones was one reason he was given a "zero" rating multiple times by the Consumer Federation of America for his votes on consumer issues."--can we know this is true? Maybe the CFA gave him a zero because he really hated consumers. Maybe it was because certain businesses donated to his campaign. Who knows? the point is, we can't attribute a cause like this without a source. Finally, the House Bank scandal should be more fully explained, especially since the article itself is a redlink. Meelar (talk) 19:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted consumer sentence completely. An explanation of the House Bank scandal really goes beyond the scope of this article, which is why I put a link to the article I hope someone will write in the future. The key point is that he bounced checks, which is stated in the article. PedanticallySpeaking 20:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I cut down the Gottlieb quote in question. No, it is not a neutral quote but quotes from others do not have to be neutral. I am trying to show how he was perceived and this quote shows one of the papers covering his district didn't think much of him.
I have added a few words of explanation about the House bank and some additional quotes from McEwen himself taken from the Congressional Record. PedanticallySpeaking 14:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I still object, but this is getting much closer. My only problems now are the lead, which is still non-neutral. Is there any reason to include the Cleveland Plain Dealer quote? Most articles on politicians don't quote hostile editorials in the lead section. Also, you might want to check links such as this one [2]--all the Library of Congress links that don't go to actual bills are broken. Getting much closer now. Meelar (talk) 17:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. If you want to see a quality NPOV article, try to model this on the Barack Obama FA. Harro5 23:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

If the McEwen article violates the NPOV guidelines, it seems to me the Obama one does too. PedanticallySpeaking 18:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object. Length is good. Just needs some NPOV'ing and a picture, if possible. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Regretably, I must oppose. Here are my reasons:
  1. Having previously directed Representative William Harsha's re-election campaigns to Congress in 1976 and 1978, McEwen ran for Harsha's seat when he retired in 1980 and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in what The Washington Post called "a fail-safe Republican district."

     I would very much like to see a reference to the newspaper article that said this, using Template:Ref and Template:Note, along with the reference in the references section.

  2. The lead section is interesting, however I believe that the quotation from Tom Deimer should be going into the main body of the article — as it stands now having this in the lead section seems to be inferring that Wikipedia's position on this policitian concurs with Mr Deimer, which is clearly not the case because of our NPOV policy. My suggestion would be to put this into "Congressional career" and to, again, properly reference that quote to give us more specific information so we can verify the quote and check the context of that quote.
  3. The Chillicothe Gazette would salute him for his work on funding for U.S. Route 35, a limited access highway linking Chillicothe to Dayton

     Source? add to notes and to references

  4. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase "McEwen was not a man to mince words." Perhaps this is true, however I feel that this is a little POV to say so... however, others may disagree so this is a minor point. The fact that you backed this up is excellent, however, but nonetheless I would urge a rewrite of the paragraph. Take this point as you will.
  5. Martin Gottlieb of the Dayton Daily News thought McEwen's performances showed why he had remained in the background previously... (etc)

     Source to article?

  6. who the Dayton Daily News said "is an unknown small businessman who hasn't thought things through"

     Source to article?

  7. Martin Gottlieb of the Dayton Daily News said "McEwen was collateral damage" to Gingrich's crusade.

     Source to article?

• Will look into this further, must do other stuff now. Sorry! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Beastie Boys

I don't know who has principally written this article (not a self-nom), but I nominate it. It is a fine article that does the legendary group justice. And obviously my vote is Support. --Kitch 13:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Yes, the article prose is good and flows well, but where are the references? slambo 14:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I didn't notice on my first pass, but a few of the images are missing captions. slambo 15:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. Address Slambo's comments please. Also, you've left out the chart ranking for "Right Right Now Now". Harro5 00:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The Scream

This article failed it's first FAC nomination. Since then, most of the objections have been addressed. The article is well written, and contains everything you can say about the topic. There are very few articles in the FA list on fine arts, this one would help. Deepak 21:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and interesting article. Good work with the photos too. Seems to have addressed most of the issues in the previous FAC well. Harro5 23:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm concerned about this sentence, refering to the "inflatable" Scream:

Critics will observe that by taking the figure out of its context (the landscape), Fishbone has destroyed the unity of Munch's work, thereby neutralizing its expressive force.

Is this the author's judgement, or is this a judgement from a known critic? If so, could we attribute this opinion to a specific person? (Otherwise, I don't have a problem with this article, & very much enjoyed reading it.) -- llywrch 02:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sentence changed to "critics have observed" and added a reference. Deepak 22:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Better, but the reference is not clearly linked to the comment, & (if I'm looking at the right one), it is nothing more than an unsigned web page on Earthlink with no clue to the qualifications of the writer: she/he could be a highly respected critic with well- earned tenure -- or just a dog. -- llywrch 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object, there are some things that I think need to be changed. First the run on of these sentences imply that the litography plate has been stolen

Munch later also translated the picture into a lithograph (shown below), so the image could be reproduced in reviews all over the world. However, the original is currently missing from the Munch Museum, having been stolen by art thieves in August 2004.

Besides the discussion in the lead, there is no discussion of why Munch produced multiple copies of the Scream, and no mention of the predecessor Deranged Mood at Sunset 1892 and Anxiety 1894, both are set in the same scene as the scream. The lithograph should possibly be covered in more detail, why did Munch want to distribute the image? Also, there is no mention of the exhibitions where the painting was shown that were closed down or criticisms of the work at the time it was first shown.

Where you have links to reference material I think you should use one of the footnote systems like Footnote 3 or Footnote 4.

--nixie 05:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Far more can be said in all areas of the article. --Oldak Quill 12:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Question Aren't all of those pictures violations of copyright? Munch died in 1944, so if we count 70 years from his death, copyright would end in 2014. And the picture of thieves taking the piccis is copyrighted to an anonymous photographer - so wouldn't copyright expire 70 years after it was taken, ie in 2074? The same goes for all the piccis on Edvard Munch, jguk 13:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The US copyright law covering visual arts for life + 70 years only applies to works made after 1978, so the scream is definately life+50 years and is therefore PD, hence the inflatable scream and other tacky merchandise. As for the image of the theft, if AP bought it off the anon bystander AP probably own the copyright and this iamge should be listed as a copyvio. --nixie 23:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object: I think this is a well-written article, but I agree with some of the objections above (such as nixie's need for slightly more coverage of Munch context). I may support if some good edits are made in that vein; in the meantime, I have gone ahead and refactored the reference material in Footnote3 fashion. --DanielNuyu 00:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Claus von Stauffenberg

Not a self nomination. I think it’s quite ready now to be a FAC. GeneralPatton 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. Small problems:

1. The mention of the July 20 Plot in the lead is just that - a bare mention. I know it is expanded later, but I don't know what the plot was, and so would be disinclined to read on as it doesn't say what Claus did and what the plot entailed.
2. Can't you think of a better section heading than "The plot"? Harro5 23:32, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - inadequate two-sentence lead; I also suspect that it is not comprehensive: it would be worth asking a German-speaker to compare and incorporate any material from de:Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg, particularly the references. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I have written a better lead section, but I still object until it is cross-checked with the German version and filled out. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - to short, as mentioned above. This is an ok article, but fails short of FA. I could give you many examples of similar articles, which are close - but not close enough to our modern standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object: An interesting subject, but there is a lot more to be said here. Giano | talk 21:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• I agree that it should be more comprehensive. Also, resist the tendency to parrot the hero myth of this guy, who was really just another fascist—although at least the article isn't too bad in that regard. Don't count my comments as a vote. Everyking 05:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar School

This article has been subject to a peer review, of which there was minimal feedback, and has been reviewed by the team at School Watch. I believe it to be one of the best articles on a high school that exists on Wikipedia, and this would provide a great benchmark for all other school articles to meet as a guide for how to write a school article is debated. Harro5 04:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - This article contains little information of interest to any significant subsection of the general public. Cedars 04:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I'm not even sure this article should survive VFD, let alone be featured. Firebug 04:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Article is mostly list, it lacks meat. It doesn't draw me to conclude that this is a really encyclopedic subject, perhaps we should establish more notablity? It also fails to draw the reader along, ... frankly it's rather boring at its current state, which is something I have not found to be the case for other featured articles, ... or even most articles in the wikipedia. I must object until these issues can be addressed.--Gmaxwell 04:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's not the worst article I've seen on a school, but it's a long way short of featured status. The article has a motto, information on each campus, and a bunch of lists. Academics? Debating? Sports? Culture? Caulfield's quite a prestigious school, but you wouldn't learn much about why from this article. Ambi 06:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Have incorporated some of the content suggested by Ambi. Harro5 07:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's now quite a lot improved - kudos, I must say. However, I still think there's a lot of opportunities for expansion. Ambi 09:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I wonder if it mightn't work better to have a history section for the entire school, and then a seperate campuses section describing more the function, infrastructure, location, etc, of each one, potentially leading to the prospect of a spinoff article for each of the two topics. The more I think of it, I think that this would improve the structure quite a bit. Also, as part of the history, it may also be worth mentioning the Nanjing vandalism incident somewhere.
      • I still feel the academics section could be expanded a bit, although it is good already. My high school was undoubtedly worse than Caulfield, but we could've said almost the exact same things about our ENTER and subject scores. Looking at the front page of the site, I wonder if things like learning mentors could go in here. Average class sizes? Virtual campus/lack of laptops?
      • Governance - covering student leadership was a really good idea, but what about parents? Is there a School Council sort of thing?
      • Music - what's there is good, but I notice that it mentions a band as part of a historical note. It may be worth dedicating a paragraph to the school bands themselves (and any other such groups around).
      • Houses?
      • Boarding/day students? Perhaps boarding could be a section of its own?
      • Fees!
      • Intake each year/waiting list?
      • It might be an idea to make Tamsyn Lewis, Ron Walker and Stuart Maxfield into redlinks - I know it looks a bit worse, but they really do deserve articles.
      • Debating - is there an intra-school competition on top of the DAV one?
      • What about competitive public speaking - Rostrum/Rotary?
      • Could we perhaps have a little more information on sport - teams/facilities/major victories?
      • There's some other place in the article when it mentions infrastructure in a historical event without it being previously mentioned in the article - Twin Halls project, for one - was this at Monash or at Caulfield?
      • Uniform! (how could I forget that one?)
      • Scholarships?
        • I've crossed the comments that are now moot. I think there's still a few more things that could be added, and I also agree with what Spangineer has to say. Ambi 08:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: admirable effort to make something more than a stub for a school. It's a lot better than a lot of school articles, I've seen recently. I'll have to read in more detail before I vote, though. Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not going to formally object, but some of the an images are is untagged, and it would be nice to see more about the school's history (almost all of the article content dates from the last 10 years of the school's 125-year history). JYolkowski // talk 14:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC) One image is still untagged. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Tagged now. Harro5 22:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support then. JYolkowski // talk 00:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not a believer in the "featured article" concept and this is an example of why I dislike it so intensely. The article as of 17 May was quite concise and readable, now after a few hours on FA it's bloated beyond belief. Please withdraw it and revert all the padding. Articles don't need to be featured to be of high quality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Feel free to comment on which of the versions you prefer, but I feel the current one has some useful info that should stay. I am open to discussion about most of the new stuff. Harro5 21:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, fails on the well written criteria as it is currently a fleshed out list, overwhelming TOC, copyright status on images is unclear. It may well be the best article on a school but it doesn't meet the criteria of a featured article (you ca take up the merits of those criteria in talk).--nixie 03:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like more info on what criteria this article fails to meet. Reading over the criteria list, it is hard to see what is wrong with this page. As for having too long a contents section, it is better to have headings than long unfragmented paragraphs which are difficult to read. Harro5 05:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • How about we start with criteria 1, Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet., explain to me how this page offers anything that isn't covered on the schools excellent website and how it compares with a unique resorce like Imagism--nixie 08:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'll object for now. It's a good article, but it can still use info on uniform, housing, fees, scholarships, etc. as suggested by Ambi. Mgm|^(talk) 16:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added info on fees and scholarships, but adding info on uniforms on creates more lists. I really don't know what more can be added, and whether it actually would be needed. Time for votes! Harro5 06:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • My objection remains for now. I agree that the article needs some proze-ification before it's featureable. I'm quite happy with the content (maybe some more history). Sorry, don't have the time to help ya. Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - good work with the expansion, but practically the whole article needs work on flow and prose. There are disconnected, short paragraphs everywhere—these need to be converted to longer, well-written paragraphs. Also, the lead is too short—you can probably move the vision statement into the lead, for starters, and then touch on the history and other important info (2-3 long paragraphs would be good). --Spangineer ∞ 17:51, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I have single-handedly compiled the info for this article, I would really appreciate it if someone else wants to help with the wording. The current piece is in my own words, and so naturally it's hard for me to see its faults. I can't see the disconnected paragraphs, or the lack of flow, but I'd be grateful if someone who can wanted to edit these sections for wording. Thanks. Harro5 22:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object to avoid scuttling the ongoing Schools debate that appears to be successfully moving toward compromise. The article is well done. --Unfocused 13:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Objections need to be actionable. If there isn't anything that can be done, your objection can be effectively ignored. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed; the same could be said about a few of the earlier objections as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:56, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
      • Yes, it may be ignored, but it shouldn't. The Wikipedia:Schools issue under discussion has had some very heated moments, and many users don't believe grammar and high school articles should even exist. Featuring this article at this time may ruin all the work that's been done toward compromise. The action I'm suggesting is to wait a month or two before considering this article because that's about how long it will take to know if the concepts we worked out there will be effective at stopping the VfD fights over schools. This is a good article, but I think the prose leans more toward verbose rather than concise. --Unfocused 07:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now with a couple of minor concerns. In the second lead paragraph does Victorian mean the place or the architectural style (I mean, having read the article it is clear, but at least for non-Australian readers I think this might be confusing), "in Victoria" or "in Melbourne" might be a better wording. Also, regarding the Nanjing vandalism incident Ambi noted, it has been incorporated into the article but I'd like to know HOW the issue was resolved, if this is public information. Other than that, prepared to support. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:35, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Support now, although I don't know how I'd feel about this being on the Main Page. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:04, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Chris, I've addressed your problems as best I can. I know the people responsible for the vandalism were returned home and suspended, but naturally wasn't able to hear what was said to the Chinese. I know something was said as when I went on the China trip we got a full warning about the repercussions of misbehaviour, and this was cited as an example. Harro5 00:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I would ask anyone considering a vote to not go on previous votes, and have a look at the article yourself. It has changed significantly since this FAC began. Thank you. Harro5 01:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - while well-written, it reads like a school's information brochure, and it's entirely too verbose with details that aren't interesting unless you live near it. And phrases like "The boarding house and boy's dormitories is located inside the school's boundaries, and next to the main classroom buildings." are redundant since they're true for 90% of all boarding schools. I would support this as a FAC if substantially condensed. Radiant_* 08:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Suicide

I found this (by chance), but it's clearly very detailed and comprehensive. I don't personally see any reason why it couldn't be considered as a FA.--Joewithajay 22:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Object the empty sections indicate to me that this is still a work in progress. It also has an insufficient lead and no clear references. Let the author finish it and send it to peer review--nixie 23:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't see the empty spaces before, yes you're right. --Joewithajay 09:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Good article but with empty sections and a "please expand" notice it's not ready to be a feature article. Cedars 10:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, once those parts are expanded the whole thing needs to be refactored. What is especially needed is the creation of daughter articles where much of the detail can be held. Summaries of those daughter articles would be at Suicide. That may even be a good idea to do now, given the size of the article, but those summaries would be incomplete. --mav 11:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - incomplete. Also needs to have an expanded hotline section to make it more international (it only covers the US). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not only is it a work-in-progress, but I'm not sure this kind of article should be plastered on the Main Page as a FAotD. --Kitch 14:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Surely it is not in line with NPOV to refer to an article on suicide as "this kind of article" (or at least, I would have said so until it started including links on how to go about an attempt, now I might have to VERY grudingly agree... adam black 2005 July 5 01:54 (UTC)

Theodor Adorno

• This article seems comprehensive, well-written, and detailed. Voyager640 09:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support On the condition that references are added to the text, other than this anomaly, a fine piece of work. --Knucmo2 22:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs copyediting. ex: "Critiques of Adorno's theories come include others of a Marxists." -- This is the first sentence of the Marxist Critcisms section. I considered editing it myself, but I think I would have missed the shade of meaning that the author intended. I agree that with just a few changes this should become a featured article. User:JoelRichardson 27 May 2005

Article needs editing for the sake of language issues (in the english language version, anyway). I doubt whether it's a "feature article" has any bearing on that or is important to anyone but wikipedia-folk.

Dice

Good read, seems to fit the criteria. --Twinxor 21:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Minor object. Close, but lead is way to short, and the history could use a paragraph about rising popularity of dice with the 20th century grow of various games - as it stands, the last date in history is from 13th century. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support - great article. Yes lead para should be longer. ike9898 00:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• object for now. Lead section should be more clear. As it stands, it talks about the dice being a cube and then it states that the dice can be any other shape - maybe this should be changed to "a dice is a usually cubic object" or something like that. Also, the sections on the use of dice in d&d could be summarized; I'd also like to see more information on the non-gambling applications for dice, like their use in children's games. Also, does the youth in the sentence "Horus derided the youth of the period..." refer to more than one youth? With the use of "his" it makes the sentence unclear. Good work though.

Graham 12:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• The comments of "Graham", the User:Pianoman87 who vandalized the article by correcting "wear and tear" to "ware and tare", and clearly has ignored the first sentence of the article, need not be heeded. (BTW, that's Horace.)

Noted later: An article only P-M had worked on was vandalized with an obscene personal attack 3 days ago by User:203.144.21.77, and PM seemingly hunted down & rv'd the IP's other (recent) cases, then took an interest in Dice two days later. Well, i won't dignify my speculations by repeating them here.

--Jerzy~t 15:04 & 19:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have struck thru most of my own contrib immediately above, and removed the strike-thru markup on PM's contrib (except for his now changed vote), consistent with PM's & my statements immediately below. --Jerzy~t 19:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The ware and tare thing was not deliberate vandalism. I use a speech synthesizer to do my work, and it usually correctly recognizes homophones, so when it said tear (as in tears that people cry), I thought it was incorrect, so I changed it. I appologize for that, and will try to be more careful in the future. What are you trying to say about any connection between the dice article and my previous work? Take any reply to my talk page.

Graham 01:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

(This is not a reply, tho it is occasioned by the contrib above. I may still owe a reply, & will deliver it where PM suggests, if i come up with one i consider appropriate.)

I consider myself obligated to make this public statement. I erred in suspecting Graham/User:Pianoman87 as a vandal. I regret using that label in a summary, where it is a permanent record; the summary for this contrib will contradict my earlier summary. (That is the best i can do w/o confusingly falsifying the edit history by expunging that revision.) This error reflects lack of caution on my part, since i pride myself on being aware of the danger of trusting one's (inevitably inadequate) imagination as a guide to possible alternative explanations.

I did look (between my two previous edits here) for further evidence of vandalism, w/o finding any. In that light, i took PM for one of the rarer varieties of vandal: the subtle vandal, who disguises the damage they do, especially with valid editing, so that it remains in place relatively long, as a minor blemish, rather than making a big splash that is quickly reverted. (And the unstated speculations i mentioned, which grew out of my short investigation, would be now been even more unworthy of exposure than before.)

The reversions PM did of User:203.144.21.77's vandalism deserved to be taken at face value: as diligent service beyond his obligations.

Overall, i would wish i had earlier taken PM for a valuable colleague, as i now do.

--Jerzy~t 19:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

My objections have been resolved. Changed vote to support. Graham 01:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the article be rendamed Die (game) or Die (somthing. The wikipedia policy is to use singular. I can see though why it would be called dice because it's hard to find somthing to put after it. Not a vote BrokenSegue 01:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article is fairly solid but it contains a number of omissions:
  1. Traditionally single dice are commonly used in children's games of nineteenth century origin such as Snakes & Ladders and Ludo. The statement about multiple dice being traditional is, therefore, not the whole picture.
  2. I would like to see acknowledgement of the prevalent practice of calling a single die "a dice" (even though the misuse offends me).
  3. The section on materials is exclusively about polyhedral dice. This should be associated with the polyhedrals section or made more general.
  4. Novelty dice include "decision dice" with an optional behavioural word on each face: an example that I recall bore "sleep", "eat", "work", "play", "clean", and "TV". Others have been made for sexual games and to promote awareness of desirable work practices. I lack the details to add this comprehensively.
  5. Other symbolic dice that spring to mind are the direction dice in Adventure (game) and Mississipi Queen. I am sure that there are more.
  6. Chase (1986) was an abstract board game designed by Tom Kruszewski for TSR that used dice as playing pieces. I imagine that there are others.

  --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Blade Runner

This article has been nominated before. I've managed address the majority of the objections; and made some additions (Soundtracks, criticism, religious symbolism) so hopefully all is well. BR ROCKS!!! - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Object. There is still no synopsis of the film, a basic requirement (whether written or not) for articles about literary works. Morwen - Talk 08:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A point. Still I'd like to note it is a major improvement with the first time it was FACed. Hopefully the objections will be resolved and the article will pass the FAC this time - keep up the good work, Roy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis added. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Support. I think the article is now ready for prime time, now that the deckard is human or a replicant debate is out of the way. vaceituno 09:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Minor object, the lead needs a little bif od work to better summarise the content of the article. I'm also not a big fan of the single sentence paragraphs, if they can be merged into longer paragraphs I'll support--nixie 10:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

One other thing, is the Criticism section really all that has been said in the way of criticism? It seems pretty short for such a widely studied film, also, more generally should there be a distinction between critical (by film critics) and academic criticism--nixie 01:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure more has been said, but its mostly along the same lines... I can certainly clarify that to some degree. A distinction should be made if enough material that resides distinctly in each category can be found. But I don't see the section growing enough to require it, and I doubt enough academic criticism exists. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Google Scholar gives 1,160 citations for the film; even the MLA Bibliography, an index primarily about literature rather than film, yields an instant 93 articles. That would seem to be more than enough academic interest that something should be said about it in the article. In my personal experience it is perhaps the most discussed sci-fi film in academia. (But I can see no reason to make an artificial or rigid separation between newspaper critics and academics.) I haven't really looked at the article since its last FAC nomination, so I'm not voting yet. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: You and I obviously are not agreeing on what constitutes criticism; I bolded it for a reason. I speak of negative comments made about the film by academics. I cannot remember coming across one in the years I've studied the film. As to it being discussed; I've covered the majority of the main themes in the film with Significance and Issues section. There are certainly others (Mortality for example); but to expand the article to such an extent may force a separate article? I don't know if it would, but I want to avoid that for now. The criticism section is for what people see as the films faults. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 18:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)> Roy, I think you have a misunderstanding of what criticism is. It is not limited to negative critiques, it covers all kinds of judgements, with an emphasis on involved, thought-out, and interpretative judgement. While the term can refer to negative criticism in casual conversation ("Why do you always have to criticize!" or "Do you have any constructive criticisms about my paper?"), in more formal contexts (such as our articles on the Wikipedia), it refers as much to positive critism as to negative. Once you add the word academic (i.e., academic criticism), any negative connotation is gone. </Jun-Dai>

• Support -- good before and much improved now. — Xiong熊talk* 13:05, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

• I have a problem with lines like this: "If the famous origami unicorn in the Director's Cut reveals Deckard to be a replicant in the film's final moments, then the audience's expectations and prejudices are themselves called into question – and, by extension, our own humanity." WTF? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Indeed, wtf?

Agreed. This sentence (and others like it) read too much like lines from an Intro Lit-Crit essay written the night before it was due. Awkward, overlong and just a mite pretentious. Object. Anville 13:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on! You're doing a smashing job so far... a little nip and tuck and all will be well Anville. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mention could be made of Harrison Ford's complete unwillingness to be interviewed on the subject of Blade Runner - what's all that about? And then there's the continuity error of Deckard being sent after, err, five replicants but only dealing with four of them. --Tagishsimon (talk)

It could be. Ridley didn't get on with the crew doing his first film in America, and had a stand-offish style with actors. Continuity moved to and dealt with in replicant; it may make its way back into a continuity section if someone feels like compiling it... but that's close to a trivia section.

I've added a Future Noir paragraph in Creators to mention Ford's history with Blade Runner. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• The Soundtracks section still bears some evidence of cut & paste from wherever it was nicked from - towards the bottom, the track listing & comments have a couple of occurrances of odd character strings "Vocals on tracks 3$-1òú 9 (disc I) a" ; I'm not entirely sure what information is being conveyed & have left them alone for the time being. I corrected one of these in another section - I'm kinda a little worried about the copyright implications of the appearance of what I take to be copy&paste telltales. --Tagishsimon (talk)

The website it was copied from is in the soundtracks section; and it is notes from a bootleg CD. It's not an issue.

• Finally, I think it needs copyediting in parts. There are more than a handful of lines such as "The predecessor to Blade Runner is Fritz Lang's silent film Metropolis;" where one winces slightly at the word employed ("predecessor") without necessarily being awake enough to work out how to improve the sentence. Antecedent? Derivative? Homage? Echo?. Other jarring moments ina quick read-through included

How is predecessor inappropriate? Antecedent's nice; but is a looser meaning of precede; Metropolis didn't just go before... it had the pedestal.

A nice turn of phrase, but what does it mean? Anville 13:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I meant for it to communicate Metropolis was held as the best (most influencial) dystopic sci-fi film prior to Blade Runner; yeah sounds a little subjective now that I say it out loud... but there ya have it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• • "Scott contracted Syd Mead as a conceptual artist, both of whom were ". Aaaargh.

Not sure what's wrong here, but I trust you.

• • The Joanna Cassidy parenthesis intruding into the Religious symbolism section

I had to get rid of the much maligned trivia section somehow; removed.

• • Use of the word "thru"

thru > using - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

--Tagishsimon (talk)

• "this footnote is missing, please see the article history and try to fix it." - can we have this fixed? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed by me and CS42. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  • The writing in the article needs a lot of revision. For one thing, much of the article is too colorful in its descriptions, giving it a much more personal tinge on the part of the writer, and detracting from its encyclopedic value. Some of the worse examples:
    • "After a breathtaking flyover of sprawling industrial complexes"
    • "Its dark, ambiguous moral, visual and thematic complexity was ahead of its time and kept it from immediate popularity, but served to endear it with academia, polarize film critics and ensure its cult classic status"
  • The synopsis needs to be trimmed to about half its length. We don't need a blow-by-blow of every single plot point in the film. Also, there are references to things like the Voight-Kampff test, which, while nicely linked, should either be explained in a parenthetical statement, or simply generalized ("he performed a test to on Rachael that would determine whether she was human"). Passages like these don't belong in a brief synopsis of the film:
    • "Deckard is initially passive aggressive with Gaff but"
    • "It's the worse replicant escape Bryant has seen and he needs Deckard's "magic" to get the situation under control."

Finished 2nd draft. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Additionally, rather than interpreting the film ("Tyrell has the appearance of a living god from within a pyramid above the clouds that exudes wealth and power. This self-image is reinforced when Tyrell assumes the role of the gods by dimming the sun on command."), the article should limit itself to making references to other people's interpretations.

    Reference added, is that sufficient? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    <Jun-Dai 18:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)> Not exactly. The problem is that the article still presents the statement as fact, when it is merely an interpretation of the film. It should read like something along the lines of:

    • John Soandso has written that "Tyrell has the appearance of a living god from within a pyramid above the clouds that exudes wealth and power. This self-image is reinforced when Tyrell assumes the role of the gods by dimming the sun on command." He is referring to the line in the screenplay that reads "The windows darken, a polaroid effect that seems to give Tyrell the power to turn off the sun."

    Now that's not a very well thought-out example (and it assumes that there is a John Soandso that has written a relevant critique of the film), but at least it poses the statement with the correct distance. More importantly, this was just one example--the entire section on the "Significance and issues" (a problematically vague title) reads like a series of term paper synopses, which is not how an encyclopedia article ought to read. There is far too much primary research and interpretive writing in this article and there shouldn't be any.

Well its a fact many have interpreted that way; the "wealty and power" borders on fanfact and I think Ridley mentioned that was his intention, although I cannot deny it there may be extrapolation of interpretations (re: role of gods)... although I'm convinced I saw that somewhere... couldn't find it though. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Another example is the sentence "The first draft of the entire human genome was decoded in June 26, 2000, by the Human Genome Project, followed by a steadily-increasing number of other organisms across the microscopic to macroscopic spectrum." This, along with the whole section on cloning, does not belong in this article. In a paper on Blade Runner that has a point to prove, sure, but not in any sort of encyclopedic article on just the film itself.

    More importantly (you're probably not going to like this point), there is much too much focus on interpretation of the film. While it is certainly relevant how the film has been interpreted, it dominates the article--break it out into a separate article, and try to keep the section size down to something not much larger than the current size of the synopsis section. As a guide to how an article on Blade Runner should look, try looking at Casablanca (movie). It is a pretty good model. </Jun-Dai>

I already took a look, inspired the criticism section... but not much else. Blade Runner's article should be much sexier than that! :"D

• • Last but not least, the article reads like the work of Blade Runner fans. Detail on topics like Blade Runner soundtrack bootlegs belong in an entirely separate article, if anywhere at all. They should have, at most, a sentence in an article on Blade Runner. The article should mostly be dedicated to what the movie is, why it is relevant, and truly notable facts about the film. It should not be a fan's article on the film--it should be an article for the general public. Jun-Dai 21:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

    I almost entirely agree but... the article is mostly about the movie etc. The soundtract section has the appearance of being larger than it is because of the tables; to split it or reduce bootlegs to a sentence I currently do not agree with. As to the rest, I'm on it... hopefully with help from others. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    <Jun-Dai 18:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)> If you feel that the soundtrack bootleg information needs to be available to the reader, make it a separate page, and link to it. The table, etc., should not be on the main Blade Runner page--it takes up too much visual space for something that is not at all central to the topic. </Jun-Dai>

Fine... for some reason I dislike creating articles. So what should it be called? Soundtracks of Blade Runner? And what should the significance and issues section article be called? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of renaming it Criticism and themes, therefore combining "Criticism" and "Significance and issues" sections into one. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Indian Independence Movement

This article is an article which has many useful links to other pages which give a very in-depth and un-biased view on the Indian Independence Movement. 210.84.199.81 (01:55, May 17, 2005)

• I think this is an A effort and certainly covers a lot of ground. It's very close to FAC material. However, I do think it spends a lot of time talking about the nitty gritty of battles and details, and in doing so losing the overview. Since there are a number of links to more detailed articles throughout, it may behoove the author(s) or FAC nominator to do a bit of pruning: condense the details a bit more, and make sure every section's first paragraph explains the relevance of the events of that section to the overall development of the Indian indepedence movement. Otherwise, the reader is presented with a long string of narrative about which riot happened when and who led each, rather than an idea of how each event contributed to a story-arc of ultimate independence. —thames 15:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• I endorse the above comments and add this question: Are the two first sections (The beginnings of the British empire and The establishment of the Company's rule) really necessary. It seems to me like these subjects are duly covered elsewhere and that the links to the relevant article could be put in a See also section. I think it is safe to assume that anyone interested in this article knows that India was under British control, and what the East India Company was. Phils 16:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Regarding the points mentioned above: the first two sections should be condensed to about two sentences establishing the basic point that India had come under British control, and in general the article reads like a cobbled-together pastiche of the "Main articles" associated with each section. It lacks a solid narrative flow and leaves out much that could help provide much-needed context. In particular, what actually constitutes the movement, the activity of Indians themselves, is often missing. What were they doing leading up to the 1857 mutiny, and where did the movement go during the aftermath? The article really only tells you what the British were up to. Then 73 delegates materialize to form the INC, and to the reader these delegates might as well be manufactured out of thin air. In reality, many were already notable figures in the movement and elaborating on this would improve the reader's comprehension. The politics within the movement - who was included, who got left out - also need to be discussed, yet they're almost completely omitted. There's a lot of important stuff there, and it goes back way before the Pakistan solution. --Michael Snow 22:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object -- Its too long IMO, Coming back to the FAC after a week, I'd be willing to make this an FA. PS. is it OK if an anon nominates?  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 12:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

David Helvarg

Self-nom. I submitted this prematurely on April 11 2005 and moved it rapidly to Peer Review. You can see that first submission here. I have expanded it substantially since that submission and I have addressed all the peer review comments. --Theo (Talk) 09:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been adressed. Object The article is comprised almost only of a listing of his books. Phils 10:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Approximately 20% of the article is devoted to a description of his books. Are you suggesting that this should be abbreviated or that the other sections should be expanded? --Theo (Talk) 11:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Plus about one third of the article is just a list of his works. I expect more of a featured article about a person than five ten-word sentences about his "Early Life". The subsections about his books are good. Looking at the article in detail (which, quite unprofessionaly, I did not do until now), I think the article might need some restructuring more than anything else. For example, wouldn't it be a good idea to separate the treatment of his works —the paragraphs about his books are really good, BTW— from his life? Some information is in subheadings it clearly does not belong into (like the paragraph about his awards and the following sentence, about his activities outside journalism; both are in the "Broadcasting" subsection). Once these structural issues have been fixed, and sections about the man himself are expanded, I will support this FAC. Sorry for the harsh first reply, but as I said, the current heading structure doesn't do the article's content justice. Finally, and on a completely unrelated note: what's up with having pictures on the FAC page to "illustrate" nominations? These pictures clearly serve no purpose; I can understand Piotr putting one to celebrate his 10th FAC, but I hope this doesn't become a general habit. Phils 11:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The article has now been refactored to address you objections. They were all helpful. The picture flowed from Piotr's suggestion endorsed by two other editors on the FAC talk page. --Theo (Talk) 15:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• To be perfectly blunt, while I am deeply impressed with the amount and high quality of the work that Theo has done on this article, I personally don't think the guy's that notable. --Dcfleck 11:48, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Notability does not, in fact, appear to be a criterion... therefore my objection is moot. Currently, however, I think the article could become a better one by paring it down - there is some duplication of information here that careful editing could probably eliminate. I will try my hand at it this weekend. --Dcfleck 12:04, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
  • If he's notable enough to be covered at all, then the article can become featured. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with DCfleck. I think a lot of effort seems to have been put into the page, but I don't think Mr. Helvarg is especially notable in any way. He seems to be a minor author who has not made much impact in any of the fields he's been involved in. In fact, he is so un-notable, that the lead intro text mentions Mr. Helvarg's commentary on the totally un-notable Spongebob controvery, a spat which lasted all of 5 seconds. If that is one of his major accomplishments, I'm not sure why this article even exists. That being said, my objections center around the writing/content: the article reads like a promotional text taken from bios or blurbs about the man. An encyclopedia article should centrally contain information about why this person is important, and what he has done that has had an impact. This article certainly details the things Mr. Helvarg has done, but the article fails entirely to demonstrate that he has achieved anything important. It needs a significant rethinking, and either additions, or rewriting, in order to demonstrate what is important about this subject. —thames 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • On notability, you are missing Filiocht's point. If a topic is notable enough to be an article, it can become a featured article as long as it meets the criteria. The criteria, if you look at them again, have nothing at all to do with the topic, thus, any article able to meet them can be a FA, no matter how obscure or unimportant the topic. The rest of your commentary seems valid though; if the article does nothing to tell why he is important that is a problem. - Taxman 15:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

    It seems to me that I have failed to demonstrate the importance of the Blue Frontier Campaign of which Helvarg is president. I take the point that he would be of no interest if his greatest achievement was to write about Spongebob; I only mentioned this article because it brought him to the attention of people outside the fields of politics and marine conservation, in which he works. In an early draft of the article there was more about the Campaign but, since that has its own significance outside Helvarg's ambit, it seems inappropriate to repeat that material in this article. Am I mistaken in this? Should there be more about the Campaign in this article? I have made his presidency more obvious in the opening paragraph and slightly reduced the emphasis on his journalism in the second.

    The suggestion that the text is promotional gives me more of a problem. I knew nothing of the man before I stumbled over his stub so any promotion is a matter of style rather than intent. What makes him encyclopedic? Publication of three books, of which two were influential, and establishment of a lobbying group that has attracted the explicit support of senior US politicians. All this is in the article (which, frankly, includes everything that I know of the man) so it is a matter of emphasis rather than material: rewriting rather than expansion. How do I recast it to address your concern? --Theo (Talk) 16:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    I do suggest playing up why the Blue Frontier Campaign was important, and what exactly those two of this books achieved. Always make sure you highlight the most important things up top. Editors have a slogan: say it, say it again, and say you said it. Don't assume the reader knows what effect this guy had--make sure they know after reading the first two sentences, and then make sure they know after reading the first section, and make sure they know after reading the whole thing. It's probably best to drop the Spongebob thing from the intro text: it would be like mentioning the effect Bill Clinton had on the cigar market in his intro text. Right now the article reads like: David Helvarg did this and this and this and this and this and this and this. It should read: David Helvarg did this really important couple of things, also, here is some background information and details. —thames 17:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    I have taken all your advice to heart. Does the latest refactoring adequately implement your suggestions? --Theo (Talk) 19:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    It's a very solid start. I'll change my vote to Abstain. —thames 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

    Looking at the course of your edits over the past two weeks one can clearly see how much work you've put in. You deserve the highest kudos for your unflinching ability to take constructive criticism with grace. One area which did not receive any revision is the section on Mr. Helvarg's books. When I made my original comments about sounding a bit too much like "promotional text", the section on books was one of the principal sources of my frustration. Again, I think each description leans a little bit too much toward saying what the book is about, rather than explaining why the book is important enough to have two or three paragraphs written about it. Address that and you'll have my vote. —thames 13:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

    Thank you for the praise. I am, however, at a loss to see what changes you seek to the books section. The War against the Greens subsection contains one paragraph describing the book's contents, one reporting key ractions and one explaining its significance. This seems to be the format that you describe. Likewise, the Blue Frontier subsection has a paragraph about the contents and a second about the book's consequences. The other two subsections do not meet your criteria; largely because they cannot do so. The Conservation Guide is too recently published to have any appreciable consequences and and Feeling the Heat has had no significant effect beyond being placed on some academic reading lists. While reviewing the article in the light of your comments, I did notice and fix my omission of the genesis of Feeling the Heat, but that hardly addresses your concern. I feel faintly foolish at my inability to see what changes you seek. Can you be more explicit? --Theo (Talk) 18:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article, and lead section in particular, reads very much like the sort of promotional writing style I would expect to find in a publication for which Helvarg worked. Not that it's necessarily poorly written, but it's not close enough to NPOV for a featured article. In the lead, for example, playing up the John Kerry angle, or the list of places where his work has been published. This looks like a CV, not an encyclopedia article. While I disagree with the earlier comment and think he is notable enough for an article, the article needs to spend more time establishing what effect he has had on the world. Instead of being a recap of highlights in his career, it should place his work in context to allow greater understanding. Areas where I would be interested in seeing more detail - his broadcasting career and work prior to his current environmentalist emphasis, and his role in the Spongebob brouhaha (it's difficult to figure out how the brief mention here fits within the controversy as outlined in the Spongebob article). --Michael Snow 21:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments. To take your points in order:

  1. I added the reference to John Kerry to address Thames suggestion that I demonstrate the effect of Blue Frontier Foundation. The organization exists to shape opinion. I explored "support of some politicians"/"some senior politicians"/"at least one Senator" but these all seemed weasely. What do you suggest?
  2. Helvarg is a journalist with wide geographic experience. Stating it as being on every continent seemed like a happy medium between "all over the world" and listing the many countries in which he had worked. What kind of phrase do you favour?
  3. I am at a loss to see how the article might do more to establish his effect on the world without resorting to opinion. He has reported on all manner of significant issues, which has presumably increased understanding of those issues. Is that not implied? He has published books that garnered responses that are described. He has established a special interest that has engaged the attention of the people that it is lobbying but has yet to demonstrate any significant effect upon legislation or behaviour. What, specifically, needs to change for the article to address this concern?
  4. I have expanded the material about his broadcasting and journalism. Is this the kind of thing that you advocate? Similarly I have expanded the material about Helvarg's contribution to the Spongebob debate.

  --Theo (Talk) 23:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  Trying to respond in order.

  1. Since you note in #3 that there is no significant effect so far, it might be more appropriate to talk about where the Foundation came from (i.e., an outgrowth of his book) and what it is (a grassroots lobbying organization) than what its effect has been. Kerry is fine to mention in the article, but using him in the lead smacks of PR/marketing tactics that try to translate "Bigshot X has made supportive noises about us" into "Look how important we are because Bigshot X is one of our strongest supporters".
  2. Sorry, in writing "places" I was more focused on the laundry list of publications after the mention of continents. Given the context I should have narrowed this down better. Your happy medium is a fine solution with respect to the phrase in question, the stuff that follows is more the problem.
  3. It's difficult to point to any one item, and I think much of the problem is the overall impression created by the article, along with how the body interacts with the lead. Improving the lead section may help somewhat. The implied premise that journalism generally increases understanding of the subject matter is fine and need not be stated as such. But since it theoretically applies for all journalism, it would help if you can highlight any way in which Helvarg's contribution to the field is unique. Can you point to him as a pioneer in his field, even if this means pioneering in a rather specialized facet of the field?
  4. Yes, this helps, and I can now comprehend the context for Spongebob much better.

  To sum up in a way: it's difficult to get the feeling that it's a featured article when it sounds like it's about a run-of-the-mill environmental activist. The article need not show that he's more important than other environmental activists—featured articles on relatively minor topics are fine—but it does need to show what distinguishes him from other environmental activists. Otherwise, it just seems like a generic article about a generic subject. --Michael Snow 00:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  In other words, the writing needs to be brilliant. :) --mav

  Thanks, Maveric. Perhaps my attempts to address Michael's further points has moved it more in that direction. I have excised John Kerry from the introduction, moved the illustrative list of publications into the Journalism section and emphasised the unique expertise that he brings to bear as a lobbyist. Is this enough? --Theo (Talk) 11:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support with a reminder that we are voting on the article, not the subject. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• object your references section is quite brief, but probably sufficient, however, it's difficult to see which reference has been used to provide facts for which area. A system of inline references such as footnotes would help considerably. Mozzerati 19:53, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

  Thank you. I have now attempted to clarify how to find the sources. --Theo (Talk) 23:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There is a difference between bloating a short article and writing a quality article on a significant entity. The notion that "If he's notable enough to be covered at all, then the article can become featured" is one reason I don't like the whole "Featured Article" thing in general. -R. fiend 20:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  I am not sure how to amend the article to address this objection. Please clarify. --Theo (Talk) 23:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  There is no way to adress this objection, as it goes against established practice of FAC vote, and arguably against the spirit of Wikipedia. One reason this encyclopedia is so great is that you can find loads of detailed information about topics that recieve little coverage if any at all in printed encyclopedic reference works; this is what we need to put on display with our Featured Article sections. Very notable topics are covered just as well if not better in printend encyclopedias. Phils 23:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  Exactly! Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  Unactionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support as per Filiocht. Kudos to Theo on the massive rewrite since the last FAC--although not worthy then, it is now. Congrats. Meelar (talk) 15:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Outstanding objections at point of failure

• Michael Snow on May 18: "[...] article need not show that he's more important than other environmental activists—featured articles on relatively minor topics are fine—but it does need to show what distinguishes him from other environmental activists."

Article rewritten that day in attempt to address criticism. Awaiting comment from Michael Snow. --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

To the extent that I've raised specific, actionable objections as is expected in the FAC process, it's probably fair to say that the changes have tried to address them. I think the article needs improvement and still feels as much like a promotional bio as an encyclopedia article, but I express that as a general impression and it's less easy to point to specific things that should be done. As a result, I'm not enthusiastic enough about the result that I would support renomination, but I'm not looking to pursue continued criticism of the article either. --Michael Snow 00:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mozzerati on May 18: "it's difficult to see which reference has been used to provide facts for which area."

Annotated article with Template:Inote and added explanatory note to ==References== on same day. Asked Mozzerati to identify where further source citation was needed. Awaiting response from Mozzerati. --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I responded with an comments in the article as requested. Mozzerati 20:31, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

• Dcfleck on May 20: "I think the article could become a better one by paring it down"."

Dcfleck condensed ==Career== section on May 23 and offered to do the same to the rest. Awaiting excision by Dcfleck. --Theo (Talk) 23:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

McDonald's Corporation

Self-nomination. --218.102.93.237 12:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) the lead section is too short for an article of this length and does not adequately encapsulate the corporation's history. 2) Cite your sources. 3) The article text is too list-heavy. slambo 14:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This article is *far* from FA quality. The mother-of-all-basic-requirements, adequate lead and reference sections, is not fulfilled. Moreover, the article is almost entirely comprised of lists, and the structure is next to non-existant. The "Quick Facts" and "History" sections must be disposed of and rewritten into coherent prose. The "Overview" section lacks cohesion in parts (the text does not really flow logically from one sentence to the next).Also reconsider the order of the different sections in the article. I doubt the article is entirely comprehensive; there is little to no mention of McDonald's publicity and corporate image campaigns (except for the caption of the pixelated "i'm lovin' it" picture), for example. You'd think that'd deserve it's own section. Phils 15:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Send to Peer Review. I see many things that a FAC should have, but not present in the article. My problems are already mentioned above, so I would suggest to sent it to the Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) Not sure about the relevancy of the quick facts section as being a suitable introduction to an important article. 2) Certainly featured article material, and found the slang section appropriate, but this perhaps could be interpreted into a different section, rather than having a bulleted section all of its own. 3) The layout is jarring, too many lists. --Knucmo2 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (TALK)

Anschluss

I only partly contributed to the article, however it has a good structure and features both historical events and a deeper analysis of the Anschluss. Themanwithoutapast 14:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Its a comprehensive and interesting article. However, I'm a bit sceptical with respect to the section Understanding the Word: Legacy of the 1938 Anschluss, which reads like a subjective assessment about issues that are still controversial. I would thus suggest that the article should first undergo peer review. Martg76 16:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The issues are controversial, but attempting to assess them does not imply that their presentation is subjective. I have only recently replied to concerns of this sort on the discussion page — if you would care to state your objections more substantially with a view to improvements, please feel free to join either there or on the peer review page. I would also like to have peer review complete before putting the article up for assessment of the exmplarity of its virtues. Buffyg 12:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I already raised some concerns on the talk page around May 9 (although not in great detail), but when this page was suggested for featured status, I was surprised to find that my edits show up neither on the talk page nor in its edit history. I will try to make some more substantial remarks when I have more time at hand.Martg76 16:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at the talk page because I had a vague recollection that you had made remarks previously, but I didn't see anything major. It is possible that someone accidentally clobbered your remarks by invoking edit against a previous version. If May 9 is the correct date, it is possible that any of the remarks made that day or since erased yours. I was a bit surprised to discover that this can cause subsequent edits to be lost; I would have that the versioning mechanism in wikipedia would have some way to handle potential forks like these... Buffyg 17:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Another article which apparently skipped Wikipedia:Peer Review when it most definetly shouldn't. Mainbody note - use Wikipedia:Footnotes. Too long section names. External links = references, not formatted accoring to Wikipedia:Cite sources. Pics are few and strangely spaced - I am sure more can be added, for example from German Wiki. The current article *looks* bad, and is rather short - I am sure it can be made more comprehensive, again likely by translating a much longer German Wiki article. I would like to see info on how exactly it helped German military and economy, on how it fitted into the growing Western appeasment foreign policy (not even linked from the article) and what was the world reaction to the event, and on how it influenced Munich Treaty (it most definetly put pressure on Czechoslovakia, by increasing German borders with them and showing Hitler's power, AFAIK). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

First I'd like to point out, I was kind of confused with the rules of suggesting an article for featured article and thought peer review and status of featured article candidate could be done in parellel. In reference to the remark on "incorporating" the German wiki content of the Anschluss - well that might be a problem, because the german wiki article on the Anschluss does not exist - there are just a couple of paragraphs within the "history of Austria" article. To the critisism on the substantial mattters - well I will try to include them (especially foreign press statements - I thought I did include them, but... ahmm... apparently I forgot). The pics are few, because - although I searched a lot for some with clear copyright status, many are still copyright-protected (not sure what you mean with strangely spaced). To sum it up - I concur that it would be better to have a peer review first (sorry about my mistake in procedures here). Still, I think the article has the basis for a FA. Themanwithoutapast 23:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Strangely spaced - if possible, they should be evenly spaced with one next to lead. But perhaps this is only my personal esthetic POV :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, most of what we do here (suggestions, objections, discussion, etc.) belongs in WP:Peer Review. Ideally, articles in Peer Review are the ones with a "basis for a FA", but that aren't quite ready yet. When your article lands here, there shouldn't be much left to correct (relatively speaking, of course, improvement is always possible). Phils 09:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a PR should be a formal requirement of any FAC? Discuss in talk, plz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Milpitas, California

(Self-nom) That's right - the Milpitas article is going for a featured article nomination. Here are a few good reasons why I think this article is such a fascinating and high-quality work on Wikipedia:

1. This article is really detailed for a suburb with a population of only 62,698 people. The Sunnyvale, California and Santa Clara, California articles still look sort of like stubs, but those two cities each have a population TWO times larger than the Milpitas article (about 120,000). This article is even beginning to rival that of San Jose, California. The "Television" and "Radio" sections (under Media) is more detailed than the media list on the San Jose article. Although it may not be as big as some of the other featured aticles, the article size for Milpitas is tremendous. Because I used many offline resources for this article, some of the information available can not be seen in any other place on the World Wide Web.
2. The images are colorful and fascinating. In fact, I myself took many of the photographs. These pictures actually give readers an idea of what Milpitas is like, and the different sides of the city are also shown. This article is just studded with these jewels.
3. Reliable sources are also used for this Milpitas article. I used many offline resources - all of them are found under the "Bibliography" section. I have also used many of the external links in writing this article, but I didn't heavily rely on them. This article has absolutely NO copy-and-paste work. That's right - I have done no cheating by copying texts from other websites. This article is totally an original work that I have written and spent hours writing on. The bibliography and external links sections all cite the resources for this article, so you know that this is a serious no-nonsense work that I have written originally.
4. The history section shows the rural past of Milpitas. Many people just see Milpitas as an ordinary suburb of San Jose, but when you read about the history, you can see the rich cultural heritage and the local life of this formerly farming town. I have used the books Milpitas: A Century of Little Cornfields, Milpitas: Five Dynamic Decades, and History of Milpitas as important sources for this article.
5. Urban layout, neighborhoods, geography, transportation, and climate are all really detailed, with nothing important missed. This article is about a small suburb, but it is huge!
6. See also, external links, and bibliography direct readers to more information on this town. Besides citing references, these detailed lists give ample resources for further study.
7. I have worked very hard on this article for weeks and put lots of information in here. These weeks have been fun and also educational for me. The flowing sentences, dazzling illustrations, detailed information, etc - this is just brilliant prose. I have been working on this for months, and it has really gotten a long way. Come on, let's give this article a try for a featured article nomination!

-- Milpitas guy 06:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Object Good work overall. Two things that should be fixed are the overwhelming Table of Contents and lack of inline references to your print sources (e.g. footnotes or parenthetical citations) for things like climate, "issues," and so on. I think the header organization could be improved (for shrinking the table of contents) by working the "notable corporations" into the text above, making the police a bold line like "mayor" instead of a header, and making "geography" and "physical geography" a single section. Otherwise, it's probably featurable. Dave (talk) 13:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Object — Its too early. I agree, you have made substantial good contributions to the Milpitas page, but much of it is new and has not undergone significant peer review to date. Lets put this off for at least a few months to give it time to develop some significant review/criticism/corrections. To get that ball rolling, here are some observations:

• Factual error: "Highway 237 begins at Milpitas and goes east to Sunnyvale."
  • Comment: Changed to "west" now.
• No city logo, seal or flag.
  • Comment: They were available on the city's website, but when I uploaded them, the Wikipedia server said that .bmp files aren't recommended. I linked to the seal from inside the article, but I can't upload them. Can anybody help me with this? Milpitas guy 21:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • City seal has been uploaded (see Milpitas,_California#Law_and_government). Maybe the city does not have a flag, so the seal will work just fine if the article becomes featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Is race needed/important in the following sentance? Why? "The Milpitas Police Department (MPD) is headed by Chief Charles Lawson, an African American who has been serving as chief since 1994."
• Media section lists many stations and newspapers that do not originate in Milpitas. Area-wide media would be better seperated into a Media of the San Francisco Bay Area or San Francisco Bay Area Media page that every city/town can reference, and then only have the local media (KICU, KTEH, Milpitas Post) talked about on the Milpitas page.
• Photos of Yosemite Drive and UP Railroad are unappealing and uninformative (empty pavement, empty rail line with no station, no crossings, no switches).

• They really don't look boring to me, but if some people think it's boring, maybe we can get some more pictures. Milpitas guy 21:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • They're not ugly pictures, I just don't understand how they are relevant to the article. Can you tell me what they are supposed to illustrate? What makes them different than any other random piece of pavement or railroad? I don't get it. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is on its way, but its not there yet. At least list it on Wikipedia:Peer Review before making it featured. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Great work. I wish all city articles were as detailed and informative. Danny 00:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

After looking over the images on the page, it seems there are at least two (maybe three) copyright violations:

• Image:Alviso adobe.jpg from [3] [4]
• Image:Milpitas mid 1900s 1.jpg from http: xtalk.msk.su/photo/Milpitas/photo26.jpg (bogus formatting is needed because of the spam filter) — when questioned about this, the tag was changed to GFDL!
• Image:Milpitas rr.jpg has no source information

--ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The images were from the Milpitas history site, and they seemed to be on the public domain. Image:Milpitas mid 1900s 1.jpg is copyrighted or public domain? I really don't know. If not, delete it. This image seems to be the only questionable pic around here. Possibly a copyright violation. Anyways, I'm not familiar with copyright laws. If that image does violate copyright, pull it off. Milpitas guy 21:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Milpitas rr.jpg is also from the Milpitas history site at [5]. Milpitas guy 21:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• CopyrightedFreeUse is probably fit more for the images from the Milpitas history site. They probably aren't public domain. Sorry about that. Milpitas guy 21:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I followed some of your suggestions for improvements.. As for Highway 237, "east" was changed to "west." I guess I had accidentally flipped the directions! Milpitas guy 21:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Please leave the URL for the source of the "mid-1900s" image. Under US law, all creative works have copyright automaticly upon creation or publishing. You can't just take these images and declare them "CopyrightedFreeUse" without getting a license/permission to do so from the original copyright holder. The fact that they are published on the web only implies that they are licensed for viewing on the web in their original context. Automaticly, all rights are reserved. I will be listing these three images on Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not true at all. There are many websites that utilize the Public Domain on their websites as well. Wikipedia isn't the only one. bob rulz 02:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Unless you know a priori that the image is public domain, there is no indication of it, and you have to assume that it is copyrighted. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Object - Oh, you were making it seem like no other websites utilized Public Domain. My mistake. Either way, I object to this becoming a featured article. I didn't look over the whole article, but from what I can tell it reads a lot like a travel guide, while the media section is unnecessarily large. Some of the formatting is strange too, wand it relies too much on lists and not enough on "describing" the objects that are located in a list (their location, importance, etc). Overall, with some work, it could work its way up to featured article status, but for the moment its still simply an above-average article. bob rulz 01:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

---

I have cited the sources from inside the article. External links (in brackets like this: [6]) also cite the sources. Milpitas guy 22:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I have also followed Harry491's and Chris' suggestions. The table of contents is now shorter and inline references were added. Possible copyvio images are now removed. This article now looks much better. Feature this article? Milpitas guy 22:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Object, there are too many list and not enough prose, particularlty in the later part of the article. For example

1. why are all the schools listed, when they are on the list of schools in the district?
2. radio and tv stations should be stuck on a separate list and summarised on this page like the media section in Brisbane.
3. the Law and government section should also be written as prose instead of breaking it up with headings (this will also decrease the lenght of the TOC)
4. shopping center list should be turned into prose or merged with the neighbourhoods section so the reader has some idea where they are, same with the parks section

The ordering of the sections needs to be tweaked too, see Summer Hill, New South Wales, the only suburb I can think of that has come close to featured status. With the format issues addressed this article should get to featured status --nixie 03:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Object – 1) I'm against the abuse of the ToC for geographical places. The ToC is too long. 2) There's no culture section. Sure its a suburb, but still a lot can be said about the culture of a place. Kalimpong is a Featured Article (50,000 residents); take a look at the size, headings and how to use the Footnote 3 style for inline references. 3) The Climate sections should be reworded, it reads more like a travel magazine. 4) Media section is too long, you could enter a few famous radio stations or better still make a new page titled: List of Milpitas radio stations. If this is not feasible, display it horizontally using a table. 5) Also some weasel words are used: "fairly good"; "good condition" (by whom?) 6) Needless text inserted Even though they have a white line to the left that warns drivers from crossing it, careless and speeding drivers often ignore bicycle lanes, so all bikers must exercise caution and ride as far to the right as possible. This is unnecessary, more like rules for motorists in the town. ==government== section is too small. A final analysis reveals that this needs a copyedit.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 13:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

World War II

Complete, well written, good featured article candidate. The main objections last time were that there was a major rewrite underway at the time. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 08:06, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

• Where are the inline cites? Three are not enough to verify the information in this article. --mav 12:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Obviously this article can only be an overview of a massive topic, with specific detail to the myriad of sub-articles. The kind of thing that needs inline external citations tend to be in those more focused subtopics. In this article the wikilinks to other articles themselves act as the "cites". The important thing is whether the breadth and depth of courage is even and appropriate. I think this article achieves that sufficiently to get my support. Stylistically, there is quite a lot of variation in section length and this makes one wonder if the short sections are a) inappropriately sectioned and should be merged or b) appropriately sectioned but missing detail of a level included in other sections. At 60k, this article is already at the upper limit of "comfortable readability" though! Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It is on the long side and I'd like to see better organization as well. Since it is already so long (IMO, longer than comfortable read) I'd like to see more condensing of longer sections and an effort to make sure the removed detail is still covered by the daughter articles. Object until then (I'd like to throw my hat in and help this weekend ; I don't think it will take too long to fix). --mav 11:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Judging by the refence section, one could easily get the impression that only British historians (and the occasional token German) have written anything on the subject. If just for show, could we try to balance this a tad? Peter Isotalo 16:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - One of my reference articles in wikipedia. The main stages of the war, in the 3 main fronts are very well selected and covered. Perhaps some more info about the homeland resistance movements, such as in France, in Yugoslavia (that freed himself from the fascism) or Greece should be covered. Also the role of neutral countries, such as mine, Portugal, could be covered, however the article is already big enough, and the info about the war per se is very good and almost all little issues have the link to the greater article they expand into, this works almost like a huge lead section to the excellent articles that Wikipedia has about this huge historical fact. Afonso Silva 21:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• What happen? There's only a "former FA" template on the talk page, and it links to the present nomination. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I would like to be able to read the old FAC discussion. I don't want to sound churlish about this in some ways amazing article, but it does need a style and grammar copyedit. I can try to provide that in a day or two, if nobody else offers, but a better historian than me would really be better. Bishonen | talk 01:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC) P.S., Never mind about the old FAC discussion, I see Ingoolemo links to it above. Bishonen | talk.
• Object. A very important subject, if - when - we FA this, it should be *perfect*. Each section needs a pic. There are quite a lot of one sentence paragraphs - they should be merged or expaned. I agree with Afonso, there are entire sections missing - resistance movement is definetly vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I totally agree with Piotr here. This is an article that needs to adhere to ridiculously high standards of verifiability, neutrality and overall quality. Though I am in general quite skeptical in promoting yet more war articles to FA status, I really like how this is for once a much more general subject, and not just an individual battle, general or piece of equipment. It needs to be turned inside out and upside down in a truly grueling PR before it can be featured on the main page, and it needs to be the perfect model of how to summarize major topics. I also feel that the broader social and political implications need to be focused on a lot more; this is not just military history, but one of the defining aspects of 20th century history. / Peter Isotalo 12:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I just noticed the major rewrite in progress (which so far looks a lot better than the current article). This article is nowhere near finished. It needs some major work before even allowed back as a PR, let alone an FAC. / Peter Isotalo 12:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • With the last edit from over a month ago, this rewrite seems dead. I wouldn't call it better then main article anyway, although some if the non-war (aftermath, impact, etc.) sections should be incorporated into the current article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Whoa! I have no idea what happened. I actually checked World War II/temp to see what was going on, and I came up with a tiny page that had a comment on it. What's going on? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:18, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
        • Tiny? It's over 40k and still being worked on. The current World War II is a structural mess that needs major copyediting and it's far too warcrufty. There must be hundreds of major sub-articles on WW II right now, and new ones being created every day. It's about time we wrote an article on a really major subject that was a model example of a good summary instead of being a huge, unwieldy mass of minutiae. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:23, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
          • No! I mean that when I checked the /temp rewrite page before nominating this article, the page was, for some strange reason, a comment. Maybe I did something wrong, like accessing /Temp or something like that. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:05, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
• There are tons and tons and tons of media files (audio and video) already on Wikipedia that could be incorperated into the article. I'd think this article needs to be beefed up with them before it can be promoted. →Raul654 05:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Ivan

As the 2005 Atlantic season approaches, and the 2005 Pacific season is already underway, I wanted to get a hurricane-related article on FAC, possibly to put on the front page as the season begins. Tropical cyclone, despite my best efforts, isn't yet ready; I hope to be able to nominate that within a month. However, of the four major storms for 2004, Ivan was probably the best article. It has all the best elements - lots of pictures (all of which are public domain or used with explicit permission), artwork made by Wikipedians explaining Ivan's strange path, the Infobox, detailed descriptions of the storm, the path it took, its effects, etc. I think, at the moment, this is the best storm article from 2004, and I submit it to FAC. (It also has the best picture, the ISS pic - that one is just beautiful) --Golbez 19:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Support - but - there needs to be a references section in this article. There are seven inline sources, but nothing to "consolidate" them at the end. --tomf688^(talk) 19:32, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

What's the best way to go about doing that? Isn't there a new footnote template now or something? --Golbez 19:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if a template exists, but also not sure how well it would work. For example, a lot of info came from the NHC website, but that isn't really referenced in the article. --tomf688^(talk) 19:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the references to the bottom, and am seeking out new references. --Golbez 08:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Object. Lead section fails to provide an adequate overview of the article. Right now it recaps the storm's path and intensity but makes no mention of its effects. The "Effects" section needs better organization (possibly subheadings by geographic region). Also, the article really does not discuss efforts to deal with the aftermath and recover from the devastation; damage estimates are about all that's provided. --Michael Snow 22:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Object, in addition to the valid points raised by Michael Snow, the list of preparations should be spun out into prose. There are several one sentence paragraphs that could be expanded or merged, for example Hurricane Ivan is also suspected of bringing spores of soybean rust from Venezuela into the United States, why is this significant? The anwser is not obvious to all readers. A brief description of storm categories should probably be added too, some people might now know that category 5 is the worst etc.--nixie 03:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It really does need to be more comprehensive. Everyking 04:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Good points; I've gone through the article and have tried to deal with some of the problems mentioned above. The recovery and rebuilding section will take a bit more work, but is definitely a good idea. It seems like all of the hurricane articles are suffering in the recovery aspect as well. --tomf688^(talk) 18:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

And this gave us the opportunity to realize the numbers were wrong. They added up right, but a few were off by one, etc. So far as I can tell, they've all been harmonized with the NHC's tropical cyclone report. --Golbez 18:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia of Starfleet

THE NOMINATION FOR THIS ARTICLE WAS WITHDRAWN 20 MAY 05

This is a self nomination for the ranks and insignia page of Starfleet. This article is comprehensive of every rank mentioned in the Star Trek series and provides color tables and charts with additional information. Photos are also provided and the entire article is referenced with source material provided. -Husnock 07:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

To Administrators: I will be offline until 16 May 2005. Please do not close the vote until after I return and can read comments which came in over the weekend. Thanks! -Husnock 23:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I found the frequent use of [the] viewing audience a bit distracting. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:31, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, it has to be used, since Star Trek appeared in many formats. The awards look great, though I would try to find better photos (if possible) of the various Star Trek characters. Zscout370 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortuntatly the photos are really that best that anyone can hope for as they are screenshots. The "really good photos" out on the interent are copyright by Paramount and people using them typically rip them off websites without permission. I was careful not to do that and verified that all pictures on the page were fairuse. -Husnock 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Also bear in mind that making ranks too large makes them unreadable as they wont fit a page. Most images are actualy larger but are resized. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support:My concerns were answered on my talk page. The nominator stated that the pictures were screenshots, so the quality of the pictures will not be that great. Also, all pictures used are able to be used on Wikipedia with little to no copyright problems. I will change my vote now to support. Zscout370 (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The images of insignias are all listed as "public domain" but I couldn't find any evidence that they had been released by the copyright holder. Can someone verify that? Dave (talk) 16:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • In regards to your question, the insignia pictures are public domain becuase they are incredibly common on the internet and have been copied, recopied, and recreated dozens if not hundreds of times. Indeed, on my own computer, I made about one fourth of the images. The stripes, especially, are public domain because anyone can draw a picture of a stripe. The pips are the same, as they can be recreated by anyone simply by drawing a colored circle. The only questionable area is the movie era rank pins, but these are assumed public domain becuase of the high degree to which they can be found in publications both hardcopy and internet. Also the pins were invented in 1982, over 23 years ago, and as far as I know can be used without permission. -Husnock 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: "the insignia pictures are public domain becuase they are incredibly common on the internet and have been copied, recopied, and recreated dozens if not hundreds of times" How does that make them public domain? And what about all those movie stills? Phils 17:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Pictures drawn by people on their own computer (like stripes and pips) are released to public domain by the users. The screenshots are fairuse based on Wiki image tag rules. As stated before, the only grey area is the movie rank pins, but these can be found in hundreds of different sources, half of which were published independently without connection to Paramount. I cant prove this without a letter from paramount, obviously, but I image the movie pins were released into the public domain years ago, since they were first created in 1982 and Paramount probably doesnt gets royalties everytime the movie pins appear somewhere like in a book or internet. -Husnock 17:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I will personally redraw some of the various ranks and make them PD/GDFL, if that is ok with everyone. Zscout370 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Wait, if I create these images, will they be PD or GDFL? Zscout370 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
        • If you make them, you can release them under either one. You just have to say "I release this under ______." I think there's even a template for it. Dave (talk) 19:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC) Update: the template is {{PD-user|Your user name}}
• Support, it's admirably crufty. Everyking 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object, material is not referenced, title is wrong. It should be Ranks and Insigniae of Starfleet. RickK 23:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll withdraw my objections. RickK 22:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Insigniae? Zscout370 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The title is wrong and thus it shouldn't be a Featured Article because it's not "Insigniae"? That must be a British English thing, as I've always seen it spelled as "Insignia", the dictionaries I have says it's insignia, and a one letter difference between American and British English is hardly a reason to deny the quality of this article. --Wingsandsword 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Very surprising comment, I must say. The article is completely referenced. All references are listed at the bottom of the article, both live action and publications, with references in the actual text . I read up on how to reference things in Wikipedia and will reformat the section on Monday 16 May. As far as the spelling, I have never seen insignia spelled the way you are referring. I agree with above, minor reasons for denying an article Featured Article status. What can we do to change your mind? -Husnock 00:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It probably is a British spelling, but articles on here can either be American English or British English. However, the articles must be one of the other, not both, mixed in the text and title. Zscout370 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Insignae is not an English spelling. Insigniae is the only valid spelling of the plural of insignia. I'm American, not English. If you're using "ranks" you have to use "insigniae". RickK 05:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ahem - "insigniae" is not the British English spelling either - I've never seen it, and my Little OED states "insiginia ... n.pl. badges or marks of office etc." - presumably the singluar is insignium or somesuch. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Insignia is the way it is spelled, at least in the United States with regard to military rank: (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ranks/officers/o-rank.html) (http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/enlisted.html) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/comm.html) as examples of official US and UK Military pages that always spell it insignia, it is also spelled like that in the official Star Trek Encyclopedia --Wingsandsword 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, it should be Ranks and insignia of Starfleet ie. not capitalised due to not being a proper noun. Further to the above discussion, from http://www.dictionary.com/, "Usage Note: Insignia in Latin is the plural form of insigne, but it has long been used in English as both a singular and a plural form: The insignia was visible on the wingtip. There are five insignia on various parts of the plane." --Oldak Quill 11:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree on capitalisation; re "insigniae" - I should have known it would be explained at insignia. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it to the uncapitalised form. However, would it not be better named "Ranks and insignia of the Starfleet"? --Oldak Quill 13:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Beat me to the move ;) I have never seen Starfleet used as a noun, with an article, definite or indefinite. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Not really, within the Star Trek setting it is virtually never referred to as "The Starfleet", just "Starfleet". Characters do not say "I'm joining the Starfleet" or "The Starfleet is reassigning me." they say "I'm joining Starfleet" or "Starfleet is reassigning me."

--Wingsandsword 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Wangsandsword is right I think. Isn't Starfleet a proper noun? You usually don't have the before them. Its like saying "I'm work at the Walmart.", or "I'm going to join the The United States Navy." User:Peb1991 23:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• "Starfleet" is frequently an adjective. I'd like to see the article titled "Starfleet ranks and insignia". Great article. Support. CDThieme 04:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support It's a very good reference, well researched and very thorough. This article is even how I really found wikipedia originally, as I was looking for information on the subject and this was the best resource for it on the web. It is accurate, well researched, helpful, and even acknowledges and notes the various alternate and sometimes obscure theories. The idea that Kozinski was a Warrant Officer also makes me smile, since I suggested it on rec.arts.startrek.tech back in '96, and it's good to know that an idea I put forth has apparently found wider acceptance. --Wingsandsword 00:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This appears to be a very well reserached and informative article, though your published sources aren't cited correctly. There should be author and publisher information included instead of just a title. See "books" under Wikipedia:Cite sources. Ganymead 01:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • All references will be updated by Monday May 16 to the proper format. -Husnock 02:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems comprehensive as far as I can tell. When the references are up, I'll support. You may also want to move some of the larger tables to appendices because they can interfere with the text. Good stuff overall. Dave (talk) 03:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've noticed that the TNG, DS9, VOY pics are made of multiple images - the table wraps incorrectly, so these really need to be saved as single images. Reduce your browsing window to half size to see what I mean. Otherwise - great!--PopUpPirate 08:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

As for the images being a single image, I am on it, fixing that. Zscout370 (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

PopUp, go to the Cadet ranks section, is that what you wanted? Zscout370 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, carry that through and it'll be there, for me at least! --PopUpPirate 20:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, setting a proper width fixes that. Many images are used many times, not all of us have t3 links the page thakes forever to load if we combine all ranks, there is no reason to combine images. Please understand the reson of many images that add up to the same thing. For instance the TNG pips, those are merely same image beeing repetively used right? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object Reluctant on technical grounds - Wow, just wow. One of the most interesting articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. Some technical points that need to be fixed before this is FA quality though:
  1. Things like "several Star Trek publications have confirmed that..." need to be backed up by inline citations (the easiest to use is the inote/explain-inote system; see the edit page of helium for an example). But the extensive self-referencing of the episodes and films used is fine, IMO (not sure how it would be possible to be more specific ; DVD chapter and/or time segment?).
  2. The lead section is in very bad need of expansion. An article this size needs three good-sized paragraphs. See Wikipedia:lead section.
  3. The TOC is overwhelming. I'm not sure how to best deal with that, but consolidating some 4th and all 5th level subsections would help (the photos already help to break up the text and you can always use ; instead of real headings). Filling the white space next to the TOC with image(s) would also help.
• Again, I'm a bit floored by this masterpiece of research. Very, well done. --mav 17:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I've been talking out of my ... hat. I went to dictionary.com, and they claim that insignia is a plural as well as a single. I was mistaught in school. I'll withdraw my objection, and I apologize. RickK 18:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Highest Support. This is one of the most complete, confirmed, and best insignia chart on the web if not the most complete, confirmed, and best. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"Smaller" images that sum up to a larger one is better. This way repetive symbols are uploaded to user once saving tem and wiki hddspace, and bandwidth. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I, personally, still do not agree with what you stated. Based on the events of today, I am going to show you on why one image is probably better than many. You know that when an image on Wikipedia goes missing, it is replaced with "Missing Image: Filename.ext." Well, with one image, you only see that notice once. But with many images used to make up a rank, as you like to use, we will see many of those notices pop up, possibly destoring the template. I also wish to show you a link that user PopUpPirate showed me, which also displays a problem of the many image use. This image, [7], shows what a smaller window size can possibly do to the template. CoolCat, I know you worked hard on these images, but I just want you to reconsider your method based on what I have said. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Very impressive. Now why can't we have article of this quality about real things? Guettarda 22:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Like Ranks and insignia of NATO ? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose -- pure fancruft, lowers the image of the project as a whole. Mostly a collection of images (although there is some text). Finally, "Alternate and conjectural ranks" is not even factual on the petty level of fancruft; pure conjecture. — Xiong熊talk* 04:58, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • In that case, you should probably list the article on VfD as being a mix of trivia and original research. --Carnildo 06:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Pure fancraft"? "Petty level"? "A collection of images"?. To be honsst, that sounds a lot like flaming the article. I submit there is nothing petty about this article and it is far more than a colelction of images. I urge you to change your oppose vote to a comment or remove it. Calling the article names helps noone. -Husnock 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Pure fancruft" is not an actionable objection, and is therefore invalid. Also, pasting the article into Word gives me a word count of more than 8,000, which, even allowing for image captions and the like, is I think slightly more than "some text". Proteus (Talk) 17:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. What are the sources for the various conjectural ranks? None of the references jumps out at me as not being part of canon, and if the source for the conjectural ranks is canon, then I don't understand why they're being described as "conjectural". How widespread is the use of the different fanon rank systems? --Carnildo 06:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Very common. Since some eras are poorly documented (the original pilots, first movie especially) in terms of insignia, any listing requires a certain amount of educated guesswork from the patterns of the insignia and analogs to real world Naval ranks and other Trek eras. Debate, educated guesses and speculation on the ranks and insignia of Starfleet have been around since the beginning of Trek fandom, and probably always will. One reason this article is well respected by dedicated Trek fans is that it acknowledges all the various models in circulation, discusses them all and their merits, and makes a quite conclusive argument for the ones it uses, and matches perfectly with the on-screen evidence we have available already and official documentation, making it the best source for this information on the web. As an example of some of the hypothetical ranks: the TNG era "Branch Admiral" with just a colored rectangle insignia, a "Fleet Captain" in the TNG era with 5 pips and "Ensign Junior Grade" insignia with a hollow pip are all from the old FASA Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual for their old licensed roleplaying game (although the license for the game was pulled after the book, and it's widely believed that the low quality of the book was responsible) --Wingsandsword 19:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Still object, but on different grounds. In the current version, the "Officer Insignia" table has problems causing the TNG and DS9/VOY rank badges to wrap around. See Image:StarTrekInsigniaProblem.jpg --Carnildo 20:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly due to the very small intro paragraph, a featured article really needs a more in depth introduction. I am also concerned by the presence of "conjectured" ranks/insignia etc. an encyclopedia is not the place for such conjecture, although I am aware of the problems in writing an article about a fictional universe. This is a very well researched article, but I do not consider it to be of featured article quality at this time. Rje 16:04, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with us describing conjecture that exists in the real world. I have no doubt that such conjecture is rampant in among hard core Trekkies, but I'll continue to object until inline citations prove this (lead needs to be expanded as well). If it does turn out that this article is making original conjecture, then yeah, that original research should be removed. --mav 01:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: I conjecture that this will never reach the rank of Featured Article due to crufty minutiae abounding with original research. Edeans 19:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Nothing actionable there. --Carnildo 05:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate? Do you simply just not like the article? What about it do you find "inactionable"? -Husnock 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe Carnildo is objecting to Edean's oppose, not objecting to the article. - Brian Kendig 22:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • If that is the case, then Carnildo should come here and vote under support, so it can be a bit clearer. I do admit this will be a close vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't support, yet, and I've expressed that opinion. However, I don't think that Edeans' objection is valid: an objection must express a rationale that can be addressed. An objection of "Crufty minutinae abounding with original research" gives no indication of what can be done to fix problems with the article. --Carnildo 03:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
          • The most we can take from the main statement is to ditch the original research and find sources to back up some information. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
            • The latter part of that - the objection to the original research - is definitely actionable. Take it out or back it up with citations, although Edeans really does need to be more specific about which parts are original research. →Raul654 21:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The page is extremely ugly - the tables appear to be far too wide for the page; the rank graphics are being stacked vertically rather than shown horizontally. For example, the first column by "Fleet Admiral" looks like three bars over two bars, and the last column looks like an open-parenthesis on top, five pips stacked vertically beneath it, then a close-parenthesis under that. The graphics for "Ensign" look like a big letter 'T', with a big blue rectangle on top and a little grey rectangle under it. This could be because I have Wikipedia set to use the "Classic" skin (which I've heard deals differently with image overcrowding) and I only have the browser window set to about 800 pixels wide, but still, more work has to be put in to make this page presentable when the window isn't really wide. - Brian Kendig 21:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I will try to change the way the images are presented. A similiar complaint was filed above, and there is a screen shot of Brian's objection. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Aside from the problem with the pip images being wrapped, this article is just confusing to me. In the tables, what does "Conjectured" mean, and if there's a rank badge being conjectured then why isn't it being shown? Conjectured is in italics and N/A is in bold; these should both be either italic or bold. Should the column heading "Feature Films" really be that, when it only means "films 1-5 and the first half of 6"? There's a "Flag Officers" table then an "Officers" table then a text section about admirals then a table of admiral insignia then more text and tables mixed in a confusing fashion, ordered by rank and then by series... the result is that the article seems, to me at least, to have an amazing wealth of information but is in way over its head when it comes to organizing this information clearly. It almost seems to me like the article has bitten off more than it can chew. I think more work has to be done to streamline this article (in particular, do away with the fourth-level sub-headings) before it can become Featured. - Brian Kendig 00:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Inadequate lead. Incidentally, the first image in the "Cadet ranks" section overlaps with the text on my screen. Mark¹ 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. Incidentally, the entire page renders fine for me on Firefox. – ugen64 03:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not about the browser, but your screen resolution. I have a screen resolution 1280*1024 which is highish but not at all uncommon, and there lots of overlapping pictures which cause ugly whitespace and are thus detract from the writing. Pcb21| Pete 15:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Nominator for this page is now back online as of 15 May 2005 and will attempt to deal with the issues raised here. Most important of which is the sources and references.

As of 15 May 05: Vote appears to be: 8 Oppose and 5 Support. As stated above, valid issues will be addressed. People logging on and stating they just dont like the page...well, we cant do anything about that. -Husnock 22:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Article Revamp

Based on all comments above, the following major actions have been taken in the article:

1. All sources and references have been formated per Wikipedia guidelines and placed in a refererence section at the bottom of the article.
2. Original research ranks ahve been cleared out of the Alternate and COnjectural insignia section
3. A new opening section has been written, before the table of contents
4. A new page layout has been established with clearer defined sections
5. The spacing of pics and talbes has been modifed in an attempt to make the article more user friendly
6. Sections have been added on every officer rank (the sections which do not yet contain info will be written withint 48-72 hours).

I urge persons who ahve voted preivously to opppose to look at the changes we have mdae and alter your vote if you feel it is appropriate. After writing the new officer sections, nad giving the vote a few more days after that, I will place a notice on the Administrators Noticeboard for a final decision. Thanks to everyone foe inputs and advice. -Husnock 03:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The expanded lead helps, but I still don't see inline citations and the TOC is still overwhelming. --mav 14:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Not much can be done about the table of contents. I pers0nally think the table is now rather well organized. As far as in-line citations, I feel that would clutter the article if I understand the concept correctly (EX:Page 13, Chapter 4, Book 2, etc after each fact?) Also a lot of the ranks reference live action production as the primary source in the dialouge of the text. -Husnock 15:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I know this will be hard to pull off, but I wish for you to look at the article on Pope Benedict XVI. The editors have added footnotes to each section, so you put the footnote next to the source material and put the sources (with the footnote number next to it) at the bottom. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

---

And yet a TOC that is not overwhelming and inline citations are required to pass FAC. The inote/explain-inote system has invisible cites. Thus no clutter. --mav 16:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't let this pass without comment - inline citations are not required to pass FAC. Wikipedia:What is a featured article says "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", not "must contain inline citations". There seems to be a slippery slope that will require any featured articles to look like an academic treatise, not an encyclopedia article (this is the same slippery slope that made the criterion for references go from "when and where appropriate" to required). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No use certinaly is not appropriate use. The numerous sentences that have statements that include "some publications" absolutely need to have inline citations. The inote/explain-inote system is the easiest to use and is invisible to readers (so objections that inline citations are ugly and/or distraction to readers are not valid). --mav 21:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire: no use certainly can be appropriate if use would be inappropriate or if such use would not be an enhancement (although I entirely accept that inline citations are entirely appropriate in certain circumstances). If you are saying it is always appropriate or always an enhancement to use inline citations, then I think "appropriate" is the wrong word to use in the featured article criteria. Anyway, I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article, in case anyone is interested. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I still dont see the TOC as "overwhealming". A lot of other FACs have even more complicated Table of Contents. And, a very simple Table of Contents is actually not listed on the critical requirements for a Featured Article (it says something like "substantial but not overwhealming"). I really see no problem with the TOC. After the recent layout change, its actually pretty easy to follow.

As far as these citations go, that seems awhole lot of work when it is already talked about in the main text. I reviewed the text and most everything a rank is mentioned, it is followed by a mention of which episode it appeared in and which character held it. Books and manuals are mentioned in places, as well, but really apply to everything on the page in conjunction with live action sources. Thus, referencing a specific page out of a specific book which talked about a specific rank, would be very, very time consuming and difficult.

I encourage everyone to look at Medal of Honor and Order of the Bath. They made it to FAC pretty easily and without the type of indepth/intext citations you are talking about. Seems to be a lot of resistance over here. Im going to carry on as described above. I hope the Admins understand the huge amount of time placed into this and justly reward the article with FAC status. -Husnock 17:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I compromised and removed all the sub-headers dealing with the individual series. I feel thats as far aS table should be cut down, although perhaps we can trim it to not have sections for each rank, yet that was a thing that was stated above that the article should have. Cant make everybody happy, but I hope the TOC changes are what people are talking about here. -Husnock 18:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Off-topic:Man, those are the same two articles I am trying to use to justify that my article, Hero of Belarus, should become FA! Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

---

COMPLETION OF ARTICLE

The article is now complete. As for featured article status, I now count the vote tally as follows:

• 6 Votes for Support
• 4 Votes for Oppose
• 2 Oppose Votes which I feel should be disregarded
  • Vote calling article "petty" and a "collection of images" be disregarded
  • Vote calling article "crufty minutiae abounding with original research" be disregarded

Counting the questionable opposes, its a tie and I have asked the admins on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page to declare this a featured article. Thanks for everyone's help. -Husnock 05:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• That's not how it works. In order for an article to be be promoted to "featured" status, any and all actionable objections need to have been withdrawn. Objections that do not specify a problem to be fixed can be ignored. --Carnildo 06:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Frankly, those two objections aren't actionable. Calling an article "petty", how do you change that? "Crufty minutiae"? This is an article about the rank systems and insignia of a fictional universe written by dozens of authors over 40 years, 10 movies and over 600 TV episodes (as well as hundreds of books) that depicts a span of over 220 years, there are going to be huge piles of minutiae that all have some relevance, it is a slightly complex topic. --Wingsandsword 08:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Both those objectors raised the issue of conjecture and original research; that's a valid issue which it's not at all clear to me has been resolved. Mark¹ 09:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Critical comment. Were it not for the rigid demands that opposing an FA have to fall within the narrowest of interpretations of the FA criteria, this would actually be a pretty strong objection. This is really difficult to point out, since there is obviously so much effort put into the article and in of itself it looks good and is well-researched, but I seriously question the validity of making fancruft (that is completely confined to the subject matter itself) an FA. I could imagine a thousand different articles on sci-fi, RPG or fantasy being FAs, but this is where I draw the line. I can not accept that a detailed description of pure fiction minutiae be held up as a model example of encyclopedic content. I am not looking forward to seeing the logical conclusions of the precedent that this FA might result in; namely nominations of articles like Ambassador class starship, forest moon of Endor or perhaps a future geography of Mordor. / Peter Isotalo 09:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The conjectured ranks are original research and are given way too prominent of placement in the article. The criteria call for factual, accurate, and verifiable. The article needs to remove the conjecture, or at least entirely separate it from what are actually verified ranks appearing in official sources. At the very minimum, to satisfy the no orignial research policy, all of the conjecture would need to be cited directly to the source it comes from, using a citation system such as Wikipedia:Footnotes. And those sources would have to have some reasonable level of quality, such as a published fan magazine. A geocities homepage listing a made up rank certainly doesn't qualify as something that Wikipedia should be covering, unless that website is demonstrably popular and widely recognized. - Taxman 15:13, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • 100% agreement with Taxman. This is my major outstanding objection to this FAC (see above). The numerous sentences that have statements that include "some publications" absolutely need to have inline citations. The inote/explain-inote system is the easiest to use and is invisible to readers (so objections that inline citations are ugly and/or distraction to readers are not valid). This article is also starting to get too long. --mav 20:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You all have pretty much won as this is not going to be a FAC. Some people were nice, others were not. To the people who called the article names that was just low and dirty. I actually wonder if some joker is going to add a VFD tag now and say its "pure fan fiction". How amazing. Well, in the end, we still got a pretty good article out of it. I'm done with it now and rest the case. -Husnock 21:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm very sorry to hear that, because, as I said in my original reluctant objection, I very much like this article and think of it as one of the most interesting articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. But that alone is not enough. --mav 21:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - this is all very good, but isn't WikiCities where the article (or, at the very least, the conjectural ranks) should be held? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Sorry, but this is, well... fancruft. Not only does it cover a subject that is entirely fictional (and let's not forget that), it also rests heavily on conjecture. I wouldn't want to delete this article, and I recognise the work that's gone into it and that it will be of considerable interest to some people, but I just don't want to see fancruft featured on the main page. Now someone will probably object to my objection on the grounds that it's not actionable, but in my view the very subject being covered here means that however well written this article is, it is not worthy of being called an example of "Wikipedia's very best work", to quote from the official definition of an FA. Move it to the Star Trek wiki and have it featured there. If we were building a Star Trek encyclopedia this would be a fantastic article, but we aren't, and it isn't. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The subject isnt entirely fictional as the television series and movies have created these insignia for wear by actors therefore they no have reality. I see it more as a society article since these ranks ahve devloped over 40 years. As far as being conejcture, the article is well referenced and provides sources for most everything that is listed. In any event, it doesnt matter as I have closed the book on this and am not pursuing FAC status anymore. I am merely waiting for this page to be archives. So, you can take your objections elsewhere as this is a closed topic. -Husnock 21:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois

I am renominating this article because I believe that it is a sample of Wikipedia's best: flowing writing, amazing pictures, detailed information, etc. on one of the most fascinating cities in the U.S. and possibly in the world. The main objection in the old nomination was over the main picture, which now has been settled. (SeeTalk:Chicago/Archive.)User:Dralwik Hello? My current project 20:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC).

Archives: December 2004 FAC and April 2005 FAC

• Comment: Please demonstrate that the previous objections have been addressed. --mav 01:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object until the ideas put forth in Talk:Chicago, Illinois#Sections to be added/revised/considered are done. Neutrality^talk 03:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, where is the consensus to do that at? If that were implemented the TOC of this article would be huge and the prose way longer than necessary. The ==level 2== sections used at the already FA Seattle, Washington are far more logical, IMO (too many subsections there though). -- mav 14:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There are 2 other proposed revisions to the WikiProject Cities structure or format for city template (Indian city template and Proposed revised city template) at its talk page. Petersam 18:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • minor object too many skyline images, what's the use of the first skyline image? it is ugly,

and the ones from bellow are more elucidate (3 for the same thing is too much), and one at least has a garden, it seems nicer, I'ld put that in the beggining, at least the reader will not think what I think: To much concrete in this article! -Pedro 13:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• 'There was already a discussion about the choice of the top picture as mentioned at the start of this nomination thread. The picture was selected democratically via a vote the discussion board for the article.

Comment: Speaking as somebody who actually lives in Chicago, with deep family roots going back for generations, I can tell you that this article has numerous factual inaccuracies, and that anybody actually from here would know that the person writing it had no understanding of this city whatsoever. To take a particularly ludicrous example - Italian beef having cheese on it? No sir, that's something more like a Philadelphia cheese steak, and you're getting this from somebody who >grew up eating the real thing<.

The article was protected from posted comments by Boothy443's tireless acts of censorship, defended by Boothy on the oh-so-postmodernist basis that all misstatements of fact are but the editor's "opinions", but the article remains pathetically bad. There's the firm, blanket statement that Chicago has the climate typical of the entire Midwest - a region stretching from Canada in the North, the Appalacian mountains in the South (well below the rain line, well into Winter), Ohio in the East and Colorado in the West. There is no climate typical of that entire region. And then the one about Chicago having four "well defined" seasons, when anybody living here knows that during most years, "springtime" weather in Chicago is a semi-random fluctuation between summer and winter, and can't help but notice the drastic shift in temperature that usually comes in the middle of that "well defined" Autumn.

We have "Chicago style pizza" being offered as an example of local food - it's nothing of the sort. The so-called "Chicago style" pizza can be found almost everywhere in the Central Plains states I and those I know have been, so it's not really specifically Chicagoan, and most pizza served here is not, and has never been deep dish. Nor is all local deep dish anything resembling what is usually called "Chicago style". Consider the version found at a certain very well known location on Rush street, with the sauce on top of the cheese, instead of vice versa. Let's see if our 'Chicago authority' can name the place - because I very seriously doubt that our little friend has ever come within 50 miles of my home town. While you're at it, consider the Pizzeria Uno version, in which such un-stereotypical ingredients as pesto show up. The point that I'm driving at here, kiddies, is that the supposedly "Chicago style" pizza, in the form people expect to find, is almost non-existent here outside of the multistate chain pizzerias which started calling the stuff "Chicago style" as a marketing ploy, not because any of us had ever heard of the stuff prior to the 1980s.

There's the so-called "Chicago Garbage Dog" - certainly, nobody I grew up with had ever heard of the thing before Vienna Beef products decided to start posting a story about the thing, in an advertising poster one can find in locations like "Five Faces" on Division, which is probably where this author heard about it from, by word of mouth. Again, mythology created to move a product, in this case Vienna Beef wieners. Most of the goodies associated with the dog with "the junk on top" as the tourists on Division street like to call it, like the sport peppers and gardiniera are things that one would have found on Tri-Taylor (aka "Little Italy"), not a neighborhood noteworthy for its hot dog consumption.

We have machine politics being spoken of in the past tense; one need only drop by the Amnesty International site and look up "police torture" to be disabused of that misunderstanding. We have the amazing statement that Chicago's "unique culture" came about due to its status as a "melting pot", in fact, it has historically been one of the most heterogenous, voluntarily segregated cities in America, and one of the least receptive to the assimilationist notion of the Melting Pot. A quick trip up Milwaukee should show even the most casual visitor just how much. I could go on and on, and I suppose that I already have. What becomes very obvious to anybody who knows this city firsthand is that the author has done nothing more than dust off the common tourist cliches, and try to pass them off as knowledge. The article is pure garbage. I'm astounded that anybody would even argue in favor of keeping it online, much less giving it an award. - "Joseph from Chicago"

Star Wars

Star Wars is an incredible force in today's culture and many readers may be interested in learning more about it, especially with all the media hype

• Please, do not nominate articles that do not meet basic FA requirements like references and a lead section. Now about the content of the article itself: there is still a lot of work to do on it before it can do its subject any justice. The structure is not coherent (we have a "Films" section *before* the "Overview" section —a section which contains a bit too much trivia to be a real overview—, and a few sections later, another section called "Movies", many insignificant non-sections like "Setting" or "Toys"). The prose could use rewriting in some parts, and a lot of factr-checking (the entire "Themes" section is full of unreferenced speculation). Currently, this article is good as a collection of links —albeit an unorganized one, but it does not provide a readable and comprehensive overview of the topics related to Star Wars while presenting the SW articles Wikipedia has to offer, like it should do. Phils 10:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Article existance and relevance to real word is not a criteria for it becaming FA. Register, learn how the wiki works, IMPROVE the article, then renominate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - no references. Will look at this later. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Further: there are major structural problems here. I suggest that the story overview a plot synopsis of all 6 of the episodes and that the overview and the film series be merged into one section (or better yet, remove the arbitrary sections "Overview" and "The Film Series". I have issues with seeing a list of major and minor characters in the format given at the start - a brief summary of the ones listed should be given but that section should not be before the story. The setting subsection and story should be merged. Major themes and influences, IMO, should be before the Expanded Universe, though there may be good reasons for the layout here. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Maurice Hilleman

I think this is an excellent article and a very timely subject. Missi (22:37, May 16, 2005)

• Object: not comprehensive is the most important thing, but it also needs references. Basically, the article should have an intro that gives a general summary (the basics: what you might find in a paper encyclopedia), followed by sections which deal with parts of his life in greater detail. It's not bad, though, I could see it being featured with some more work. Everyking 08:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object: I agree with Everyking for the most part. The article could use topical subdivision: biographical info, medical achievements, political involvement. Something like that. —thames 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. There's no subsectioning or references. Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Spanish and Portuguese names

Good read, I think it fits all the criteria, but the References part, which is probably covered by the External Links section. Fito (21:53, May 16, 2005)

• No vote. I'm one of the contributors to this. I think it's a nice article, but not necessarily up to featured article standards. Nothing specifically wrong with it, just a bit run-of-the-mill. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Inadequate lead section, no references, and inaccurate title (the article also covers Catalan names). Mark¹ 07:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) the article gives the idea, when you start to read, that it is name+father surname+mother surname - when I start reading that, I thought "How odd!". It is explained that in Portugal it is the reverse in Portugal's section, but the person is already missleaded in the lead section.

2) I dont know why Spain should be placed first. If we are talking in Iberian names the article should be named Iberian names and countries/regions ordered by the name in English, a Portuguese reading it will probably look at that. Besides Catalunya is in Spain. Iberian would be a better name. Even the Peninsula today is only named Iberia. In the past it was Hispania, but Spain took the name for itself... (but this is not important)

3) it lacks more information, I guess. In Portugal you can only have 4 names -except the husband's name - I dont see this desapearing as the article states! Maybe in the south, not here. It depends on the wish of the woman. And that info seems from someone that added a biased (he wished it) info, completly unproveen.

• for example "Joana Maria Silva Castelo Branco" has only 4 names, because "Castelo branco" is just one name. her first name has the maximum of 2 names. So she can't have the name Joana Maria Rafaela ....

5) the names in Portugal are regulated by law, you cant give the name you want, normally old arabic (Fátima, Alzira), biblical (José, Maria, Jesus is not common like in Spain), saints, Roman (Rui). (you need to investigate better on this). Noone can be named Areia (sand), Raio de Luz (ray of light) and other odd names, including names in English. In Brazil they can have any name, it just nedd to be portugalized. In fact, it is popular to spread Brazilian name lists on the email, cause there are some that are really odd and funny.

• For example, in Portugal there is a list with Russian names, they investigated in that countries what names the immigrats' children (born in Portugal) should have.
• How it is in Spain? i've been informed that they take the name of the saint of the day they were born. It also occurs with mine, but I'm an exception. I happened to be borned in Saint Peter's day (a holiday), so I'm Pedro (and my programmed name Miguel was throw to second place), because Saint Peter is celebrated in here, and while my mother was celebrating... well I ruined her party in the middle of the night.

6) Portuguese surnames are usually taken from a place (Braga, Guimarães, Miranda, Sousa, lisboa,..) or someone notable to the family (in the middle ages, and colonial age in the colonies: Sousa, Costa, oliveira, etc.), or even fruit trees (oliveira, silva, pereira), or profession (ferreira) - names of fruit trees were used by Jewish people origin families during the inquisition. So a family named "Pereira" can really have jewish heritage. But I dont know all this for sure, it surely needs a lot of investigation. -Pedro 11:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Bagrationi

Object. Too many lists, too little prose. --Oldak Quill 10:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Object. Agreed with Oldak. If you can turn the article into something more substantial, I will change my vote. Linuxbeak 12:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Object strongly. There's an ongoing dispute over an important historical point, namely whether the dynasty decended from an Armenian family. Strong objection until it's resolved. That, and the article is mistitled: "Bagrationi" is not used in any English-language scholarship; the form "Bagratids" is preferred in every text I've looked at. Isomorphic 14:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Isomorphic fully ignored all data of the Georgian historiography and Georgian historical sources. Unfortunately, his "research" is very tendentious. -- Levzur 14 May 2005

Considering that this is an English language Wikipedia, wouldn't it be of more use to users if the resources were in English? It's hard not to overlook research that is not provided either in one's mother tongue, or in a widely-used language like French or German. -- llywrch 16:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Object There is next to no information in this article, except for dates and many, many links to inexistant articles. Phils 10:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Georgia

It is article about the 1st Republic of Georgia (May 26, 1918 - March, 1921) and has potential for being a Featured article candidate. -- Levzur May 6 2005

• Object 1) The lead section is too short compared to the article text. 2) The grammar needs to be cleaned up throughout the article (for example, "In 1917 was restored the Autocephaly of the Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church.").3) The sections after Politics are basically just lists with very little prose to describe why the items in the lists are significant. 4) Why are all the section headers third level (===Section===) and not second level (==Section==)? 5) The article is missing a map of the country (at least an outline map showing the borders involved). 6) There are quite a few single sentence paragraphs that need to be either expanded or combined. slambo 12:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Someone else added the strike over objections 1, 2, 3 and 6. I only struck objections 4 and 5. slambo 15:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the article again today, I believe that these four objections still stand. The lead should be at least two paragraphs long and summarize every section. There are still many places where the grammar coule be improved. The sections after Politics are still just lists presented in paragraph form. The Politics section closes with eight paragraphs of one or two sentences each, and there are a couple other one sentence paragraphs further up in that section. slambo 15:25, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I would be very happy to see an article about Georgia reach featured status, but this isn't ready yet. Along with the things Slambo mentioned, there are elements of bad grammar and strange capitalisation throughout the article. Long sections of this article seem to just be lists...and there are too many red links. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object See guidelines at Wikipedia:What is a featured article as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries on improving this article so that it becomes a FA. Petersam 07:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Levzur, please do not strike over other people's comments. You can respond by adding to them like this. Four historic states which are FAs are listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical states. Petersam 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe

A very thorough article on one of the most famous poets in history. Featured article candicacy is deserved, and could also attract quality editors to fully perfect this piece. Harro5 00:48, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This article needs a lead section and some de-POVing. It is currently rather too sympathic to Poe, especially in three last sections. For example, there's no doubt (and the article needs to mention it) that Grisworld's work was defamation, but the general tone of the section shows the author(s) is rather partial. The Legacy section struck me as pretty good overall, however. Phils 11:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Governor General of Canada

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 19:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• comment; whilst there are references and they do have HTML comments saying what they cover, the information is pretty minimal. Has anybody tried fact checking this? I'm worried that it might be quite difficult as it stands. I think that inline references (e.g. based on Template:inote given Emsworth's aversion to footnotes) would really help. Based on the number of FACs Emsworth has done I'm not making this an actual objection. Mozzerati 15:18, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

David Beckham

I hereby nominate this article. Feel free to add comments. --202.75.80.8 01:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Mild Object 1) The lead section is too short to give an overview of the entire article. 2) Only one picture? There have got to be others that could be used of him in action on the playing field. 3) There is nothing that I can see about his youth except the first sentence of the lead section. slambo 15:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Object I'm afraid. The quality of prose throughout is somewhat lacking, I personally find the text regarding his Man U career clunky. The article also claims that Beckham has spent his career at only two clubs, which is incorrect. This article is alright but until the quality of writing and factual information improves I will not support. Rje 01:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I have to echo the above. Also, the current form of the celebrity lifestyle section is not satisfactory. A lot of one sentence paragraphs and sentences without transition make it feel too disjointed. Phils 10:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy

Not a self nomination. I just think it's well written.--Richy 09:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support An awesome, awesome article. It should be featured and made a feature-article-of-the-day stat. --Kitch 12:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object but it looks like it will get there pretty soon. 1) The lead contains the massively POV statement "...became the subject of aggressive witch-hunts...". That should be rephrased more factually. Part of the POV is that the article has a section on Venona, but the rest of the article and especially the lead completely ignores it. It's importance should not be overlooked (or overstated). The lead section and of course the rest of the article should state the facts and let the reader decide, not cram the witch hunt POV at them. Much of the rest of the article seems to do a very good job at that. 2) The Truman and Eisenhower sections are so short they should be combined, expanded, or merged elsewhere if they are not really central to the issue. 3) There's a one sentence paragraph at the end of 'Senator' that should be handled similarly. 4) The Crucible section contains the conjecture "This was probably the primary cause for...". That needs to be either cited to a source or the facts need to be stated. 5) The references need to be properly formatted as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. I'm concerned about the reliability of an article with only online sources, is it possible to get and use some high quality print references too? 6) It is impossible to tell where specific information in the article came from or to verify it without some inline citations. Please cite any contentious or important facts to a source. - Taxman 22:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kentucky Derby

A great horse racing article. Patricknoddy 8:56am May 7, 2005 (EDT)

• Whistleblow. I believe 63.17.137.171 is impersonating Patricknoddy. The time format is even incorrect (see here for an example). Linuxbeak 13:31, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've left Patrick a message at User talk:Patricknoddy asking if this was him. Angela. 19:30, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't Patrick. He hasn't edited in about a month. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • In lite of the above comments, Motion to nulifiy current vote and motion to investigate suspected user. Linuxbeak 02:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Patrick said on my talk page that the nomination was by him. Angela. 21:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, regardless of who wrote it. Not expansive enough: 70% of the article is the list of winners (and too many of them are red links). plattopus^talk 17:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Nine paragraphs, plus a few floating sentences, on a 130 year old race appears to be very brief to me. Let alone the fact that there are no references. As Plattopus says: this article is far from Featured Article standard whoever nominated it. Rje 23:46, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Kentucky Derby *should* be a FAC, by the subject, but the page itself is disappointing. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Alan Watts

A great article that fits featured criteria. --Benna 06:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Reads like an essay as it is full of opinion and conjecture that starts as soon as the lead section with "he was sensitive to certain new leanings in the West, and was in a position to be a proponent for certain shifts in attitudes regarding society...". What leanings?, how was he sensitive?, how was he in that position?, who says?, etc. There are many more, but another example: "In his mature work, it becomes clear that Watts was not especially committed to the Zen Buddhism with which ...". Citations to external sources could fix that, but it would take some research since the three references listed at the bottom don't appear like they would be of adequate quality to support the facts in the whole article, but I could be wrong. - Taxman 14:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Parts read like an essay, as Taxman states above. Parts also read like a biography, sometimes almost like a breathless obituary. Quote: "His was a philosophy informed by the lifeways of Asia, intended to be shared with those people whom modern life had afforded some leisure time they might devote to contemplation, self-development, sensuality, enjoyment of nature, and fun." That lead sentence, on a terribly biased paragraph, seals the deal for me. A lot of cleanup is needed before consideration here. --NightMonkey 19:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Privacy

I've rewritten this article, expanding it into more of an overview page of the different types of privacy. It's been on peer review with just a few comments, so I've decided to nominate it for featured article status. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I think it's pretty good, but the prose could use some improvement (this edit shows the sort of thing I'm talking about) and I don't think it's comprehensive enough yet. A good start would be adding a discussion of "victimless crimes" (like consensual sodomy or private drug use) where privacy is a key defense of offenders and improving the writing style. I'll work on it a bit myself, too. Good luck, Dave (talk) 14:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC) [edited to fix a wikilink]

• Object. This article deals almost exclusively with the Unitd States and United Kingdom in contemporary society. It is not comprehensive in that respect, and also does not have any history of privacy (for example, I know there are theories that privacy in Western culture is a relatively recent product of individualism) or the concept that privacy does not exist or should not be tolerated (communal societies). Also, the references given cover only a very, very small portion of the article's content. 119 15:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with these objections. For the record, my objections above were just a starting point, not an exhaustive list. Dave (talk)

• object a) needs some copy editing (I did quite a bit). b) I think that many more reference are needed (see work from Schneier for example). c) When you do find those references I think that going through them will turn up many more important issues. d) Particularly important are the security benefits of privacy. e) Fails to mention personal and cultural reasons for wishing privacy (even shyness) f) should cover explicitly privacy in different cultures. I'll try to look some stuff up since I think this is an excellent and important topic. g) some pictures; Tabloid journalists? cameras? a film-star's mansion? h) there needs to be coverage of privacy and lack of privacy in literature, especially 1984. i) also other general art, a large number of artists have covered surveilence in their works. Mozzerati 21:53, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Internet forum

I've rewritten this article, with the help of Stevietheman. It's been on peer review with a couple of comments, and I'd like to see it become a featured article. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Not nearly long enough. The history needs to be delved into more deeply, and pretty much every other element of the article needs expansion too. plattopus^talk 17:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. Not comprehensive: there is not earnest coverage of the social aspects of forums or their place within the Internet and wider society; there is no history; the article is just not fleshed out, there are many topics given a one-sentence island, with context unexplained (and the top screenshot is not explained in the text, though the caption gives importance to this forum being the largest). Currently, I think the article is only a broad description of contemporary forum software. 119 23:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Nicely written but only scratches the surface. What about avatars, user profiles, registration, even a reference to trolling and flame wars? --PopUpPirate 14:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain

I stumbled across this excellent article some time ago. I went through peer review some months ago with no comments. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object - Completely inadequate lead section, lack of inline citations, way longer than needed to cover the topic at this level (articles on sub-topics can go into more detail; see Wikipedia:Summary style). --mav
  • Well, I did just write an expanded lead section but a database error ate my homework: I'll recreate it later. For my money, the cited references are sufficient: if inline citations are now the de facto norm I will give up nominating featured article candidates - particularly ones, like this one, that I didn't write. And your final objection seems to amount to a complaint that the article is too comprehensive, which seems somewhat perverse: which sections would you prefer to see spun out into sub-articles? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Comprehensive is one thing, too detailed is another. The longer an article is, the less likely a reader will have the time or patience to finish it. A well-written article will present an amount of detail that is sufficient to be considered comprehensive for the given format (here, an encyclopedia article), without forcing the reader to read through more text than is needed. Subtopics can and should be covered in more detail in other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). The headings in this article need to be redone before a determination on what can be spun off and summarized here is made. ==Level 2== sections could be: Family, Early political career, Prime Ministership, Lord President of the Council and death, and Legacy. The other sections would be subsections of the above as appropriate. Adding invisible inline cites using inote is very easy. --mav 16:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
      • OK - I have expanded the lead again, although someone with a better feel for the details could no doubt do better. Re summary style, I'm still not convinced of the need to restructure this article and break it up: it is around 60k long. Re inline citations, they are not a formal requirement: "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations" does not mean "must contain inline citations". Save where a fact is disputed or controversial, where a specific source would clearly be required, I'm also not convinced that inline citations would add much value to this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic publication. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
        • 'Appropriate use' certainly is not meant to include no use. At the very least, a cite is needed anytime a specific figure is given, exact date, or potentially controversial fact is given. As is, the article simply takes too long to read and thus will be of limited use. Wikipedia can and should have that much detail and more, but having it all in a single article is only going to be useful to a limited audience. --mav 16:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Blenheim Palace

A self nom. I re-wrote this page recently. The former was a little sad, and this is England's greatest private house (in at least one sense of the word). Consequently the page is quite long! Do not be put off. I've limited myself on the architectural detail and there are lots of pictures, and (I think) some interesting stuff about the people who have lived there. Some photographs of the interior would be nice, but they are not available - so the external links will have to suffice. As ever thanks to Bishonen for the copyedit, English etc. Giano | talk 20:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support. I feel the lead section is not entirely appropriate. Citing the plaque on the Palace and then ending the introduction aprubtly with "This is only a fraction of the true story." gives the impression that the author(s) wanted to create a sort of suspense, and give an incentive for users to read the rest. While the intent is laudable, I think the main goal of Wikipedia is to be a vector of information, not entertainment (that isn't to say articles can't be entertaining, but that should be secondary). I feel the lead section should better summarize the rest of the article, so that readers looking up "Blenheim Palace", but who do not have the time to read the whole article get a broad overview of the subject. This might be a subjective view, so I hope I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, what do others think? Now back to this article in particular, the last sentence of the lead is innapropriate in my eyes. Otherwise the article is superb. Phils 08:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Any better now? Giano | talk 09:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• There you go. Phils 11:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Spelling mistakes ("Churchill's") and persistent POV ("sadly", "cunningly", etc.). Mark¹ 07:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed the 2 x "sadly" and the "cunning" although I don't really think it is POV to describe a deliberate architectural trick as cunning. Spelling: I have removed the wrongly apostrophised "Churchill's" - I can't see any other mistakes, apart from 18th century quotes which are marked by (sic). Giano | talk 12:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Also weasel words: "obviously", "it was assumed", "probably" etc. Whose judgments, whose assumptions? What is "mysterious awe"? How does it differ from other kinds of awe? Similarly for "immense grandeur". I suspect "Agustus" is a relative of Augustus. And I have a terrible feeling of deja vu. ;) Mark¹ 02:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've changed the words you object to. Sorry about the "déjà vu" have you tried an aspirin? Giano | talk 07:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't think that will help. Grammar: "This is only a fraction of the true story, the truth is"; "to supposedly thrill the walker". "It is interesting" to whom? "It is therefore not surprising" to whom? Mark¹ 07:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think I will bother to address any more of your objections. You are clearly not going to change your vote to support. Looking at the great interest it has caused so far the page looks likely to fail FAC anyway. The phrases you object to now seem quite clear and comprehensible to me, so I think I'll leave them. Giano | talk 07:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object This is far too good to be exhibited on the front page. Besides, many apparently have serious reservations ;)--Wetman 22:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Screenwriting credit

Self-nom. An article on the convoluted process by the Writers Guild of America which determines who "wrote" a film. Comprehensive article and bibliography. Was on peer review here a couple months back. And, no, there's no picture. I don't know how anyone would illustrate it, short of a screen capture of the relevant title cards. PedanticallySpeaking 18:16, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. From the content, this is FA material to me (although some footnotes to indicate the section/paragraph some figures were found in would be fitting). However, the title is innapropriate unless the current article is expanded to cover screenwriting credit attribution processes in other countries. I'm not usually one to complain about Wikipedia being too US-centered, but let's not exaggerate either; screenwriting credit is too generic a title for the current article. Phils 19:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, this article is good but it only covers the WGA, so it should be named in such a way that people know that the article only talks about the credit as ruled on by the WGA. For a picture you may want to use the WGA logo or the cover of a screenplay--nixie 03:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comments. A good picture would be a screen capture of the title credits for a movie mentioned in the article that had gone through WGA arbitration—especially if it was a complicated one with a couple of writing teams. You also don't mention the "Alan Smithee" pseudonym that gets used when writers want to disassociate themselves from a film. And what about Harlan Ellison's fight over The Terminator? BlankVerse ∅ 09:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought Alan Smithee was just for directors who wanted to remove their name. PedanticallySpeaking 17:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Portugal

Self-mon. Portugal's article is inspired by the following articles: Cambodia, India, and South Africa. The best ideas were added. This article has a good structure of information (what I couldnt find in the ones that i've inspired in, encyclopedia inspired and a big and zipped amount of very useful information for various activities: Historians, tourists, economy (agriculture, relevant resources, where one can invest -obviously by reading and making you're own assumptions-, transportation, communication) demography, etc.. etc... The article is intended to be an enciclopedia article and not an Internet Portal, size seems ok in relation to other FA articles. The last atempt for nomination was very useful. All the usefull objections were fullfilled. If you are objecting, please say where it can get better. -Pedro 17:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object - same reasons as given in the last peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Portugal/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portugal/archive2. Use the current FA country articles, Cambodia, India, and South Africa as a guide to see how much detail should be covered in this article vs the daughter articles. I also object to the fact that this FAC comes so close after the failure of the previous FAC. --mav 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• I dont agree on that articles being exemplary, they have almost nothing and are badly structured! I disagree making the article worse just to fullfill your view. Sorry. Now the time is also a criteria? Now, having information and the interval of time is a reason to object? -Pedro 20:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Those articles are featured and cover the same type of subject. Using them as examples is thus called for. There are no hard and fast requirements for relisting, but it is frowned upon to relist soon after failing. --mav 00:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Portugal

self-nomination. Very informative and all what's important about the country in one single article. Maybe it needs improvement in the "engrish". Then what you should when you find a problem is rewriting it, rather than objecting. And that's the main reason why this article is here, to get better. -Pedro 22:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support Perfect. --Joao Campos 16:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - 1st - The flag is not a standard flag, I know this may not be very important, but the red part is bigger than it should be, I think the one in the Portuguese Presidential website is a good one to replace the present flag. 2nd - The history section misses some important issues, like the medieval period between the foundation and the discoveries, I think the early Portuguese priority in the naval expansion (a unique fact in Europe) should be explained. The 20th century part should be better explained. 3rd - I think that the question about Olivença should not be handled with such importance, only a very few Portuguese care about Olivença, whether that is right or not, I think that the question is being given too much importance, someone who doesn't know would think that Portugal has a big conflict with Spain, if yes, I'd like to see the references, because, as a Portuguese, I don't know that. I think the page is very good, but I'd like to see it better organized. Afonso Silva
  • 1st Is that free? 2nd the History section is already too big. More information is for History of Portugal. Yes, it happened a lot of this between Independence and exploration (good point in here!). But the problem is space. What you suggest? Battle of Aljubarrota? If so it should be a small paragraph. The 20th century has already 2 paragraphs! 3rd I dont think so, it has only one comment, and a link to the official map of Portugal. Afonso for your talks (20th century thing; Zeca Afonso, etc), I see you're a communist, has one you should see what your party has said about Olivença and that revels a little POVish opinion on the 20th century. Links to that problem or references, hmmm... In what extenct? the triety or something from the Foreign minister, or the activists?-Pedro 19:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object - As a Portuguese person myself, I think the current article is a) too long-winded, b) has too many wiki-links, c) should relegate the Olivença topic to another page, and d) some chapters are disproportional to others (e.g. history to economy chapter). --Cctoide 14:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • • a) long-winded?!?!?! what that means? it that something that can be fixed? b) where it should be reduced? c) Why it should relate to other topic? Hiding information??? There's no topic on Olivenza! There's a paragraph about that in politics! d) What more articles should have more info? -Pedro 19:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Agree with Cctoide. Inline cites needed as well. --mav 16:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • what inline cites should have references? -Pedro 19:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Inline cites should be everywhere. --mav 01:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see that in other featured articles! -Pedro 02:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
      • several Inotes (inline cites added!) I'll add more. -Pedro 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

---

• Object:
• The intro gives an intro to Portugal's location, system of government, and native name in the first para, and a one-paragraph summary of the history in the next. This is good, but the second para is abruptly cut off at the Portuguese Empire.
• The history section gives a single event for 1143, 1250, and 1415. What happened in between?
• I didn't see a mention of the Portuguese Inquisition.
• Geography section is too short.
• Economy section too short.
• Eliminate the stupid EU and Europe templates.
• No "law and crime" section? No mention of Portugal's conterversial stance on abortion or drugs?
• No foreign relations section? The only mention of foreign policy is a very brief discussion of Luso-Spanish relations. Insufficient.
• Three lines for Portuguese cuisine is too short; I expect at least four paragraphs.
• " Portuguese literature is synonymous with poetry. As a matter of fact, Portugal is known as 'a country of poets.' Portuguese poetry has a larger influence in the country's literature than prose." What's that all about? That seems like three unsourced sentences that are redundant anyway. Eliminate or modify them.
• There are exactly zero mentions of the military.
• Did Portugal contribute anything to the International Space Station?
• No education section.
• No communications section.
• No transportation section.
• No environment section
• No human rights section.
• No science and technology section.
• No mention of international rankings (World Press Freedom, Human Development Index, etc.)
  • --Neutrality^talk 02:34, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - 1st - of course it is free, it is a national flag! 2nd - all right, we all know that you want to make a page about Portugal showing what it has of unique, so, why do we have not a single reference to the Portuguese priority in the naval expansion, that was unique, history proves it, and I'm not talking about Aljubarrota, I'm mainly talking about the social-class relations that lead to the need of expansion. 3rd - first, I don't recall in any way any word from the PCP about Olivença, anyway, I don't make statements about that, I only think that the question is overlooked in many portugal-about issues... we're talking about the borders not being recognized and so... where are the official documents saying that? that's a State issue, it should be documented. About the 20th century, it has two paragraphs pointing the former Portuguese territories and when we lost it. I think that that's not good history, there's a lot more to tell... 1st world war, the rise of the Fascist regime, the years of Fascism (not only the non-democratic euphemism), the importance of the revolution in the euro-american wave of democratization (never heard of 3rd republic). 4th - I don't agree with the poetry thing, is Saramago a poet? Is Lobo Antunes a poet? Eça de Queirós? Aquilino Ribeiro? Vergílio Ferreira? I agree that the poetry has a major importance, but I don't agree that it overides the prose. 5th - I think the telmplates in the end are fine. Afonso Silva 05:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Neutrality and Afonso (really lots of thanks TO BOTH!), now if you know something you can contribute. :P The too many wiki links objection by Cctoide is done. It was also a good objection. 3rdAbout Olivenza I try to put a link to the triety and to the foreign relations min.. Afonso, has you said about me on revolutionary music. If you dont know about Olivenza that's your problem, you should get informed (the PCP was one of the most agressive parties in this issue in the parliament), the link to the official map is a link to the Portuguese Geographical Institute of the army, is not any map. And the map is widely famous on the net. I know that because everyone downloads it in portuguese emule netw.1st can you get it? the previous map before this one, was horrible, this one is not that bad. but get it please. 2nd ok. I'm going to investigate on that. About the Portuguese history, there's so much to tell! About the WW1, is that really important to Portugal? but you're right about the 20th century. Portugal was much more than colonies :\ 4th well.... I dont agree with you on that. In fact, that was a translation from the Portuguese wiki, and I agree with the original author. But it can be fixed to respect the prose. 5th in this I agree with neutrality. So 1/2 agree 1/2 disagree. The Europe template is really terrible. Mentions to Asia, this and that is in Asia, that is partly in Asia, this is culturally European, blah blah. That's not important to Portugal, it is very far from Asia. I think it should go! And we should remove the flags from the EU template.--Pedro 11:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment - Olivença - I know that Portugal considers Olivença Portuguese territory de facto, but there are not strong diplomatic actions to take it back. I think it can be mentioned that way. I know the map, I have it, perhaps I've never noticed the border. Flag - I really think it should be replaced, with one of these: [8]. History - I think WW1 is important, Portugal participated, it was a major fact in the fall of the 1st republic. Portugal lost 8000 men in the Battle of the Lys, that's relevant, the WW1 killed more Portuguese than the colonial war. I think the page is good and I'd like to see it in the main page, I'll try to help in the history section. Afonso Silva 13:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've changed the flag, I took it from the presidential website, the former one was really incorrect, the relation between red and green, the colors, the shield was not bordered with white. Anyway, the new one is the real Portuguese flag. Afonso Silva 18:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

fullfilled more objections:

• Geography section now with lots of info
• added environment sub-section. (this gave me a lot of work :S)
• Economy section now is big.
• added transportation sub-section.
• removed the contested sentences in the lead, and in the culture section (literature)
• Now, The reader does not think that Portugal and Spain are in some kind of war because of Olivenza.

remaining problems:

• EU and Europe templates
• Law and Crime, Abortion, drugs (drugs??????!!!!because you think it is still a crime or because it is despenalized?)
• international relations
• Portuguese cuisine
• education section.
• military
• No human rights section.
• communications (it has, but it is insufient)
• No science and technology section.
• No mention of international rankings (it does...)
• inline sites on Olivenza issue.
• History (inquisition and something between the reconquista and the discoveries, plus something else in the 20th century)

I hope I dont keep the only one editing. :| -Pedro 21:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Whoa - this article is starting to become huge. There are separate history of, economy of, people of, and demographics of articles that are now about as large or smaller than the sections in this article. Those main articles are the place to expand on these topics not in this article. This article needs to quickly survey all the major points and lead the interested reader into other subtopics if he or she wishes to have more detail on those subtopics. See Wikipedia:Summary style. --mav 01:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• ok, I'm just doing what they are arguing. Besides the new additions gave me a lot of work investigating and translating names! I'm just trying to put this one has feature article this one, not the rest. So has it is becoming to be huge, I'll just add paragraphs for the rest of the demands. Human rights go to politics? How about education, science and technology? go to Economy?? I'll see what I can reduce, putting most in those articles. -Pedro 10:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Some of Neutrality's objections only need a sentence or two if they have a link. I think it's okay to have information missing from the main article as long as it's easy to find it in the sub-articles like history of Portugal or politics of Portugal. Good luck with this. I'm really impressed that you can do something this complex in a foreign language. Dave (talk) 14:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Support - Many of the objections have been corrected. 1st the long 2000 years history section is now very good (20th century, 1383-1385) (of course there are things missing, but otherwise the article would be even bigger). 2nd Military section is now independent and has some info. 3rd The introduction was reformulated, it has now another paragraph, it's mine, I hope someone can make better. 4th About cuisine, I don't think it needs much more (4 paragraphs?!), South Africa is a featured article and has much little about it. In overal, the article is very good. Afonso Silva 20:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks dave!!! My problem is that I dont read what I write, and I don't use a spell checker. LOL. About the cuisine: it would be good for tourists to know the main typical dishes... bacalhau à brás, bacalhau à Gomes de Sá, Feijoada, etc... 4 is too much, but a big paragraph would be useful... the problem is that Portuguese cuisine varies a lot from place to place, but there are common and more popular dishes. We can also talk about Portuguese fast food.. etc....--Pedro 23:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Portuguese cuisine info was added. More can be found in the proper article. That existed before, althoug it is a very confuse article. -Pedro 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

I think this is an excellent candidate for a featured article. Mandel 06:22, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Generally support, a good article on one of a very few Englishmen deserving to be called great. A few minor things I'd like to see sorted, the lead could do with a bit of expanding and the linking to main articles at the top of a number of sections should be made more consistent. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Completely inadequate lead section and needs a great many inline citations. ==Views on religion== is a stub section, combine with another section. A couple short paragraphs about social Darwinism and eugenics in the ==Legacy== section are enough. Having a whole section on that is overblown for an article on the man (section would make perfect sense at reaction to Darwin's theory and/or at another article that deals with his work on the interpretation of his work). --mav 08:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree "views on religion" is too short. But it's a bit contradictory to claim another section as too long though. Mandel 12:46, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

No it is not contradictory since that other section is not tightly related to the subject at hand (the man and his work). --mav 15:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The section is useful as there is a lot of misinformation out there on Darwin's view of eugenics/social darwnism/race etc. perpetuated by Creationists who deliberately misunderstand history and nuance. But anyway, I shunted it off to the "reaction to" article even though it is a little chronologically incorrect, because it did seem to take up a bit too much space on the page. --Fastfission 16:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is too short. Rewrite 'Journey on the Beagle' section from bullets to normal paras. Too many meaningless subsections, merge some with better titles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thunderball

Self-nom, 2005 is the 40th anniversary of the film's release. The article goes into great detail about the film, the novel, the comic book adaptation, and the controversy over the film rights that has been in court since the release of the novel in 1961. Good information and an interesting read. K1Bond007 16:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment all this discussion and no vidcaps from the film? slambo 02:34, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good call, added three images from the DVD. K1Bond007 03:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object it's not clear at all which references cover which material. Please consider a system of inline references (or possibly footnotes) or at least expanding the description of each reference. This will make it easier to verify. Mozzerati 16:54, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
  • I added inline references. Any better? K1Bond007 19:21, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene

Well documented, well written, a prime example of what Wikipedia is all about. Nick Catalano (Talk) 13:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) the lead section is insufficient compared to the length of the article. 2) Biographical information should be the first section after the lead to give the reader a frame of reference for the subject's life (for example, compare this to John D. Rockefeller or Mahatma Gandhi). slambo 13:46, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Insufficient lead. Insufficient exploration of both her traditional and apocryphal rôle - ie. her import and rôle to the Catholic Church, orthodoxies, protestants, etc. The second part of this criticism is to do with insufficient discussion of theories as to her being the wife of Jesus and having written the gospel of John. Even ideas put forth by spurious, populist literature such as Jesus having handed the leadership of his church onto her - this information being later supressed by the phallocracy that was Christianity. --Oldak Quill 18:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC) PS. I think the article is currently too stunted and section, perhaps a better flow between section and a sense of development could be achieved?
• Object. I too feel that the "flow" of this article is poor, it does not read very well as a continuous article. I also feel that too much is made of the conspiracy theories and fictional works centred on her and there is not enough information regarding her place in the Christian faith. Rje 19:40, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. While I did some copy editting to this article, I feel one weakness that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the references in this article -- & there are many, which is a commendable strength -- needs to be better organized. There are only 4 cited at the bottom, while the text refers inline to countless more. Fix this, & this article will only be stronger. -- llywrch 21:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Military History of Puerto Rico

Self-nom, I've written articles for Wikipedia since May 2004. I've worked on this project as a way of celebrating my first year with Wiki. I hope that you all like it and that it meets Wikipedias standards. Tony the Marine

• Comment

I just wanted to add that I wrote the article in a "timeline style", a chronological order of military events which occured. I didn't want the article to be too long, therefore I added many wiki links to articles (some of which were written by me) for the reader who would be interested in more specific details of a certain event or person. I hope that you all enjoy it. Tony the Marine

• Support. Good article; some things (such as format of the references) should be looked over, but all in all good article. Linuxbeak 11:47, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not a very good paragraph structure - some free floating sentences with repetitive structure. Short paragraphs, etc. --Oldak Quill 12:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to Oldak objection: Lead is too short. References = external links, and are not formated (last acess on...?). At least one elink in main body (remove, link with note). I wouldn't worry about the lenght - feel free to expand from the linked articles, so that each section is larger then a section-stub. Besides that - good work, with some help should be ready for FA. A general note: try using Peer Review before FAC - why so many people forget about this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article should mention Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, the only U.S. Army port in the Caribbean. Plus it could be illustrated by lots of public domain images; see [9]. Neutrality^talk 06:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, nice article. Every article can be made better, but I think this article is as good or better than other featured articles we've had in the past. This one has my vote.Cjrs 79 21:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rock carvings at Alta

Self-Nomination, renominated after spending a week on peer review and incorporating suggestions as far as possible (link to first FAC nomination). Complete rewrite after the original article was tagged as a copyvio, comprehensive overview of the archeological site, background history and possible interpretations of the carvings. -- Ferkelparade π 08:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Has the copyvio been removed from the history to avoid legal problems? Are there any English language print sources on the site to add to the reference section? Those points are easy to solve. The rest looks crisp. Support. Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the copyvio has been deleted, the current article is a rewrite from scratch. There used to be an English translation of Arvid Sveen's book, but I cannot find anything about it at the moment, so I'm not sure about the English title and the ISBN number...there are probably a couple more books in English about the site, but I'm not really a fan of listing stuff as a reference if I haven't had a look at the book myself. Thanks for your support, Ferkelparade π 09:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Hmm it looks good, if a little short. But if it covers all the facets of the topic I guess that is fine. The thing stopping me from giving full support is that two references is pretty minimal for a FA. Aren't any of the original or current academic papers on the site available? - Taxman 14:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I have the list of references in Arvid Sveen's book, but all of the works he cites are in Norwegian, have (to my knowledge) never been translated and are not really easily accessible. So far, I've had no luck with tracking down something in English (which seems quite odd, given the site's significance), but I'll try to dig up some more references. Would adding the main reference works from Arvid Sveen be helpful? -- Ferkelparade π 18:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No, youryour stance before was good. It is dishonest to list a reference you have not properly used to add or fact check material in the article. If there's nothing else in English, I don't have any answers for you, but I can't support something with so few references. We are a reference work after all. - Taxman 21:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I see your point about too few references, but I don't want anybody to say I'm not willing to do some homework :) I just spent the evening doing some more extensive research for sources, I was able to track down most of the standard works in the university library...a couple hundred pages to read, and probably some changes to the article coming up. I hope to have a much better references section after the weekend, or in the middle of next week at the latest -- Ferkelparade π 22:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • That's awesome. If everyone did that, it would be hard to believe the postive impact on Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to seeing the even more well researched article. - Taxman 15:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmm...it seems it will take a bit longer than expected until I'll get all my reference books and be able to do some reworking of the article (probably about a week). Is it okay to let this nomination sit here for a couple more days, or would it be better to withdraw the nomination for now and renominate in a week or two? -- Ferkelparade π 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Looks good, but as a person who once studied communication, I definetly can't stand for Petroglyph to be included only as 'see also'. Explanation of petroglyphs and how those carvings relate to them should make at least a paragraph, if not the entire section. Once it exists, I will support. A few more ilinks wouldn't hurt much, the article feels a little 'ilink light' to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm...of course, a paragraph about petroglyphs could be worked in, but I didn't really think it was necessary - after all, petroglyph and rock carving are basically just two names for the same thing, meaning basically some form of symbol carved into rock, and I thought that much was clear from the context :P About the ilinks: true, the second half of the article is a bit light on links, but that's mainly because pretty much all the terms that could reasonably be linked have already appeared in the beginning of the article and have been linked there. I'm open to suggestions on further links, though -- Ferkelparade π 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, the entire Wiki section about cave paintings, petroglyph, pictograms, ideograms, writing and basically the history of symblos and communications is in poor shape - something I intend to rectify soon :) I have rewritten petroglyph article now, hope it gives you an idea how to incorporate petroglyph into your article. Note that 'rock carving' is only one meaning of petroglyph: the second is that they are an image depicting an event. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eutrophication

I ran across this article and it seems to meet the criteria. It is well written, and really helped me understand the subject. It is referenced, organized and has a useful illustration. ike9898 13:52, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) the lead is too short for the length of the article. 2) aren't there any other images that could illustrate this (i.e. charts and graphs). 3) The third-level headings result in too many short sections; these should be combined or at least changed from sections to something that doesn't use section headers. 4) The article text doesn't wikilink to very many articles; for example, the third paragraph in section 1.1 should link to the geographic locations for each of the names. slambo 15:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that I've addressed concerns #2 and #4 since you wrote this. Have another look, if you don't mind. ike9898 16:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The lead is too short and there are too many subsections with little content; either expand the subsections or consider removing the third-level headings. The US EPA picture that was added is informative but it is of very poor quality. Replace it if you can find a better one (this is not part of my objection). Otherwise, good article. The large reference section, as well as the knowledgeable writing, attest extensive research. Phils 17:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Object I think ike9898 is correct in nominating this article, as it is full of facts and covers the subject well. My objection is that the writing is a bit difficult to follow in places and I agree with Phils about the layout. Although some parts are very good, there are others that really make little sense. I will try and fix those myself, but it could takea few days. I'm also not thrilled with the illustrations and charts (the EPA chart is just too busy or fuzzy), but that is really minor objection. - Marshman 17:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changed my vote - Marshman 18:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois

I nominated this article because I believe it is a showcase of what Wikipedia should be: lively writing, fascinating photographs, and dozens of links to find more information on a certain place or person. I have looked at the previous nomination, and it appears all the objections have been met. Dralwik 12:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Object. - There are objections still being discussed on the talk page. Primarily the main picture is my concern since it's being fought over. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• just an observation: to many images of buildings. It seems Americans really like concrete. :| -Pedro 21:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses

This is a partial self-nomination. This is one of the best articles of any band in all of Wikipedia, as well as one of the best sources of information on Guns N' Roses that can be found in the internet. The article spent more than a week in peer review and went through one extensive copy-edit. The original criticism on the article was the fact that it was "fannish" in language and content. That issue has been adressed. This definetively should be a featured article.Coburnpharr04 23:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I like it, but it would be nice if there were inline references, perhaps using footnotes. Tuf-Kat 18:45, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's a little short, and subarticles would be nice, but support nevertheless. I had hoped to build up some music articles like this myself, but they got torn apart on grounds of "fancruft". Glad to see this one's in good shape. Everyking 19:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'd have to say object for now. It's nice, but it's still a bit fannish ("the band's defiant 1987 debut album", "...one of the most popular rock and roll bands ever"). If those were referenced with footnotes, as TUF-KaT suggested, then they can stay. Second, there should be, in place of a list of music videos, a list of singles with release years and chart positions (BTW, song titles should be in quotation marks,instead of italicized). Finally, the lead paragraph should be a little longer for an article of this size. --FuriousFreddy 17:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• object - at the moment the history section is skewed in favour of the recent reincarnation of the band. I'd say much more needs to be said about the early years, Appetite for Destruction and Use Your Illusion, which is what they're by far best known for. Also, there's very little about the lifestyle of the band, heavy drug intake, stories of debauched parties etc. There was an excellent documentary about them not long ago, on VH1 I think, and at the moment this article is not half as interesting as the documentary was. Also a couple of minor points - 'pseudonymous last names' in the history section: Rose is not a pseudonymous surname, not sure about Guns'; and "Guns n' Roses' is..." sounds very odd to me, are would be better in my opinion. Worldtraveller 19:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I have no idea of what you are talking about. The history section is actually longer than the "new gn'r" section. Also, the drug abuse reputation of the band is adressed in the legacy section. What else can be said? I don't think it is necessary to have full paragraphs explaining what drugs they were using or whatever, since that is part of the drug abuse article. Also, if you are refering to the "Behind the Music" documentary, it is obvious you know nothing of Gn'R. That documentary was heavily criticized in the media because it was biased in favor of the former members of the band. Axl Rose even threatned to sue VH1. Since wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, it would be inapropiate to follow the line of the documentary on the article. So far your argument against the article isn't because it does not follow the FA standards, but because it does not cover extremely minor details of the group's hey day. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The history section on the revived group is larger than every other history section. That seems disproportionate. As for drug abuse, well, were they already heavy users when the band started? How did it affect the song writing, the band dynamic, live performances etc? Did it lead to disagreements and the eventual breakdown of the band? It's my understanding that the various habits led to quite some tension in the group. You seem to misunderstand my point about the documentary - I'm not saying follow its line in any way, I'm just saying it was a really enjoyable and interesting thing to watch. If it was heavily criticised and if Rose threatened to sue, then that could be mentioned in the article. This article currently is not as interesting and enjoyable - not very brilliant prose - and that's why I'm opposing. If you think I know nothing about the band, well, you should be writing the article with people like me in mind anyway. Worldtraveller 19:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Tooth enamel

• Nominate. Though only someone with an excellent knowledge of dentistry would be qualified to comment on the more technical aspects of this article, this article is a comprehensive well-written, illustrated treatment of Tooth enamel. It seems to me that it deserves featured article status. --Zantastik 22:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose for two objections: the references need formatting work (see Wikipedia:References) and it needs to say something about how much of this is true for non-human animals. Which animals have enamel? Is it created the same way? If there's a lot of variation, then much of this article may be better moved to human tooth enamel or primate tooth enamel or whatever. Tuf-Kat 18:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added the material I could find on animal tooth enamel. It seems like there are some very specific but slight differences of enamel in animals that would probably not warrant a completely unique article on the subject. For the most part, the development and function of enamel is similar. The types of teeth is an entirely different story, and each animal could probably have their own article on teeth, with horse teeth being a good example. dozenist 15:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Change to support Tuf-Kat 16:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Tuf-Kat above makes a sound point. I would probably never have thought of it, but it makes sense. Also, I agree the references need formatting. However, the article is of amazing technical detail and precision, and we need more of this. Phils 20:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In-line references have been added. dozenist 15:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - The article itself is very professional, but seems unbalanced. Some sections are a little too short. I do enjoy the technical detail, and how the introduction is worded to offset the technical detail so those who don't understand can still at least follow it. Ben Babcock 21:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • For some sections being a little too short, I am not sure how to change that much. There is a limit to what I can find, but I will keep looking. I have already added some, but not much more. Maybe with the other additions I have made, those sections will appear better. dozenist 15:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Funeral of Pope John Paul II

I put this article on peer review a few weeks back, and have addressed those comments. This article was also nominated for featured status previously and failed. All of the issues there have been resolved as well. The article is factually correct, with many pictures and a comprehensive coverage of a important world event. Bratsche^{talk random} 18:14, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The problems have not been resolved. Two people objected last time because it had tons of fair use images, and now it is being renomianted and *all* of the pictures are fair use. →Raul654 18:24, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought the problem was that the pictures were not legally used. I didn't see anything against fair use pictures on the FA criteria list. If this is truly a problem, I will withdraw this nomination. Bratsche^{talk random} 18:41, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Using fair use pictures, while not prohibited, is discouraged (particularly for featured articles). It's one thing to use a fair use picture on a featured-article-candidate if you really don't have much hope of finding a copyleft one, but I don't think that's the case here. It is legitimate to object when an article has tons and tons of them, like this one. →Raul654 18:45, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't understand this nomination at all. PJPII's funeral hadn't even happened a month ago; he wasn't even dead yet. I can't imagine an article reaching a FA level of quality without a process of maturation. I see a lot of edits, but insufficient contemplation. — Xiong熊talk* 23:50, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Practically all articles are developed from scratch, or minimal quality, to featured quality within a month. I will cite Emsworth as my example: many of his articles are developed to a FA quality within several days. Thus, the quantity of time is irrelevent to the quality of the finished product. I assume your "maturation" refers to editing by a number of independent users during this time - this article has certainly undergone rigerous inspection and amendment. Emsworth does not wait for his article to be reviewed by many users over a period of several weeks before nominating, and there is no reason why he should. Essentially, I doubt the actionability of your critique. Time and quantity of independent editing may be indicative of a reviewed quality article, but it is not a direct relationship. Nor is it a criterion of a featured article, most users do not have the patience to leave their work to ferment for months before nomination. This article may well not be featurable yet, but do you have any thing more constructive and actionable to put forth? --Oldak Quill 11:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to note Emsworth usually writes article about events that happened years (often centuries ag0) and/or people who are long dead and for which there is a lot of widely accepted documentation and information available. Phils 11:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The status of this event as a very recent event actually hampers it, as in the case of pictures. Since only accredited, professional photographers with the AP, L'Ossovertare Romano, or Catholic News Service were allowed anywhere close to the casket, Mass, or anything else (probably because of security reasons) there aren't amy free use pictures that we could use on this article. The fair-use images make it look very professional, but if they're not appropriate, then the article will probably image-less. And for the record, the article has gotten comments on both the previous FAC nomination, and on peer review. Once the comments stopped for about a week, I archived the PR request. There's no use, as Oldak said, letting the article ferment for a month. Bratsche^{talk random} 18:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • On the subject of the images, the White House has released a photo essay for the funeral taken by White House photographer Eric Draper, the copyright status of these pictures isn't immediately obvious since photgraphs taken by federal employees aren't immediately in the PD, however you could email him and ask. --nixie 04:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Official Monster Raving Loony Party

A fascinating article, it would be fantastic to make this a featured article onthe day of the election. Jooler 10:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No lead, no references and some poor, weaselly and POV wording. violet/riga (t) 11:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur. Can we refer this to Peer Review first? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Please do not nominate articles that do not meet basic FA requirements; they will usually be dismissed without further consideration. Post this on Wikipedia:Peer Review to get criticism and help to reach FA quality. Phils 12:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

University of Wales, Lampeter

The University of Wales, Lampeter is an interesting institution in that it is the oldest university in Wales, but simultaneously the smallest public university in Europe. This is a self-nomination and the article has recently been peer-reviewed.

• Object 1) the lead section is too short compared to the length of the article. 2) three of the sections are simply lists, and in the third of these, Academic departments, I expected the wikilinks to go to articles about the departments and not the departments' subject matter (the English link goes to the article on English, and not the English department at the university). 3) only one reference for all of this information? For the number of facts that are presented here, it seems more likely that there would have been many more references, especially when you look at the edit history for this article. slambo 15:57, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting how much Peer Review can miss! I've tried to deal with your suggestions anyhow, I've expanded the introductory passage and added a couple more references. I'm not really sure what to do with the lists - they don't make up a huge part of the article in terms of word count, but I'll think of something to make them more attractive hopefully! Many thanks Twrist 23:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with all the objections slambo presents above. In addition, I have a few minor requests; the article should provide translation (if only approximative) of the University, as well as the The College Yell (I assume it's Welsh)? In the notable academics section, it would be helpful,to indicate the dates between which these people were at the UoW. The article also seems somewhat short compared to others we have about other universities and colleges. It might be that there isn't more to say about such a small university; on the other hand, there's almost always something more to say. Phils 08:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the job of finding out when the listed academics were at the institution. As for the college yell, its only partly in Welsh, as far as my own knowledge goes... maybe the rest is latin or something? I'm afraid I can't translate it anyhow Twrist 23:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

This is the best article I've seen about a bridge, tunnel or road. -- Samuel Wantman 07:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Object. While it is a good article in many ways, it is too unstable and too weighted towards current events. Much of the content - somewhere around half - is dedicated to events surrounding the current construction of the Eastern span of the bridge, which are really only momentarily relevant. As an encyclopedia article, I think that such information should really be put into historical context, in which case it should really just be given a small section at most. Nothing that is going on with the Eastern span is of more significance than, say, the events going on at the time of the bridge's initial construction. Additionally, since half of the bridge is about to be replaced, it is about to become a dramatically different bridge. Much of the current article is going to be out-of-date within a year or two, which makes it ineligible, at least in my interpretation of the "stable" requirement. Jun-Dai 07:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A separate article can and should concentrate on the details of the current reconstruction as well as having an appropriately-sized amount of text in this article that summarizes the most important points about the current reconstruction. --mav 16:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Question about the configuration: It appears from bus schedules that buses go betwen the Transbay Terminal and the bridge. But there is only a connection to the lower level of the bridge. How do inbound buses get to the terminal? --SPUI (talk) 07:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see "http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.788602,-122.392856&spn=0.009601,0.009938&t=k&hl=en" - the ramps into and out of the terminal (the loop) are transit only, note the connection with the outbound off ramp that runs parallel to the one with the automobiles (not shown in the map, but present in the satellite image. Leonard G. 8 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Jun-Dai. The focus on recent modifications of the bridge is too great. Phils 16:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many of the reasons for objecting above are ironicly what I like about this article and why I chose to nominate it. Wikipedia, by its very nature is able to do things that traditional encyclopedias could only dream about, and one of them is to be extremely current. We can have articles that are up to date AND encyclopedic. Think about it, many people more than normal are likely to look up this article because it is a timely subject. What is being faulted should be held up as an example of what is possible with this media. -- Samuel Wantman 18:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that focus on the current popular consciousness of a subject should be the aim of a separate wiki. I think it is good that we can have up-to-date information on current events, but this should never be used as the focus of an article that is not a current event, and current events should (IMO) never be featured. Reconstruction of the Eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (or some more suitable title) ought to have up-to-date information on the current ongoings of that project, and over time it should develop a historical perspective. The article we are discussing, however, is not a current event (even though current events are going on related to it), and it should not be focussed on what is happening now--such things only need a mention and, where someone is willing to supply the details, a separate entry. Jun-Dai 19:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I've implemented the suggestions above. There is now a separate article entitled: Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge --Samuel Wantman 08:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I also pulled out the weld controversy details from the replacement article, now in its own sub-sub article.

Think this is close to time to re-submit? Leonard G. 8 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

It has grown to a very impressive article. --83.109.174.227 (link to nominator's IP added by User:Phils).

Withdrawn, I agree with the concerns raised below. 83.109.148.242 21:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Impressive indeed, but the lead section requires expansion. Phils 15:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Not stable, completely inadequate lead section, no organized references section. --mav 16:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object It is still experiencing tons of edits and vandalism. See the talk page for all the issues that have yet to be resolved. Maybe in a couple of months. Bratsche^{talk random} 18:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Too soon. Let the news settle in first. Everyking 18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I agree with Maveric and Bratsche, this article is still too much the subject of debate to be stable enough for a featured spot. Ben Babcock 20:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - This is way too unstable, also I would suggest that it is too close to his election. I am not too keen on current, or very recent, news stories, or figures involved in them, being promoted to featured article status. Let's wait awhile. Rje 00:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - As mentioned above, the article is too unstable. We deal with vandalism and continious editing/sub-paging. There is still some information that is not clear yet, some of which includes his Coat of Arms, his Theology and early life. Though I do want to give thanks to those who edit and debate the article and it's contents, I do not think this is the right time for the article to be elevated to Featured Article. Zscout370 (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object- I do believe this is an excellent article, with a lot of information on the pope. Yet, I agree that there's going to be a ton of editing on the page. Every new appearence that the pope makes for the next couple of weeks will surely be added to the article. Let's wait a while, and see if the article stabilizes. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 01:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I think this article is quite impressive in its breadth and depth of coverage for having been worked on for such a short time. I think however that it is premature to feature it for a while, as substantial editing changes continue to be made, and the article which is featured might differ substantially from the article as it stands presently. Also, by the very act of featuring this article, it is likely that we would attract more vandals as were such an annoyance in the early days of this article's creation. Whig 03:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• neutral - I think this article is a credit to wikipedia. I doubt if there is a more thorough article on Ben anywhere at this stage in his papacy. But the article does need more work. It is possibly a bit premature to make it a featured article just yet. But it does deserve that acolade and will get it in the near future. Maybe we need another category - potential featured articles covering those that are nearly there but just not yet. FearÉIREANN 03:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object Good article, but still in the mold. Sjakkalle 07:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - For those that object due to vandalism. Does that mean that you would propose a FA article be un-FA if people suddenly start vandalising it? Whether one support or object to FA should be based on whether the article is good in content and not whether people like vandalising the article. -- KTC 09:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• comment after the initial wave of vandalism I suspect this page is on rather a lot of people's watch lists so I doubt vandalism would be a problem.Geni 09:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • A FA will get vandalized no matter which way you slice it. Articles about netrual subjects, like the Medal of Honor and the Order of Bath, got vandalized a lot due to them being a FA. Reversions come quick in Wikipedia, but if you take the vandalism out, you still have problems with the stability. We are still talking about cutting the article down into managable pieces, and there is still more to be added. Zscout370 (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object, agree with the above concerns. Neutrality^talk 04:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object very good article, but a "Sex abuse scandal" revels a tendency, offensive to the person, and a prejudice. It would be important to discuss why people didnt like him, rather than using that section, maybe with keeping some info (i'm not saying that is useless). But not an all section! I'm not seeing an encyclopedia, like wikipedia that uses writing to offend people. Would you like a sex scandal section in your biography? -Pedro 22:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an important, contentious subject, and to leave it out would be POV, not the other way around. I wouldn't want a section about a sex scandal in my biography, no, which is why I will endeavor in life not to do anything that would justify one. Benedict, however, even if by inaction, has done so and it should be noted. Kairos 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I said keep what's important and factual, If you use that and make a fire out of it (like in the article), it is surely POV. -Pedro 10:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object to the article becoming featured, for the reasons given above. It's too new and unstable. Kairos 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The majority of the article is sourced from current events news articles. The footnote external links will be mostly DOA within a year as news sites remove article links, even if this made FAC, it would need a close review within a year or so as links expire. Most news sites dont keep links for long. Stbalbach 04:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Farrertones

This is an old FAC nomination for an article since removed as band vanity. It's now kept as a historical record. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination. This is a group which are, while little-known anywhere else, very well known in their hometown of Tawmorth, New South Wales, and deserving of an encyclopaedic entry. --Jb-adder 08:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references, not nearly expansive enough, weasely ("widespread applause")... overall, nowhere near featured article level. (Comment: I'm from Victoria and have never heard of them, are they really notable enough for an article?) plattopus^talk 11:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I admit, I have included no references; the reason for this is because all the information came direct from a member of the group, not from some source book. But weasely...be specific, please! (Plus, if you have an objection with the article being on there, please, don't address it here; put it on my talk page instead.) --Jb-adder 12:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • "gained widespread applause" is weasely. Has there been any national poll conducted where the Farrertones came out as a premier group? As I said, I'm Australian myself and have never in my life heard of the Farrertones, not even during the Olympics.
    • "becoming a hit in many local schools and conferences" gives no evidence of how many schools, if any, saw the Farrertones as a "hit".
    • My main objection is the lack of references (if, as you say, it's all anecdotal, then it has no place on the Wikipedia), but also the fact that it's an extremely short article both in size and scope. plattopus^talk 14:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - As band vanity articles go, its pretty well done, but this article would probably just barely squeak by a Vote for Deletion on the basis of notability. ZERO google hits....As well as the issues pointed out by Plattopus. 13:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references. 119 16:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure notability is as big an issue as verifiability. Object unless enough gets published on this group to make it verifiable. If it can be verified, and it's well-written, then I don't have a problem with their obscurity. Dave (talk) 16:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A rather perplexing article. It definetly gives the impression that the subject is not really notable, but real problem is the lack of reference (I can't find anything about them). If they published no records, I don't really see why they deserve an article, unless in conjunction with the Sydney Olympics means that they actually performed at a Sydney 2000 event, or recorded an official song for such an event (which I seriously doubt). Phils 17:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object, no references. There is factually incorrect info, as this band have only appeared on one single getting the name of that single wrong is inexcusable. Finally I think this article would struggle getting past VfD, and as such should not be considered as a Featured Article Candidate. Rje 18:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Chauntea

I am of the conviction that this article I produced complies with criteria of:

• 1. Exemplary - Though an obscure topic, it demonstrates the depth of Wikipedia by being able to provide veridical information on any topic, such as this one!
• 2. Comprehensibility - Flesch reading ease of 44.6%
• 3. Veracious - All facts can be checked on the references cited.
• 4. Well-written - A Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 11.7 (approx.)
• 5. I believe it to be uncontroversial - but Iam happy to have it subjected to an NPOV check.
• 6. It complies with the style manual, in layout etc.
• 7. Has concisely annotated images, that are appropriate.

Also, I reckon that it has sufficient depth and breadth to be a featured article. --Knucmo2 00:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (talk)

Object leaving aside the question of whether a DnD goddess is featurable, a few things need to be fixed:

1. It should say which books she appears in (both rulebooks and Forgotten Realms fiction) and if she has any notable followers in those books
2. It should have in-line references so we know which facts come from which reference
3. I'd be shocked if the picture were actually fair use. I'd be surprised Wizards of the Coast didn't grant permission to use it if asked, though.

Right now, it doesn't seem any better than the short essays you find on gods in, say, the PHB. If you weave together information from a few more books and deal with copyrighting, this might be featurable.

Dave (talk) 22:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, a whole range of articles are featured on Wikipedia. There might be some more even obscure topics, not unlike this one, that are successfully nominated. Simply because it is grounded in fantasy (as is a significant proportion of literature) that does not mean it is not viable. Perhaps this is elitism on your part, though that might be going a little far.

Furthermore, it complies with the criteria of featured articles Wikipedia:What is a featured article. The copyright issue is the only one that really needs resolution, and I shall endeavour to do that. I am awaiting a response from a request to use this picture on this page from Wizards. I will keep you posted.

Knucmo2 00:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (talk) (indentation fixed by Dave)

You did not address 1 or 2. Dave (talk) 00:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Also, your sources may not be reliable. For example, the Kitaran Sea one is specific to one campaign set up by a DM at Stanford and as far as I know, everything there about "specialty priests" is house rules, not core rules. For a fictional subject with a recently featured article, see Three Laws of Robotics. Dave (talk) 01:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Very well. I shall concede the candidacy of this article, even though others may support. The issues you have raised I shall post on the discussion, in order that the issues become resolvable for the future. Thank you Dave, for your scrutiny of the article. --Knucmo2 10:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (talk)

Object I could barely understand what the first sentence of the article is about. You can't expect a reader to click through three links to understand phrases not common in English can you? 2)I dont know what you mean by =overview=. An overview of the topic should be in the lead-in. 3) History is a bit short. 4) I believe that there should be some more reviews on the subject. Are there any sites that give people more info on the topic?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Whale song

This is a wonderful article that includes great graphics and a funky sound file. Certainly worth considering for featured article status and appearing on our Main Page. But don't trust me. Read the article for yourselves and decide. Danny 02:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Good detail and well-organized article, with good use of supplementary visuals to enhance it. Ben Babcock 02:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. (1) While the article has detail and presents arguments on the purpose of the songs, there is no indication of where any of it came from or who makes those arguments--this article is not verifiable. (Minor, but the one reference included does not actually indicate the article cited, but only the magazine, making it more difficult to verify.) (2) There are many two-sentence paragraphs or h2s, which I think is poor for readability. (3) The lead section does not summarize the article. While I do not object on this because I do not know the subject, I have to say the article feels very far from comprehensive. Half of "Baleen whale sound production" is devoted to one whale's unusual frequency, for example? 119 03:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• ,Object, I agree with 119s points, the information should all be referenced, especially since the article is a summary of primary research--nixie 04:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the reference point has been addressed, there are some other issues. I think that Animal echolocation needs to be better described in the article, as I understand it this type of communication has only been shown to be the case for dolphins and killer whales. The function of the humbacks song seems, from a scan of recent literature, to be a contentious matter since noone has tested to see if humpback whales listen for and respond to echoes generated by their songs, this may also be the case for other whales. There probably should be some expansion of the tooth and baleen sound production sections, or seperate discussions on other species with well studied songs to address the comprehensivness point, false killer whales for example seem to be the subject of numerous vocalisation studies. A section on the use of whale songs to locate and track whales would also be a good addition to the article, also a descripion of how the sound is measured would be helpful to the reader. --nixie 03:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thanks. I will copy this across to the talk page to work on it. Pcb21| Pete 07:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object. 119's view above reflects my concerns, especially about the comprehensiveness of the article. Phils 17:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my objection. However, I do not (yet) support this FAC. I will be unable to check how the article evolves over the next few days, and considering my concerns were pretty much exactly those of other 'objectors', I decided it's better to let others decide whether the article should become a FA, based on the changes User:Pcb21 and others will make. Phils 16:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• I wrote this article, spent bloody ages creating those diagrams and furthermore know the material is good. I put the references I used in a "references" section, though someone, in a fit of intellectual dishonesty, moved two out of three of them into a further reading section without even commenting while. To be honest, I'm not so bothered about getting more of my articles featured that I want to jump the very vaguely defined hoops of the objectors so far. If there is a problem with style (lead section, paragraph length, whatever), then please fix it yourself to improve the quality of Wikipedia rather just write about it here and expect others to do it for you. If there are problems with content, be specific about what they are so someone with knowledge of the subject can fix them. Pcb21| Pete 22:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone has gone out of their way to criticize the article for the purpose of being unhelpful. Danny nominated it to be a featured article, so we compare it to Wikipedia:What is a featured article. If you wish he didn't, then you can edit that article fine without any involvement here. 119 02:02, 3 May 2005 (UT)

• • Comprehensiveness is a valid objection to a featured article. An objection to a FAC cannot be interpreted as a depreciation of the author's efforts; if we start thinking like this, we might as well think of another process to decide which articles should become featured. The article is great, but I feel it does not completely cover the subject (or, more precisely, give a complete overview of it). Phils 05:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • To 119 and Phils I think my grumblings have been misunderstood (almost certainly my fault for not being clear). 119, as you rightly point out the current nature of FAC is to have a combative process, some users trying to be custodians of the gold standard and others trying to achieve it. Within this model, I think your complaints are fine. However my feeling is that this gladatorial process has forgotten the purpose of FAs. The bottom line is that every procedure, policy and process within Wikipedia should be about faciliting the creation of quality content. Within this in mind, FAC should be area for active collaboration and improvement of already decent articles. It is so so much more fun for a content creator to read "I refactored the lead section to make it describe what's to come better" than "Object, poor lead section". Or "this content is fine but didn't feel complete so I googled and found [this web site] that suggests there is more to say about baleen songs." So basically what I am pining for is a change in culture. Many apologies for biting you in the process of trying to get this point across. Pcb21| Pete 07:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is a great informative article. the effort put in it should definitely be praised. Correct information and songs makes this article fit for Wikipedia front page status.
• Support. I agree with pcb21. He put time and effort into this. This is also a correct, informative article. What's wrong with it?
  • The two above votes by IP 69.169.54.227. Phils 05:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that prior to his foray here, the editor had made three edits, two of which were vandalism and one was nonsense, I think zero weight should be attached to his votes, and have struck them. Pcb21| Pete 07:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent original diagram and sound; clear, crisp writing. I remember being amazed by this page when I first saw it (the idealized whalesong timeline is somehow very cool). Of course it can be improved, as can every FAC; but already worthy of featuring. +sj + 07:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Macarro

I believe this would be a great article to be featured. It shows that Wikipedia has article of articualte nature, and ones that are interesting to read. Also, the article itself if of a humble, not too well-known man, which is exactly what Wikipeida needs! 67.202.156.84 (talk · contribs)

• Object. This article is: too short, has many spelling errors, and almost qualifies as a bio-stub. Unless there is a massive touch-up, expansion, and a photo added, this is an easy no-vote. Also, the FAC tag seems to have been added to get back at whovere listed the article in VfD. Remember, don't disrupt to Wikipedia to make your point.Harro5 22:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1) there is no lead section. 2) there are no references. 3) there are no images. 4) this article is a candidate for deletion. slambo 23:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. A downright preposterous listing. The article is quite poor and, in any case, there's no evidence he's notable enough to have an article in the first place. Everyking 01:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC) (edited by Harro5 to specifically include Object)
• Object, check the edit history, and see how the current version differs from the original version. This article is a hoax. There is nothing on Google in any language which verifies the existence of this person. RickK 07:47, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The authors of the page - a couple of anons - have admitted this article is a fake (see unsigned ""deletes" near bottom), and so I would request someone close down this vote. Harro5 21:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)