Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valentino (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 9 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

The Article Improvement Drive is a weekly collaboration to improve non-stub articles to featured article status. (For stub articles or topics with no articles, see Collaborations of the week.)

/History - For past winners.
/Removed - For removed nominations.
/Maintenance - AID upkeep.

Collaborations
Articles
Science and technology
Miscellaneous

Introduction

To vote or nominate you have to be a registered user. Any and all articles may be nominated except:

If you wish to help with maintenance of Article Improvement Drive (updating vote counts and such), please see this page: /Maintenance.

{{User AID}} unfolds to

 This user participated in the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.




How to nominate

Here is template for nominations: 

===[[ARTICLE]] (1 vote, stays until [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]])===
:''Nominated [[DATE]], [[YEAR]]; needs at least 3 votes by [[DATE ONE WEEK LATER]], [[YEAR]]''

; Support:
# (sign with four tildes)

; Comments:
* (put your reason for nomination, sign again)

----

Copy it and paste it to the bottom of the list of nominations on this page and fill it out. It is important to use UTC time; the current time and date now is 18:17, Saturday, October 26, 2024 (UTC). Under "comments" section put explanation of what work is needed. After submitting the new nomination, go to the nominated article and put {{AIDnom}} and {{to do}} on top of it.

How to vote

Sign with "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of the article you want to vote for and then update the vote count in the subhead. Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting. You can vote for as many articles as you like. If the vote count equaled the "needs at least xx votes by", then add 3 to "needs at least xx votes" and add a week to date in vote count and "needs at least xx votes by" notice.

Example. You encounter this situation and decide to vote:

===[[History of the world]] (23 votes, stays until [[February 7]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 24 votes by [[February 7]], [[2006]]''

First you put "# ~~~~" on the end of the list of people who voted for that article and then change the votecount and date in following manner:

===[[History of the world]] (24 votes, stays until [[February 14]], [[2006]])===
:''Nominated [[December 8]], [[2005]]; needs at least 27 votes by [[February 14]], [[2006]]''

How the article is elected

Article with most votes on each Sunday in 18:00 GMT is elected as "The current Article Improvement Drive article". If two articles have same number of votes, the older nominee wins.

The next project article is to be selected on Sunday February 12, 2006. 18.00 GMT (Template:DAYSTOSUNDAY)

How an article is removed from the list

Articles need three votes per week to stay on the list. If current date (October 26 2024) exceeds "stays until" date of particular article, that article entry is removed from this page and moved to page for removed nominations.

Nominations

Contact lens (29 votes, stays until March 5, 2006)

Nominated December 27, 2005; needs at least 30 votes by March 5, 2006
Support
  1. Fenice 08:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stevecov 15:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Melaen 18:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Waltwe 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NeoJustin 03:10, December 29, 2005 (UTC)
  6. AED 07:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Natebw 10:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cuivienen 03:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rafael Sepulveda 08:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kingpomba 09:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Onco_p53 08:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WS 14:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mgm|(talk) 13:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ike9898 14:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Duff 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Gflores Talk 07:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Joyous | Talk 16:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 172 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Steven 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Reuvenk 23:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SpacemanAfrica 23:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Tarret 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Duran 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Iamvered 20:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Pschemp | Talk 08:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. // paroxysm (n) 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Vir 17:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. G 16:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Sertrel 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

John Seigenthaler Sr. (33 votes, stays until March 2)

Nominated December 8, 2005; needs at least 36 votes by March 2, 2006
Support
  1. Let's redeem Wikipedia by turning this into a Featured Article! Kaldari 15:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ed 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Larsinio 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newguineafan 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 04:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pepsidrinka 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Dvyost 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. zenohockey 05:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutralitytalk 01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. American Patriot 1776 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Bob124 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Histmaven 16:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Carabinieri 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Imperialles 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Durantalk 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 172 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Steven 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. DMurphy 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Iamvered 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Pschemp | Talk 08:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Poppypetty 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Caponer 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Jhohenzollern 02:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Skurrkrow 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. zachjones4 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Vir 17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Rokafela 04:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. SpandX 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. TwilaStar 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Afrosheen 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • It'll make him happy since he complained about Wikipedia (and had a right to!) — Wackymacs 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err... I doubt that fixing this article will redeem wikipedia in the eyes of the critics. Although it may mollify J.S. slightly. :) — RJH 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sick of Wikipedia being attacked...I hope an Article Improvement Drive helps!! -Newguineafan 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half of me says "this is a great idea! what an amusing and clever way to show the reason Wikipedia is a project with so much potential despite its brief setbacks!", and half of me says "this is a terrible idea! it shows a profound pro-Wiki bias that we would go to such efforts to cover our own tracks and put a higher priority on "atoning" and making ourselves look good than on focusing on articles on truly major and vitally important topics that are much more neglected than this article currently is!" So, I'm on the fence on this one.
  • Overall, my thought is: anyone who cares enough about Wikipedia's public image should feel free to work on improving this article, but it shouldn't be one of the weekly article improvement drives; there are too many other topics that are hundreds of times more important for us to spend time on, and in any case going to such lengths for Wikipedia's public image could easily backfire by bringing even more attention to what is really a pretty trivial event that the media blew far out of proportion. In 10 years, it will barely be worthy of a section, much less a distinct article; which is not to say that having coverage of it now is a bad thing, just that it's not something for the Article Improvement Drive.
  • There are entire civilizations and spans of millennia, people and ideas that have changed the history of mankind forever, fundamental scientific and mathematical principles that require good coverage to gain any understanding of our very universe and of existence itself, all with articles so poor that if they appeared in any printed work that work would be laughed off the market forever and become useful only as a party gag. There are thousands of such topics for us to worry about, and we go for this article just because some vandal happened to play around with it? What a victory for vandalism that would be! "Man, let's keep this up and see if we can start another news controversy and gain even more influence over Wikipedia's inner workings..." It's just not worth all this trouble. We're an encyclopedia, not a self-image-obsessed media whore, remember?
  • On the other hand, it is a neat idea. So, I say go for it on an individual level; just don't make it some big community quest using the AID. -Silence 08:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do feel sympathetic to what you are saying, however, at this particular moment in time Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community have egg on their face. If we can work together to redeem Wikipedia in the eyes of the public (even in a rather shallow and media-centric way) that may have a more beneficial long-term effect than working on any other particular article, no matter how fundamentally important it is. If no one takes Wikipedia seriously anyway, what good will it do to have a great article on History of the World? Kaldari 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly why this collaboration is a terrible idea. Wikipedia will never be able to be taken seriously if it focuses on its self-image more than on its content. Plus, in fact, the current article on John Seigenthaler Sr. is already very good! Bringing it up to Featured Article quality is completely unnecessary, and amounts to a media stunt ("Hey! Look, media! That article that started this controversy is really good now! See? We really are awesome! ... Be our friends?"). Nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia should strive to improve its good image by improving the actual content of its vitally-imporatnt articles, not by bowing to the demands of media muckrakers. That's where we are truly in danger of losing our credibility: in the thousands of articles on Wikipedia that are far worse than they should be considering the importance of the subject matter. Wikipedia is already far too fixated on its self-image as-is, leading to a great degradation in actual article quality; more of our Featured Articles look very pretty, but glaring flaws and silly errors are inevitable in just about all of them. Our encyclopedia content should be, now and forever, our number-one concern and focus in "Article Improvement Drive"—we are an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm. -Silence 07:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's thinking like that that causes the horrible hair-styling of politicians today. Content/ideas isn't everything. Image is important for reputation, which counts for something if you want anyone to listen to you or try out your encyclopedia. Otherwise you just end up with those who are wise enough to realize that image isn't everything, which isn't a lot of people. --Schwael 15:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um? You don't think politicians are superficial enough? You think they're too concerned with truly important issues and with doing a good job, and not enough with just appealing to the media with cheap publicity stunts and "hairstyles"? You're an extremely strange person. Unusually for me, that's not entirely a compliment in this case. I'd rather have an extremely unpopular encyclopedia that's amazingly useful and has lots of great content, than a hugely popular encyclopedia with minimal content and usefulness. Popularity is a means, not an end, and in this case actually working on the enyclopedia itself and its countless neglected vital topics is much more important than sucking up to the media. To continue your metaphor: getting a haircut's all well and good, and a shave probably wouldn't hurt either, but considering that Wikipedia has lung cancer, AIDS, syphillus, and leprosy right now, I think we should handle the major surgery issues first, and worry about the rest down the line (or do it on outside of the "Article Improvement Drive" field, which is specifically designed to improve important Wikipedia articles for the sake of Wikipedia's content, not just for the sake of its appearance). -Silence 21:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, media is one of Wikipedia's major recruitment venues. Blows to our image such as the Seigenthaler case might drive away knowledgeable would-be-editors. Anyway, this article is already excellent, and should not take the AID spot from an article that needs it desperately. --Imperialles 15:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comments above. Media attention has made this article pretty good already. The only effect AIDing it will have is to direct more disproportionate public attention to it; it's just too lame an effort to do something like this so late on. Let's focus on making Wikipedia more useful, i.e. AID an important topic. BigBlueFish 14:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's important for Wikipedia to address this issue. Sure, you can say that Siegenthaler doesn't himself deserve a featured article, but it's definitely a better choice than Homer Simpson. --DMurphy 15:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're not debating whether to AID Homer Simpson. This is Seigenthaler versus the Cold War, contact lenses, frogs and more. I'd never heard of this guy before, and when I do he already has a much more detailed article than is proportional, even than some of the candidates on this page. Putting this article on the Article Improvement Drive is nonsense. BigBlueFish 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think John has taken up enough of our time...Stevage 15:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I "oppose" this nomination as well. You might even say it's in violation of WP:POINT. The guy really isn't that notable, and giving him a featured article to show him up seems like a pretty sad idea. His article has already taken too much attention away from worthy topics. Sarge Baldy 11:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roma people (28 votes, stays until March 8)

Nominated December 29, 2005; needs at least 30 votes by March 8, 2006
Support
  1. Dijxtra 11:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 12:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Waltwe 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wackymacs 20:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cuivienen 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Stevecov 03:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Khoikhoi 06:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. TachyonP 09:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NeoJustin 02:34 January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  11. Tombseye 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Carwil 23:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Silence 08:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ashibaka tock 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Bhadani 12:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Resistor 02:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Adam Mathias 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 172 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Wikiacc 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Revolución (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Radufan 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Jmabel | Talk 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ugur Basak 23:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Omnibus 00:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Pschemp | Talk 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Vir 17:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. SpacemanAfrica 21:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed invalid votes:

  1. 68.173.44.78 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (removed by --Fenice 09:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC) and Dijxtra)[reply]
    On what possible basis are anon votes considered invalid? Marskell 09:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because only registered users can vote, it says so on top. This is supposed to reduce sockpuppetry which we have had a problem with in the past. I informed the user to consider voting again once he or she has registered. If the user does not regiser and vote again, I will still inform the user with a voter template and invite the user to contribute, in case the article wins. That is why these votes should not be completely removed.--Fenice 09:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed the sentence sorry, but I must say it is poor, un-wiki policy. Anons can vote on AfD and RfA which are of greater import than AID. Of course, these will be scrutinized and often discounted but to bar anons from doing anything ought to require a very high bar. Marskell 10:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--> see talk--Fenice 10:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Article in really poor condition, needs copyediting, needs a lot of work on citing sources as topic is controversial. There are (probably) no Roma nationals on Wikipedia so this article would benefit from collaboration of people skilled in googleing info out. Let's help Roma people get good and NPOVed encyclopedia entry. --Dijxtra 11:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'll do what I can to work on it and add references and academic sources before I no longer have time to play around at wikipedia any more. Hopefully everyone won't want to kill me afterwards. Tombseye 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been tinkering with it; mainly cleaning up style and removing unverifiable factoids. I took out the copyedit tag as well; please put it back if you feel it is still merited. Guinnog

Frog (33 votes, stays until March 14)

Nominated December 20, 2005; needs at least 36 votes by March 14, 2006
Support
  1. liquidGhoul 13:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moonstone 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CloudNine 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 08:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JoJan 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Billlion 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James S. 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nessuno834 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Joyous | Talk 20:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Iotha 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Julien 13:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. darkliighttalk 08:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Gflores Talk 09:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Samsara 10:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Fresh 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 172 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Revolución (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. TestPilot 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --SeanMcG 02:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Donar Reiskoffer 10:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Tarret 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Lejean2000 16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ugur Basak 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 02:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Jhohenzollern 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. —Wikiacc • 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Doug 21:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Caponer 06:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 01:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Pschemp | Talk 08:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --DanielCD 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Skurrkrow 06:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. SpacemanAfrica 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A frog article is a necessity in an encyclopaedia, and this is such a horrible article. I have cleaned it up considerably, but the article needs both considerable expansion and more cleaning. --liquidGhoul 13:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Compare this to Cold War. It's not that bad in comparison, and in terms of encyclopedic value, the latter is probably more important. --BigBlueFish 22:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most people know what a frog is and don't need to know anything in depth about them. It is probably most useful to biologists and people searching for trivia. The Cold War was one of the most influential issues in current affairs for a good half-century, with major impacts on the shape of current politics, making it useful to a wide range of social sciences such as history and sociology. BigBlueFish 16:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most people know what the Cold War is, and don't need to go further in deatail about it. Studying the frog is usually one of the first things anyone would do in biology. It has, for centuries, been the tool to interest people into biology, or science for that matter. It is one of the most influential animals on current science. It was an experiment on a frog that led to the invention of the battery. Without which, the Cold War would never have occured. You can't say that without the Cold War, frogs would never have occured. Importance is subjective. --liquidGhoul 11:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing counterargument, but I'm afraid that Bigbluefish's argument is much more convincing than the your rebuttal. The fact that the battery was invented as a result of an experiment on a frog in no way denotes that the battery wouldn't have been invented if not for frogs; it's extremely unlikely that the nonexistence (or different qualities) of frogs would have influenced the Cold War significantly more than that of any other family of lifeforms on earth would have.
It's similarly fallacious to suggest that just because something apparently helped cause an event to happen, that the cause is more important than the effect; although it's even more true in this case, where it requires a tenuous and rather silly stretch of the imagination indeed to link the two, it also applies to many other cases, such as Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria being the "cause" for World War I, and yet not being a fraction as important as the war itself. He's more a bit of amusing historical trivia than a huge factor in human history. It's also the case, as with frogs, that it's impossible to demonstrate (and extraordinarily unlikely) that the war wouldn't have happened if not for Ferdinand; he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be used as an arbitrary justification for something that had a vast number of more significant causal connections leading up to it. More important to humankind than learning about frogs is learning about what social, military, economic, and technological trends really led up to (and maintained) the Cold War, just as it's more important to understand WW1's deeply-rooted causes than to study every aspect of Franz Ferdinand's life.
It's also true that the Cold War has had a more profound impact on humanity today (and this encyclopedia is written for humans, sorry to say) than frogs have, and that there are infinitely fewer similar occurrences to the Cold War in the history of the universe than there are similar species to frogs—we could just as easily work on an article about toads or crocodiles or rabbits, for that matter, but you won't find many world-spanning decades-long military struggles in human history; the Gallic Wars and Crusades don't quite cut it compared to the superpowers, I'm afraid.
I'll also have to agree that the frog article is in better shape than the Cold War article, at least in terms of its main article. In terms of total information available on Wikipedia, certainly the Cold War has had more attention focused on it, as seen by its many sub-articles. However, the Cold War article itself is in pretty poor shape, consisting almost entirely of giant, bloated, trivial lists, while spending only four brief paragraphs on the actual history of the war; fixing that will be a much larger task than the simple matter of expansion and reorganization that the frog article demands.
It's also certainly true that more people in the world know about frogs in a fair amount of detail already than know about the Cold War in a fair amount of detail, and even more true that it's much more important for human beings to know more than just the barest basics on the Cold War for the sake of the future survival of mankind ("those who don't remember their mistakes...") than for human beings to know all the fun facts and trivia about froggies. Which is not to say that the frog article isn't important; it's very important. But, from a human perspective at least, existing, as we do, at the dawn of the 21st century, comparing frogs to the Cold War is like comparing soft drink or crab (or the house mouse, if you prefer another animal with scientific significance) to World War II; they're all obviously important topics, and soda may be almost as ubiquitous as WW2 references, but let's be realistic, here. :) -Silence 21:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are pretty important, and we should do both. But you are wrong in one point (apart from: the frog did not kick off the Cold War like Ferdinand's assassination started off WWI, this analogy is funny but faulty). The other thing is: it is not the frog that is so important but rather the lack of frogs. And the disappearance of toads. This is what makes this article as important for the future of mankind as the Cold War.--Fenice 22:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with you at the end of my above comment that both are very important, and I also already pointed out that the frog/Ferdinand analogy is inexact (where I said "although it's even more true in this case, where it requires a tenuous and rather silly stretch of the imagination indeed to link the two, it also applies to many other cases,"), though the reason it's inexact is because Franz Ferdinand is much more relevant to WWI than frogs are to the Cold War, so the analogy's curved in favor of the opposition, not in my own favor, and thus is doubly effective when it nonetheless shows that even someone much more clearly causally connected like Franz Ferdinand is still much less important than the thing his death supposedly "caused".
And, I will persist in contesting that the disappearance of frogs is still not quite as important for mankind as remembering not to make the same mistakes of the Cold War; though it's certainly important, there are dozens of other vitally-important animal species that are much nearer to extinction and must have information spread on them, and forgetting about frogs probably doesn't have the potential to wipe out as much life on the planet as a thermonuclear war anytime soon.
I'm not the one who brought up the frog/cold war comparison, and I don't oppose people voting for frog just because it's less important than the cold war; most article topics are less important than the cold war, it's nothing to be ashamed of. But saying that the subject of frogs is more important than (or as important as) the subject of Cold War to humankind is simply ridiculous; there's a reason Wikipedia:List of featured articles English Wikipedia should have has "Cold War" listed as one of the most vital topics in the entire encyclopedia, while frog utterly fails to make the list, even though a number of other organism articles are listed (some of which should probably be trimmed off as well). -Silence 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just wasn't taking this discussion seriously, that's why I made the silly argument. It is utterly stupid to not vote for something based upon subjective importance. Look at some of the past winners, you will find that frog has higher importance than many of them: Vincent van Gough, Discovery Channel, Mario, Beer and Mariah Carey!!! There has been no extant organism com up for AID, and since frog is one of the first things studied in biology, why not have it the first article make it through AID? The entire history of AID is basically history, popular culture and technology. This is attracting a certain demographic to Wikipedia, when we should be trying to attract everyone. Secondly, the use of the decreasing frog population is not just for the reason that they are endangered (like many other animals). It is also a meter for the health of an environment. Environmental destruction is a very real issue at the moment, and since frogs are a gauge commonly used, it makes them a very important subject. Thirdly, that list you gave was for things relevant to English speakers that may not be relevant to other languages. If you look at the real list of articles all languages should have you will find frog at the top of the animal list (granted it is alphabetical). --liquidGhoul 01:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget to improve Tadpole at the same time. In my family the young frog has been a gateway to the encyclopedia for generations. We need the youngsters to get a positive impression from both these articles to help them realize the potential of Wikipedia as a resource. —James S. 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of us probably keep frogs, and as such should at least creates stubs for each species we own, this will drive other keepers to extend such stubs with their valuable knowldege. --Julien 13:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many interesting biological details of great importance to ecology and the monitoring of ecosystems that should be added to the article. I've done my bit, would be great to get some more help with it. The article is very well organised at the moment, so there is scope for adding material without worrying too much about structure. I believe liquidGhoul, myself and others will be taking care of that latter part (structure) if necessary. - Samsara 10:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The frog issue has implications on many different areas of concern, such as global warming and how ecosystems change over time. I also agree that children will use the Wikipedia if there is a strong frog article due to the fact that so many study the creature at an early age. As noted on NPR recently, a study was recently published tying the decline in the frog population to global warming, which I would argue is more relevant in today's world than the Cold War. --Fresh 18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is why it needs expanding, because it doesn't mention it. The decline in frog populations article should be a sub-article of frog, and therefore frog needs to be expanded to include it. The use of frogs as an ecological tool seriously needs to be added to the article, and therefore it would benefit from an AID. Along with the other things mentioned already, which are not covered by the article. --liquidGhoul 08:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as long as we're talking about not nominating an article because it's a sub-article of another one that's in poor shape, I'll mention that I'd be vastly more likely to vote in support of this AID candidate if you'd nominated Amphibian instead of "frog". Amphibian's not only in vastly worse shape, but also is a topic a hundred times more valuable and important. :) -Silence 09:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frog is not a sub-article of Amphibian, it is just of lower taxonomic class. Frogs are better studied, and therefore more information is available, than to amphibians as a whole. I basically agree that we should work our way down the taxons, but there are a few exceptions, where a more specific group is more important than a group which is higher taxonomically. For example, I believe the cane toad article is a lot more important than the Bufo article, because of the effect the cane toad has had on much of the world. The species has caused much damage, whereas the genus as a group have not, and therefore more information is available for the cane toad. If you do all amphibians, then you are including caecilians, which are much less studied, less history and less important tool for ecology. Which are all the good points of frogs. --liquidGhoul 10:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a good candidate. Arguing against it on the basis that another is more "importatnt" is flawed simply because what is "important" is relevant to the circumstances. To the high schooler in need of information on the frog for a report, this becomes infinitely more important; likewise the reverse for the high schooler in an American Studies class. Doug 21:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Leap Forward (26 votes, stays until March 1)

Nominated December 21, 2005; needs at least 27 votes by March 1, 2006
Support
  1. Estrellador* 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. naryathegreat | (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Stevecov 16:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 08:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carwil 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. McCart42 05:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. eclair4ev 3:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Bkwillwm 16:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moonstone 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Wikiacc • § 17:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Paul James Cowie 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Bhadani 12:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Fresh 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 172 23:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. - FrancisTyers 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Empty2005 02:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Unterdenlinden 2:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Mike H. That's hot 08:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. gren グレン ? 10:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Poppypetty 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Un sogno modesto 10:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Gugganij 17:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. G 17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Far too short for such a momentous event in world history (supposedly the worst famine ever). -Estrellador* 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope more professional people work on it, at least can read Chinese. I'm doing some research on it and find it's very complex. So many rubbish information disturb my work and reliable resources are quite different. According my research, it seems to be a conmbine of several comparativly small famines in different places rather than a big famine.

population change 1958 659,940,000 1959 672,070,000 1960 662,070,000 1961 658,590,000 1962 672,950,000 1963 691,720,000 http://www.cpirc.org.cn/tjsj/tjsj_cy_detail.asp?id=199

Ego, superego, and id (23 votes, stays until February 20)

Nominated 27 December, 2005; needs at least 24 votes by February 20, 2006)
Support
  1. Melaen 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 19:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rampart 20:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TachyonP 09:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Iten 06:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Soo 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DanielCD 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Herostratus 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Gflores Talk 09:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. JoeSmack 10:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Osbus 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jtneill - Talk 03:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Thunderforge 22:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Archer7 20:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 172 | Talk 11:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. // paroxysm (n) 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Iamvered 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Al001 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jhohenzollern 03:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Caponer 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Metta Bubble 12:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • important psychoanalytic topic
    • In some ways the most important. Soo 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And in other ways, the least important. A terrible topic to read about if you want to learn much about the human mind or the science of psychology. On the other hand, a fantastic topic to read about to learn a wealth of knowledge on modern culture, symbolism, social and layperson understandings of psychology, and the history of the field of psychotherapy. So, I'm split on whether to vote and argue passionately for improving this topic, or abstain and argue passionately against spending any time on it at all. My sensibilities aside, pseudoscience does deserve its day too! So, I'll remain neutral. -Silence 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a lot of work. --Iten 06:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of the Roman Empire (27 votes, stays until March 12)

Nominated January 2, 2006; needs at least 30 votes by March 12, 2006
Support
  1. Powera 18:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TachyonP 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 04:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 07:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Reo On 15:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NeoJustin 02:32 January 4, 2006 (UTC)
  7. TestPilot 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Daanschr 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wikiacc 02:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Madison Gray 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Steven 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Juppiter 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Lapsed Pacifist 17:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hippalus 10:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 172 | Talk 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Caponer 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. PaLoger 16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jhohenzollern 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Skurrkrow 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. TwilaStar 08:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Rokafela 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. APower 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. SpandX 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Afrosheen 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Yes, it's like historicity of Jesus in that sense: it's analysis, not description. Roman Empire and History of Rome and similar articles already cover the fall. Of course, that could very well be one big thing to change in this AID process, if people think it's merited: adding actual info on the fall itself, rather than just modern analysis of it. -Silence 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an avid user of Wikipedia, I was trying to get information on the fall of Rome. Wikipedia rerouted me to this article. Therefore, either this article should be changed in order to encompass the barbarians and the historical content on the fall of Rome, or he or she should be sent to the proper articles. I primarily agree with the former on the premise that I, as a layman on the topic of the Roman demise, was sent to a historiographic article by typing "fall of Rome". This does not make sense.TachyonP 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im not sure that is possible without taking a POV. To write a history narrative called "Fall of the Roman Empire" is going to be inherently POV because by championing some causes and theories (such as the barbarians), you will exclude others (unless you plan to incorporate all of the 200+ theories into the article). That's why the article simply lists all the theories without getting into the history. The idea that Rome "fell" is and always has been a matter of debate and controversy. So im not sure how you plan to write a history article about it, thats much different than what we current have, that wouldnt be original research or POV. It sounds like you want to know about how the barbarians caused rome to fall - well, that is just one POV. Some people think it had nothing to do with barbarians. The theories are endless, as our current article discusses. --Stbalbach 07:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you say is logical. However, the fall of Rome is still an important historical topic. The current article is not large nor informative enought. This article should therefore include the barbarinas et al and represent it as one POV, then afterwards describe internal inflation, corruption, etc. as another POV, and work from there. But the main point is that I, or anyone else for that matter, did not get much information about the fall of Rome.TachyonP 07:54 3 January, 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm well summarizing for the reader the major theories and authors is pretty valuable and informative. I think we are saying the same thing on that level, but you want to write an original history narrative; but to remain NPOV youll have to equally incorporate all the many theories and authors into that narrative, a nearly impossible task. The end result will be of questionable value, pushing some POV's over others, missing some important elements while stressing others out of proportion. --Stbalbach 16:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impossible is a strong word. I believe that the article you suggest is perfectly plausible. The current article only encompasses six major POVs. A couple of short paragraphs on each would be infinitely better that the current article.

Cold War (32 votes, stays until March 14)

Nominated January 3, 2006; needs at least 33 votes by March 21, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dijxtra 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BigBlueFish 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutralitytalk 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Iten 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Durantalk  13:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Thoth92 10:15, 8 January 2006 (EST)
  9. WS 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew kokai 05:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Steven 18:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Bhadani 12:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. TGoldsmith 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CG 17:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Empty2005 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Anonunit 06:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Donar Reiskoffer 10:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Carolaman 05:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Ugur Basak 23:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. —Wikiacc • ∂ 23:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Aerobird 02:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Caponer 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Jhohenzollern 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Skurrkrow 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Llamadog903 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. RexNL 02:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Rokafela 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. UmbrageOfSnow 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. SpandX 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. G 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. TwilaStar 23:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Insufficiently tight for such a key unifying concept in recent history.... The overall periodisation needs revision I believe (the last sub-period is very large compared to the first two...) and linking to other key articles needs improving. Imagery is sadly lacking. Paul James Cowie 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Improvements in periodisation of the period 1962-1991 (summarised within the main article, before linking out to subsidiary articles) would include a separate period of détente in the 1970s, as well as the so-called "Second Cold War" in the early- to mid-1980s. A final sub-period would then look at the end of the Cold War... (1986-1991?) Paul James Cowie 10:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was shocked to find this article on Wikipedia, considering its importance in recent history. Needs a serious cleanup. --BigBlueFish 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When making this comment I wasn't aware that it had been replaced by a series of personal essays by an anonymous user, which have since been replaced (nor did Iten, below, presumably, since the comment was made about an hour before it was reverted). I still support the inclusion of it in the AID though, it could still be considerably tightened, and is a topic which would be well worth featuring. BigBlueFish 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the nominator realizes this, but the overall periodization isn't even supposed to be covered in detail in the general Cold War entry. The history of the Cold War is covered in the article series -- in Cold War (1947-1953), Cold War (1953-1962), Cold War (1962-1991). The expectations for article stated above seem unfairly high, given how the article series is structured. 172 08:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The aim of AID is to turn it into a WP:FA featured quality article. The demands for that really are high, you are right 172. Of course the subarticles need to be taken into consideration. I think this article is already pretty close to being featured quality. We will try to polish it up to present it at WP:FAC.--Fenice 08:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original nominator does realise that the overall periodisation isn't meant to be covered in the general Cold War entry. My point (perhaps unclearly made) is that the periodisation is faulty.... The last sub-period covers fully 30 years, whereas the others are far more finely-grained. And, of course, I am hoping that attention given to the general article will also have a "knock-on" effect for the sub-articles! Paul James Cowie 10:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article rerally needs to be increased. The Cold War has tken up most of the lifetime of the majority of the population. It is a huge event in world history, and its aticle must reflect that.
    • No, the overall periodisation is not meant to be covered in the general Cold War entry. I have stong reservations about putting the Cold War entry through an Article Improvement Drive. The page has been on my watchlist for nearly three years. Most edits to the article are absolutely awful, as the article tends to attack many people who think that they know a lot more about the Cold War than they really do. Just today I had to revert an editor who cited Freddie Mercury as an authority on Cold War history. (Based on comments by this person on the talk page, he or she did not seem to be making a joke either!) The best chance that the article has of being brought up to FA quality is an effort by collaboration of a small number of editors who are experts on the subject, or a single expert on the subject. 172 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • TestPilot 18:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Because the Cold War article probably generates so many hits through Google, it has long been subject to extensive sockpuppet vandalism. As a result, the page history is way too unstable for an effort like Article Improvement Drive to end well. One of the chronic sources of vandalism is 155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al (see Willmcw's documentation of this activity at [1])-- the user who may be still be the source for a lot of the recent edits of dubious quality. The article is not great now; but it is at least satisfactory as it stands. I am concerned, however, that a flurry of activity on the page not monitored by editors who are experts on the subject will more likely result in an article of far worse quality than what we have now. 172 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could set up a task force of 2-3 people to monitor the activity on the article for a week if it gets elected. I won't contribute to the article (as I'm not really into Cold War) but I'd volunteer to watch the page and post suspicious edits to talk page... IF it gets elected. --Dijxtra 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for the idea and offer of support. Still, from my experiences on Wikipedia over the past three years, I have doubts that your proposal will be workable. The most vexing edits to articles like Cold War are the ones that appear normal to users unfamiliar with the topic, but instead happen to be thoroughly incompetent to the trained eye. Here's a paradigmatic example: Yesterday, I reverted a horrible series of edits that contained comments like "to paraphrase Freddy Mercury; superpowers always fight." Perhaps the Freddy Mercury edit took so long to get reverted because the users doing RC patrol did not know that Freddy Mercury was a member of the rock band Queen, certainly not a historian of the Cold War. 172 00:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

# ragesoss 12:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That seems like a pretty absurd reason to oppose an AID. AID is based on how important (and needing improvement) a topic is, not how hard it would be to improve. If anything, your argument is a great argument for making this the weekly AID, since if this article is so plagued by vandalism, so heavily Google-hit, and so long and complicated, it needs an AID to get the attention it requires. No single users can take on so much work, but a mass effort by the community might be able to. -Silence 10:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is absolutely right. Are you trying to contend that the progress of the article if it remained an orphaned article, not subject to any particular focused effort, would be better than if it had more attention to it? The AID will statistically bring more good editors than bad ones than the current ratio, because the project attracts mostly the attention of regular Wikipedia editors rather than random Wikipedia readers. I see no reason why we should settle for a mediocre article when there are featured articles on World War I and Attack on Pearl Harbour, and at least a Good Article on World War II (note that this article has previously merited the AID). I see no negative impact of AIDing an article, and will only ever object to doing so on the grounds of an article which needs it more. As it stands I think Cold War is most certainly one of those who should definitely be on the AID in the near future. BigBlueFish 13:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Silence wrote that no single users can take on so much work. I know that this claim is wrong from experience. I've written a handful of featured articles almost single-handedly. Piotrus has written an even larger number of FAs single-handedly. SimonP even more. Lord Emsworth has probably written more than all of us put together. The Cold War article is already watched by two professional historians/social scientists, myself included. The other editor is Rjensen (Richard Jensen)-- one of the most notable and well-regarded scholars to ever edit Wikipedia. The best hope that the article has is a small collaboration of expert editors, as opposed to a mass production out of which a range of sockpuppets like 155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al can easily render into a chaos. 172 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop art (19 votes, stays until February 22)

Nominated January 4, 2006; needs at least 21 votes by February 22, 2006
Support
  1. Levi allemany 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 17:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wackymacs 07:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul James Cowie 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gflores Talk 07:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sparkit 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. User:Havardj 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WesleyPinkham 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hahnchen 10:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. bodnotbod 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Daanschr 19:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Osbus 23:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. tdempsey 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ghelae 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Caponer 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Jhohenzollern 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. SpandX 16:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. TwilaStar 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • No, we shouldn't. Would you argue that David Nielsen or Psychedelia or Nicky Bryne or American West Indies are not stubs just because they haven't yet been labeled as such? Which articles are marked as "stubs" is arbitrary, inconsistent, and depends entirely on the whims of random users; many users who create and work on "stubs" don't even bother to ever use stub tags, as they're really not that helpful, are very complicated to organize in many cases, and create the false assumption (which you have succumbed to) that anything not clearly labeled as a stub isn't a stub, or, even worse, that anything not clearly labeled a stub doesn't need a heck of a lot of expansion to meet Wikipedia standards. Nothing in the AID requirements says that articles marked with a "stub" tag aren't allowed to be submitted, it says that articles that actually are stubs aren't allowed to be submitted. Please read Wikipedia:Stub: an article that consists entirely of two very short paragraphs followed by three lists is most certainly a stub.
  • Since you (wrongly) feel this is so important, I will add a stub tag to it (even though numerous articles currently submitted at "CotW" are not labeled such), and then you can move this to CotW, where it can receive the attention it needs. Common sense ("the article's incredibly short and lacking in any but the barest information, so it's a stub") takes precedence over bureaucracy ("but it isn't clearly labeled 'stub' on the page!"), I'm afraid. -Silence 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that thousands of articles that are indeed labeled as stubs are much more complete, in-depth and lengthy than this article. Even just sticking to art-related stubs, I can find many equally complete, and even vastly more complete, stubs-labeled-as-stubs in mere minutes: body art, anamorphism, A Girl Asleep (Vermeer), contrapposto, fiber art, death mask, French art of the 19th century, paint marker, national personification, oil pastel, postmodern art, pyrography, posterization, Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, etc. -Silence 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, this is a stub. Usually stubs drop out after being listed one week. This one seems to be very popular though, and will probably develop beyond a stub while it is listed here. --Fenice 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of art article that are marked as stubs are no longer stubs, and many art articles that are stubs are not marked as stubs. IMO some of the articles listed above could have their stub tag removed. Sparkit 19:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson (17 votes, stays until February 17)

Nominated January 7, 2006; needs at least 18 votes by February 17, 2006
Support
  1. Soo 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fallout boy 08:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NeoJustin 19:07, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
  5. *drew 02:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nessuno834 14:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Steven 22:09, 9 January 2006
  9. -Localzuk (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Andrew Levine 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Wtfimbored 12:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Juppiter 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jaranda wat's sup 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Larsinio 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Forever young 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Bobo. 06:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Lots of facts but no overarching structure. Could easily reach Featured status with work, but there's lots to be done. Soo 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's already a lot of recent editing activity on this article without it winning the vote [2] and, given the popularity of The Simpsons I think that's likely to remain the case. I'd be reluctant to support all-out community activity on such a flippant topic when there are so many important areas left wanting. --bodnotbod 11:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconded. This is about the most trivial topic on the AID page at the moment, and it is obvious that others need the work and attention much more. -Estrellador* 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I don't know about "trivial" — Homer Simpson is, worldwide, one of the most popular fictional characters created in the last 20 years, whereas the leading vote-getter right now, Asteroid deflection strategies, is about a relatively obscure, and still theoretical, aspect of applied science. I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a front-page featured article on a very broadly popular topic like one of the world's most popular cartoon characters to draw new users into Wikipedia and to collaborative article-improvement in particular. And Homer Simpson is certainly an article that is a long, long way from Featured quality, but definitely improvable given the vast amount of verifiable information out there about him. Andrew Levine 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your primary mistake was not nominating The Simpsons itself. Focusing the community's efforts on Homer Simpson when we haven't even got a Featured The Simpsons article would be like trying to get Sancho Panza up to Featured quality before Don Quixote. Your secondary mistake was assuming that popularity and importance are synonymous. Just because a topic is widely-known doesn't mean that it should be a general-use encyclopedia's top priority. We currently have more information on Homer Simpson than we have on entire civilizations that have existed for thousands of years. Don't get me wrong, it's a great cartoon show, and an amusing fictional character, but try to keep a little perspective. -Silence 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I see absolutely no reason to focus the efforts of the entire Wikipedia on Homer Simpson. If exposure for this article is what you want, it should be done some other way than through AID... Homer Simpson facts are easy to find. AID should be a place for articles that require more depth on the subject. AIDing Homer Simpson would be the equivalent of asking a group of award-winning Calculus-level mathematicians to write a report on Basic Algebra. -DMurphy 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And wouldn't that result in a very good report? Or should people only attempt to explain things at the absolute cutting edge of what they can understand? Soo 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; Homer Simpson is by no means a worthless article subject, but we mustn't let pop culture distort efforts away from significantly more pressing topics. If nothing else it's far too specific. BigBlueFish 19:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well you know these drives are based on popularity of the topic, rather than their "actual" worth. You can always choose not to bother working on the topics. I think I've only ever seen about a half-dozen pages get nominated on which I actually wanted to contribute. :) — RJH 15:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America (22 votes, stays until March 9)

Nominated January 13, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by March 9, 2006
Support
  1. Durantalk 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Havardj 25:32, 14 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
  3. Fenice 21:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. *drew 02:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wikiacc • § 17:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Daanschr 19:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Gflores Talk 09:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Revolución (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Neutralitytalk 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Estrellador* 17:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ugur Basak 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Caponer 22:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Jhohenzollern 03:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Vir 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. SpandX 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. TwilaStar 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. SpacemanAfrica 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Iran (19 votes, stays until March 4)

Nominated 14 January, 2006; needs at least 21 votes by March 4, 2006
Support
  1. Wikiacc•§ 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 19:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Anthonyiamurri 05:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Durantalk 07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. darkliighttalk 08:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Databot 07:33, 16 January 2006 (GMT)
  7. Lukobe 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Revolución (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Gflores Talk 20:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CG 19:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Doug 14:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Jeff3000 21:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Metta Bubble 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ugur Basak 23:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Un sogno modesto 10:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Vir 18:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Lbbzman 21:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. SpacemanAfrica 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Pheromone (10 votes, stays until February 12)

Nominated 15 January, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 12, 2006
Support
  1. EastNile 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 09:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 22:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 17:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gflores Talk 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Samsara contrib talk 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Carolaman 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SpacemanAfrica 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I should say, it's not just biology, it's important in psychology as well. - Samsara contrib talk 18:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest (19 votes, stays until March 6)

Nominated 16 January, 2006; needs at least 21 votes by March 6, 2006
Support
  1. JK the unwise 12:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Solar 13:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tothebarricades 13:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sanguinus 14:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ZeWrestler Talk 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sjeraj | Talk Sjeraj 14:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CG 17:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. DelftUser 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Caponer 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Samsara contrib talk 02:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jhohenzollern 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Skurrkrow 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutralitytalk 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. TwilaStar 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Ehouk1 14:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. SpandX 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Article about historic day; biggest and most co-ordinated global day of protests. Important part of articles about the Iraq war. Is not that far from featured status but needs work on presentation and layout of the article, removal of some of the stat's type information into tables and general work on spelling, punctuation, grama etc. Also review to ensure NPOV.--JK the unwise 12:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got my vote. Article could use some corrections as well as expansion in certain areas. Maybe make a few satilite articles. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments on its talk page. I think it is a lot farther from featured status than JK does, but agree that it is a worthy topic.

Post-Soviet states (11 votes, stays until February 13)

Nominated January 16, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 13, 2006
Support
  1. Juppiter 20:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 20:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Nightstallion (?) 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikiacc 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. mikka (t) 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ugur Basak 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aerobird 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caponer 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jhohenzollern 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. TwilaStar 08:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SpandX 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Ottoman Empire (19 votes, stays until March 7)

Nominated January 18, 2006; needs at least 21 votes by March 7, 2006
Support
  1. Mukadderat 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ugur Basak 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A.Garnet 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fenice 08:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Croc22 10:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CG 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Durantalk 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Adam Mathias 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Herostratus 14:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wikiacc 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Steven 20:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Martin Wisse 10:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Aerobird 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Hippalus 13:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Silence 02:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Paul James Cowie 22:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. SpacemanAfrica 04:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what writing an encyclopedia is about. Quality, young grasshopper, is more important than quantity. Even if there isn't a boatload to "add", there's vast amounts to improve. Some of Wikipedia's worst articles are over a dozen pages long. -Silence 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just skimming the article, I see it needs a) restructuring and b) refocus. A broad subject like this functions best as an introduction, with most of the "meat" of the subject on more specialised pages. At the moment it is a bit of a mess. --Martin Wisse 10:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia (9 votes, stays until February 16, 2006)

Nominated January 19, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 16, 2006
Support
  1. TwilaStar 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Youngamerican 14:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jhohenzollern 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rokafela 04:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mike H. That's hot 08:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SpandX 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Skurrkrow 06:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vir 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Babylon (11 votes, stays until February 17)

Nominated January 20; needs at least 12 votes by February 17 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Revolución (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wikiacc 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ugur Basak 23:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Polaris75 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Poppypetty 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Melaen 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vir 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Un sogno modesto 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SpacemanAfrica 04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Federal Bureau of Investigation, (11 votes, stays until February 17)

Nominated January 20, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 17, 2006'
Support
  1. Carabinieri 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Silence 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Finnegar 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carolaman 05:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gflores Talk 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RJH 15:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Joyous | Talk 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. UmbrageOfSnow 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Un sogno modesto 08:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SpacemanAfrica 04:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Human Genome Project (16 votes, stays until March 4, 2006)

Nominated January 21, 2006; needs at least 18 votes by March 4, 2006
Support
  1. ragesoss 02:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steven 20:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Revolución (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Empty2005 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TestPilot 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Marskell 08:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DMurphy 15:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. VegaDark 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Samsara contrib talk 07:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WS 09:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ugur Basak 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Un sogno modesto 19:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. —Wikiacc • • ∞ 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutralitytalk 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. UmbrageOfSnow 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. SpacemanAfrica 04:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

John Denver (8 votes, stays until February 11, 2006)

Nominated January 21, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 11, 2006
Support
  1. Carolaman 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Havardj 19:14, 22 January, 2006 (UTC)
  3. Frecklefoot 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Youngamerican 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mike H. That's hot 08:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Joyous | Talk 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RomeoVoid 06:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lbbzman 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed votes:

  1. 199.111.225.136 12:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous votes considered invalid, see above. —Wikiacc • 20:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Aztec (10 votes, stays until February 19)

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 19, 2006
Support
  1. User:Llamadog903 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gflores Talk 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul James Cowie 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Empty2005 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikiacc (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ugur Basak 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Vir 17:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SpacemanAfrica 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Terracotta Army (11 votes, stays until February 20)

Nominated January 22, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 20, 2006
Support
  1. Heesung 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Steven 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thunderforge 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ugur Basak 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sstidman 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Wikiacc • ∂ 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Polaris75 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 07:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SpacemanAfrica 04:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The Terracotta Army is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and is one of the most important cultural finds ever. The article right now is messy and must be improved.--Heesung 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This is an important find and one of the few connections we have to the time period and this topic needs to be covered. Thunderforge 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The particular sentence that made me realize this article needed help: "All of the soldiers were badly broken when the site was first discovered". That makes it sound like the archeologists damaged the soldiers during excavation. -- Sstidman 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weather (12 votes, stays until March 7)

Nominated January 24, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 7, 2006
Support
  1. Donar Reiskoffer 10:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Soo 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Empty2005 23:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ugur Basak 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gflores Talk 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aerobird 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Un sogno modesto 19:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Wikiacc • 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CG 09:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Doug 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Fairly short for such a common topic. Should be expanded.--Donar Reiskoffer
  • A weak article that could and should be improved in almost every respect. Soo 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote 90% of this article, so while I don't agree that it's weak, I do think it needs to at least be expanded. However, before this is done I think there needs to be a thorough examination of the whole topic. The differences between Weather, Meteorology and Weather forecasting need to be defined; some sort of topic structure has to be invented. I created the portal as a thin attempt to do this, but I don't have the time or energy to do it all myself. Perhaps a weather project is in order rather than a single article improvement drive. nick 10:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree; indeed, more likely what has to happen is the whole concept has to be fleshed out with interconnected entries. But the main article needs some more meat, and it's a good candidate for collaboration. Doug 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

GNU Free Documentation License (8 votes, stays until February 15)

Nominated January 25, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 15, 2006
Support
  1. Tarret 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dijxtra 09:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gronky 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 03:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. UmbrageOfSnow 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpacemanAfrica 04:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This is what makes the Wikipedia free. This is why this article should be a featured class article.
  • Todo: What it was written to do, the need to work in many continents, the threats it was trying to combat. What has happened to projects that used it? Has it been found, or reasonably accused of being, unenforceable. How has it's practicality been found in practice. Criticisms (but these are pretty well documented alread).

Tallahassee, Florida (11 votes, stays until February 24)

Nominated January 27, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 24, 2006
Support
  1. Krashlandon (e) 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Forever young 13:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Jaranda wat's sup 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tetraminoe 23:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Aerobird 01:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. *drew 02:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caponer 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jhohenzollern 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutralitytalk 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Valentino 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Tallahassee is a capital city, and this article is way too short for a city of its importance. Tallahassee is growing, even though it is still has a small town community feeling. I think the article should grow with it, so when Tallahassee starts to rival Orlando, we will have the info to back it up. Krashlandon (e) 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, this town seems to have plenty of information already; it could use expansion, but so could just about every article on Wikipedia. Considering that articles like Rome and Babylon aren't much larger than Tallahassee, Florida (and, in fact, they're arguably in worse shape than the Tallahassee article is, especially Rome), I don't think this justifies an AID effort at this time. There are just way, way too many more important candidates in much worse condition. -Silence 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, the quality of this article should be comparable to the quality found in the Austin and Sacramento articles (the capitals of the two most populous US States)...or perhaps even more in-depth! So, that's my vote. Valentino 05:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunication (8 votes, stays until February 18)

Nominated January 28, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 18, 2006
Support
  1. Gflores Talk 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wikiacc • 01:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aaronwinborn 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Walkerma 03:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aerobird 02:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Metta Bubble 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpacemanAfrica 04:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

History of Tunisia (7 votes, stays until February 18)

Nominated January 28, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 18, 2006
Support
  1. Darwinek 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. gren グレン ? 10:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Havardj 12:33, 29 January (UTC)
  4. —Wikiacc • ∂ 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vir 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SpacemanAfrica 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Treason (6 votes, stays until February 19)

Nominated January 29, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 19, 2006
Support
  1. Empty2005 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Wikiacc • • ∞ 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Metta Bubble 13:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lbbzman 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SpacemanAfrica 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Das Boot (6 votes, stays until February 19)

Nominated January 29, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 19, 2006
Support
  1. Julien 22:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carolaman 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aerobird 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Johan the Ghost seance 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ZeWrestler Talk 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. *drew 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • References are needed; more information on how the filmmaker wanted to be as realistic as possible could be added. More information could also be added to explain why there are 3 versions (120, 216 and 293 minutes long). With a little effort, this article can be nominated for Today's featured article.

West Virginia (9 votes, stays until February 27)

Nominated January 30, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by February 27, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SpandX 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TwilaStar 19:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Juppiter 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jhohenzollern 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Youngamerican 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rokafela 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jay 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Skurrkrow 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The U.S. state of West Virginia was recently the U.S. Collaboration of the Week and was greatly improved to the status of "Good Article". I believe that with some more hard work through the Article Improvement Drive, the West Virginia article will be given featured article status. --Caponer 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. I'd rather work on getting United States up to Featured Article status first; wouldn't you? Despite being an infinitely more important article and one of the most widely-linked-to-pages (115,788 pages link to United States, making it the 7th-most-widely-linked page and the most widely linked page on Wikipedia other than fair use and various Wikipedia-namespace pages) and widely-visited articles on all of Wikipedia, it's not even up to "Good Article" status yet and has countless deficiencies. In particular, since West Virginia has already recently received a lot of improvement and has risen in status, it's not really necessary to give it even more attention so soon. Rushed FAs are often too unstable. -Silence 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate it, and it shall receive my support. youngamerican (talk)     19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luxor (4 votes, stays until February 15)

Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 15, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wikiacc • • ∞ 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Durantalk 11:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SpacemanAfrica 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • An absolutely appalling article for what is one of the premier tourist destinations within modern Egypt. As the ancient capital of Egypt over several dynasties and a showcase of ancient religious and funerary architecture, possibly uneuqalled anywhere in the world, Luxor definitely deserves a campaign of concerted improvement. Paul James Cowie 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic violence (6 votes, stays until February 23, 2006)

Nominated February 2, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 23, 2006
Support
  1. Djbaniel 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --DanielCD 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Melaen 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Joe Decker 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. dafydd 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SpacemanAfrica 04:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

German law (8 votes, stays until February 22 2006)

Nominated February 1, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 22, 2006
Support
  1. // paroxysm (n) 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caponer 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jhohenzollern 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TwilaStar 08:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rokafela 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SpandX 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpacemanAfrica 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Early 2000s recession (3 votes, stays until February 16, 2006)

Nominated February 2, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 16, 2006
Support
  1. Juppiter 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caponer 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jhohenzollern 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Austria (9 votes, stays until March 3, 2006)

Nominated February 3, 2006; needs at least 12 votes by March 3, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikiacc ( | ∞) 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Juppiter 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jhohenzollern 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Skurrkrow 06:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutralitytalk 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TwilaStar 08:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SpandX 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rokafela 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Albany, New York (2 vote, stays until February 11, 2006)

Nominated February 4, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 11, 2006
Support
  1. Juppiter 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Capital of New York State, historical site of the Albany Plan of Union, host of many important sites, location where the Thruway becomes I-87 instead of I-90. An important city (and my hometown) whose importance has been too overlooked for too long! Juppiter 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark (12 votes, stays until March 12, 2006)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 15 votes by March 12, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jhohenzollern 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Skurrkrow 06:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutralitytalk 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TwilaStar 08:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SpandX 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul James Cowie 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rokafela 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RJH 15:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Gflores Talk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wikiacc ( | ∞) 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Lbbzman 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • With all of the media coverage of violent outrage against the Kingdom of Denmark and the cartoons that caused the chaos, I think it would be appropriate to bring the main page of the country up to featured article status. Ignorant cartoons aside, it's a beautiful European democracy with a long and varying history. With a few edits and additions, it could be featured article within a week easily. --Caponer 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence (8 votes, stays until February 26, 2006)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 26, 2006
Support
  1. Un sogno modesto 08:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SpandX 08:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul James Cowie 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JoJan 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rokafela 18:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Caponer 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jhohenzollern 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. TwilaStar 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A city full of history and culture, the article needs housecleaning. For instance, there's nothing about climate. The article could use better organization and general help. Florence is such an important part of Italian and Western history; I think it deserves much more attention.
  • Definitely general improvements to be made to this influential and popular city. It would also be good to a new article leading off this main article for the History of Florence, if not created already... Paul James Cowie 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History of Florence (8 votes, stays until February 26 2006)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 26, 2006
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rokafela 18:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Un sogno modesto 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caponer 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jhohenzollern 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. JoJan 09:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SpandX 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. TwilaStar 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Bucharest (5 votes, stays until February 19, 2006)

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by February 19, 2006
Support
  1. Caponer 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jhohenzollern 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rokafela 04:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SpandX 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TwilaStar 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Tectonic plate (7 votes, stays until February 26, 2006

Nominated February 5, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by February 26, 2006
Support
  1. APower 03:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TestPilot 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gflores Talk 16:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Samsara contrib talk 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TachyonP 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Joyous | Talk 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aerobird 18:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Tectonic plates are a primary study in the field of geology. However, there is only a small article on them. The article could easily be a featured article.

Neolithic religion (1 vote, stays until February 14)

Nominated February 7, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 14, 2006
Support
  1. Ghelaetalk 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Self-nomination, I originally made it as a collection of the deities of the Neolithic, but I did a bad job at it, and the article really needs to be improved. Ghelae 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal computer (3 votes, stays until 2006-02-21)

Nominated 2006-02-07; needs at least 6 votes by 2006-02-21
Support
  1. uberpenguin 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 17:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nifboy 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • This article is in very bad shape for one that most wikipedians know at least something about. I've done a little work on it, but it still reads too much like a PC enthusiast's guide and is poorly organized. Furthermore, the article was mentioned in Forbes last year as an example of factual errancy. The specific problem has since been fixed, but a lot of the other claims made by the article are suspect and could use some revising and fact-checking. -- uberpenguin 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with uberpenguin; the article fails to provide sufficient information and detail - The Apple II isn't mentioned properly, and deserves a good paragraph or two as the first "truly" personal computer. The History section is absolutely shocking, only a few paragraphs long, and not even mentioning Dell or the Apple Macintosh, for example.

Foreign aid (1 vote, stays until 14 February)

Nominated 2006-02-07; needs at least 3 votes by 2006-02-14
Support
  1. Paul James Cowie 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Incredibly short for such an important issue in international relations, development and globalisation. Also, absolutely no treatment given to the political use of foreign aid, whether past or present, whereby a donor country seeks certain advantages within or behaviour from a recipient country..... Could be a very interesting article! Paul James Cowie 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopathic medicine (1 vote, stays until February 15, 2006)

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 15, 2006
Support
  1. Un sogno modesto 06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • A very important topic in today's world. Naturopathic medicine has been on a steady incline in recent decades, as a result of modern medicine and its many questionable side effects. The article is in awful shape and in need of cleaning.

Proportional representation (1 vote, stays until February 15, 2006)

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 15, 2006
Support
  1. The Tom 07:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Dry topic, but while articles on specific election systems (like Single Transferable Vote) have been brought up to featured status, this core idea underlying most discussions of voting systems remains an embarassment. I've removed a whack of original proposals for new voting systems already, but it could do with the loving caress of multiple editors determined to make it both comprehensive and accessible. The Tom 07:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha (1 vote, stays until February 15, 2006)

Nominated February 8, 2006; needs at least 3 votes by February 15, 2006
Support
  1. Imperialles 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Collaboration_and_Improvement_Drive&oldid=38881109"