Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 25 June 2004 (assorted notes (mostly that this is not Nominations for the Front Page)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

The purpose of this section is to determine which pages can be listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles. A featured article is, simply put, a particularly comprehensive, neatly-organized, and well-written article that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work. For more information on what a featured article should be like, see what is a featured article.

This page is not where articles are selected for the Wikipedia Main Page. Articles featured on the front page are chosen as a subset of these pages. However, not wanting an article on the front page is not a reason to reject an article here.

Anyone can nominate any article. If you are nominating an article you have worked on or copyedited, note it up front as a self-nomination. Sign (with date/time) your nominations and comments with "~~~~". After nominating an article, you may want to place a notice on its talk page to alert readers by adding the message {{fac}} (which expands to this). Please add the date of nomination in the header.

Please read any nominated article in full before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. (Note - all objections must be actionable. That is, they must give a specific rationale for the objection. If nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, then the objection is invalid.) If there are no objections after at least one week, candidates can be added to FA. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If enough time passes (approximately two weeks) without objections' being resolved, an article may be removed from the candidates' list. Anyone may add approved pages to FA or remove prospects that have failed.

After an article becomes featured, a link to the article should be added in the proper category on FA. The nomination statement should be removed from the article's talk page replaced with {{featured}} (which expands to this).

Archive unsuccessful and withdrawn nominations on: /Archived nominations
Archive successful nominations on: /Featured log

Nominations without objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

GNU/Linux naming controversy (Jun 25)

Self-nomination. Meets the criteria except a relevant picture, which I can't think of any possibility for. It appears stable at present edit-wise - the more strident GNU/Linux advocates seem to concentrate on Linux. - David Gerard 00:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support (with some quiet mutterings about including quotes from MozillaQuest...); a good example of how to write from the NPOV. I can't think of a relevant picture, either; presumably if it's ever put on the main page, Tux could make an appearance? — Matt 00:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
MozillaQuest has actually done worthwhile coverage of SCO v. IBM ;-) Tux is on at least four pages already (in three different versions of the Tux image) — and two linked from this one (Linux and Linux kernel), which I think would feel like overuse - David Gerard 00:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry, I didn't mean on the article itself, but as an image for just the main page: ("even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the Main Page (it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself is helpful." — Wikipedia:What is a featured article) — Matt 01:08, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Twelfth Amendment (19 Jun)

Self nomination. I think the article provides a good explanation of the background behind the Amendment, and of its provisions. -- Emsworth 15:11, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Solidly written. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 06:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. One of the images is not credited (although likely in the PD). Jeronimo 09:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've replaced Mr. Adams with another image, which is in the public domain. -- Emsworth 13:08, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Please add details on the Jefferson portrait -- I could not find a catalog of the artist's work online. Title, date? Thank you! +sj+ 05:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added details on President Jefferson's portrait. -- Emsworth 13:56, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I would also like to be sure that at least two US history buffs had looked this over since it was totally rewritten last week; Emsworth is clearly one. Is Neutrality another? +sj+

Humpback Whale (23 Jun)

Self-nom. I am sure there are typos (I am terrible at spotting my own), but I think the topic is covered fairly well now, and it has the all important pics. Pcb21| Pete 22:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. That's a nice article! - David Gerard 23:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 06:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support with two caveats: the article could use an external links section, and I'm wondering whether it's necessary to capitalize Humpback and Humpback Whale each time they appear in the article? Exploding Boy 14:01, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I'll have a scout round for good things to link to. Suitable things I can think of are a) greater depth articles on specific aspects of the subject (i.e. academic papers) or b) articles that have images that show the whole body (these are almost always drawings rather than photos for reasons of practicality!) Ideally the article would have one of these itself, but they rarely freely available from the copyright point of view. Secondly the capitalization thing is a general policy of the Tree of Life WikiProject. We should keep this article in line with the general policy - even if that policy is the source of endless debate :)! Pcb21| Pete 15:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The question is -- is it proper English? Fredrik | talk 15:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • No, it's not. Humpback whale is not a proper noun. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I guess we could come up with a rule that no ToL articles can be featured because there is always going to be a significant portion of people who disagree with the policy (whichever way round we have it). I personally hope that no such rule is required. Of course if there any new issues that are not considered in the 600k of text in the ToL archives (and hundreds of mailing list posts) which led to the current policy then we must explore them, but not here. Pcb21| Pete 17:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm not objecting. The article is quite good, and I'm not prepared to argue with dozens of irate biology-lovers over capitalization. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I think this article should include some description of the whale's song; quoting from [1]: Humpback whales are probably best known for their “songs,” which are considered to be the most complex vocalization in the animal kingdom. . (We have "This whale is famous for its long and complex song - see the whale song article for details."). I don't think we should duplicate the content, but perhaps provide one or two summary paragraphs (if the external quote is true.) — Matt 21:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object (sorry!). I think this is a nice article, but... 1) It could do with a full view (underwater) photograph or a diagram; the current pictures don't really give the overall view (even the breaching pic is obscured by spray). 2) I get the impression there needs to be more raw facts: e.g. [2], [3] have details about feeding, the size of body parts and behaviours (skyhopping, "lobtailing" etc) that we don't have. — Matt 00:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't say sorry. I know putting a nom here is definitely asking for a thorough examination and I welcome it. As I mention above I agree that a full-body image or diagram would be a great improvement but are hard to find. I will send some emails to those sites that look like they may be amenable to the GFDL and Wikipedia's aims. I must deal with lobtailing, spyhopping, (though skyhopping would be cool too I am sure :)), breaching etc in a separate article and reference it from the article with the usual short summary. Pcb21| Pete 08:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neat article. It could use a *lot* of expansion; this is much more important than the all-important pics :). Please provide more insight into how humpbacks fit into the grand scheme of things -- evolutionarily within its genetic family, and in its current ecosystems. What do its social groups look like? How, broadly, do humpbacks interact with other species, human, whale, or otherwise? Who are the people who like to study these whales; who wrote about them hundreds of years ago when they were only occasionally sighted, tell me more of the history of human interaction with these easily-spotted and remarkable whales, aside from kill rates and numbers. +sj+ 06:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    The article states ...the most-studied and well-understood of all cetaceans as researchers have been able to follow the trials and tribulations of individuals and small groups in studies ongoing since the 1970s, but tells the reader nothing of these trials and tribulations, or of these ongoing studies.   More detail on Phil Clapham and his book (perhaps a few words in this article, but a good one-paragraph stub in their own articles) would also improve the article.
    Lots of good ideas here. I will deal with them as many as I can when I get home to my books and report. However I fear the answer to some questions may simply be "unknown". Pcb21| Pete 08:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to image descriptions. Please provide full descriptions for the photos you didn't take yourself; a proper link to "NOAA site", naming the site without the acronym, and perhaps a link to their image-use policy. +sj+
    • I'll ask the person who uploaded them to help me out with that. Pcb21| Pete 07:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Turns out I didn't need to. I have tracked down the source of images and lengthened the description of all of them (including mine). Pcb21| Pete 08:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dracula (22 Jun)

Just edited the article quite a bit, so I guess it's a self-nom, but it's a really good article. It could possibly do with a tiny bit of work, which would doubtless get ironed out in a discussion here, but I think it's a great article. — OwenBlacker 23:04, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Abstain. An image is implicitly required for a FAC, and I'm sure you could get a good picture for this article. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:15, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose for the moment: it really does need a picture. Can we track down a scan of the first edition cover? - David Gerard 23:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support shortly: Found a picture and loaded it, placing it in the Plot section of the article. CyclopsScott 03:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Heh, exactly as asked for :-) Not an objection, but a suggestion: a pic of a depiction of Dracula. Are any film stills PD yet? - David Gerard 07:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've just uploaded Image:DraculaLugosi1931Poster.jpg, but I've not put it on the page, as I don't know if a 1931 film poster would be PD yet in the US (see Talk: page. Equally, someone who has image-editing software installed (I'm at a client's office, so can't do anything here, unfort) might want to resize it and get it down from its current 222kb. OwenBlacker 12:13, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Not a vote: the article's not bad, but I'm not sure it's gripping, either. The writing's ok, but I'm not sure it's spectacular. Could use another photo, though. Exploding Boy 13:52, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Object. Compare with Superman and see my most recent comments on Talk:Dracula. Lovely article, but confused; needs further detail, clarification, splitting off of the literary criticism (which could use its own smaller article) from the article about the icon (and its many modern facets). +sj+ 04:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Separation of powers (US) (21 Jun)

Self-nomination. (Note: The above title has been shown in a condensed form so that this page's TOC is not too wide.) -- Emsworth 19:50, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Another gem. I've added two sections to the end that somebody might want to look over. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:16, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article - Taxman 20:55, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The section on presidential powers mentions Nixon and the first Roosevelt, but for some reason it overlooks FDR, who I had understood to be the most powerful president of the 20th century. Isomorphic 02:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that FDR did not hold an extreme view of Presidential powers (like TR) or expand the constitutional power of the Presidency (like Nixon). I think that FDR expanded political power, while Nixon and TR attempted to expand the constitutional power of the presidency. (The nineteenth century Presidents are also noted, but for their struggles with Congress.) In any event, I will look into the matter and add any information that I might find about FDR. -- Emsworth 03:02, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Two of the pictures have no source listed. One is a painting, and probably in the public domain. Jeronimo 07:02, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The US Government does not own copyright, so I believe that the Senate picture is in the public domain. The two paintings are so old that they would be in the public domain by now. -- Emsworth 13:00, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • If so, please indicate that the Senate picture was indeed taken by the US Government. This is not at all clear. Also, the Lord Chancellor picture is not dated, and no other information is provided. Therefore, it may very well be copyrighted.
        • The LC picture is 19th century, in the public domain. Markalexander100 09:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think this is a well-written and informative article, and I enjoyed reading it. My reason for objecting is that there's little discussion of criticism of the "US separation of powers" structure. The only thing I could find was: "John Kingdon ... cites its [Seperation of powers] complexity as one of the reasons for lower citizen participation.". — Matt 16:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added sections on the purported misinterpretation of Montesquieu and on the the inefficiency promoted by separation of powers. Is more necessary? -- Emsworth 17:40, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • It's good enough for me. — Matt 18:02, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to image information shortage. A lovely article. I think we should be very careful about the images we use, however; we are rather rudely grabbing all manner of images without noting just what they are of, and when and where they (or the originals they are images of) were created. A good place to start seems to be with our small collection of peer-reviewed articles... Please forgive me for pressing for this double degree of brilliance, but I should hope that every image in a featured article has an informative description about its contents and provenance. "Lord Chancellor painting" does not meet this standard (painted by? when? is that a title or a description?); the image of the Clinton impeachment proceedings is slightly less unacceptable (it should approximate the date and note what news service or government site it came from) and the Anders Zorn image can skate by, but should properly note the detaails of the original painting (which I just added). +sj+ 05:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher (30 May)

This article seems well-written. John Major is featured, and it's shorter than Thatcher's article... cryptfiend64 00:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, leaning towards oppose. Couldn't the cabinets be split off or something? They make the article unnecessarily long. Johnleemk 02:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. There are a lot of words that could/should be hyperlinked, particularly for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with Maggie (hard though it is to believe, as a late-20s Brit, plenty such people do exist ;o) — I'll prolly go through and do some of these later this evening. A copy of the (rather famous) photo of her leaving Downing Street, with tears in her eyes, seems notable by its absence, though; there must be one that doesn't present copyright issues, surely? I'm inclined to agree with Johnleemk about the Cabinet lists, though. I think they should be split off to another page. I could be convinced on these last two points, though; I definitely will support this being FA at some point soon. — OwenBlacker 19:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Right, I've done that (and read it through even more carefully as a result). I'll support this once there's another image or two to break up the copy a little. I'd suggest a photo from the aftermath of the [{Brighton Bomb]] and Maggie crying in the car, leaving Downing Street, as they're both memorable sets of images, one of any of her Conference speeches at the podium would prolly suffice, if that's the best anyone can do... ;o) — OwenBlacker 21:27, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • I added another photo. Changing back to no objections. →Raul654 05:54, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • The Brighton bomb and the Maggie leaving Downing Street were unique events with considerable historic and educational value. Thus they are ideal candidates for a fair use of photos from one of the various news sources. The argument for a podium speech photo is harder to justify. I like the article. Pcb21| Pete 22:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • The new photo is great, but I really do think it needs at least one of her leaving Downing Street or the Brighton Bomb. Definitely an improvement (thanks, Raul), but I think I continue to object until at least one of these two events is pictures on the article; the new photo is just a little too nondescript... OwenBlacker 12:14, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - TOC is too long (see guidelines). I suggest moving all the cabinet stuff to a separate daughter article. --mav 06:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Cabinets spun off. TOC is about 40% smaller now. →Raul654 06:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Much better, thanks. --mav
        • Some of us are worried about butchering articles just so the remainder looks neat enough to satisfy the whims of the FAC process. It seems a backwards way to do things. Although layout is important, content is king. See Talk:Margaret Thatcher.
  • Support. — Matt 14:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Brilliant. +sj+ 06:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. TreyHarris 15:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Titles

It seems to me that this article has to meet the same fate as Ian McKellen, as it refers to "Thatcher," just as Ian McKellen refers to "McKellen." So if that article gets disqualified as an FA for that usage, this one has to be, too. --TreyHarris 01:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thatcher is a baroness. Peers are referred to by just their last names. And for the period before she became a peer, there's certainly not a problem. john k 06:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is our policy to refer to her as "Lady Thatcher" or "Baroness Thatcher"? I think that "Lady" might be more appropriate for references after the first (if even that is used, instead of just "Thatcher"). It's like referring to a Countess as "the Countess of X" first and "Lady X" or "X" thereafter. -- Emsworth 17:10, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm not all that bothered about the use of titles either way, as long as the article is internally consistent, I think Wikipedia-wide consistency is merely a nice-to-have. — OwenBlacker 19:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm hereby declaring that peerage titles should not be used in the article, and that this objection is moot. →Raul654 06:00, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree that titles need not be used when referring to the period during which the Lady Thatcher was not a Baroness. For the period she was a Baroness, however, I think that "Margaret Thatcher" would be innapropriate. Better would be "Lady Thatcher" or just "Thatcher." That being said, I agree that this objection is not germane. -- Emsworth 22:24, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Mission Earth (novel) (19 Jun)

Self nomination, I think it satisfies all of the criteria except a picture (not really possible). Will interest anyone who wonders about those huge piles of Hubbard books in the remaindered and second-hand stores. A controversial topic, but not a controversial article - David Gerard 15:53, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note: There is a project called "Mission Earth", a computer simulation project, which will probably get an article some time (I'll try to do it today). As such, I've moved this to Mission Earth (novel) and fixed links - David Gerard 21:30, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It is usually ok to include a book cover as fair use. ✏ Sverdrup 18:45, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll find one and add it - David Gerard 18:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Cover scan added - David Gerard 10:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The article says, "The authorship of the novel is contentious."; if so, then the first line is POV: "Mission Earth is a ten-volume science fiction novel by L. Ron Hubbard".2) I'm not sure about this line from the plot synopsis; can we tweak it?: "Fleet Combat Engineer Jettero Heller, a character who is so perfect, incorruptible, and flawless that he makes James Bond look like a rank amateur." 3) Generally in the plot synopsis section, it's hard to tell whether certain sentiments are those expressed in the book or whether they have been injected by the writer of the synopsis: "Rock music is used in the novel to spread sexual deviancy, especially homosexuality, among the population of Earth.", "...two man-hating lesbians (who end up marrying Gris after he rapes them and thereby "cures" them of their lesbianism)" 4) Can we have the year of first publication after each volume in the "Volumes" section? — Matt 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • 1. It is generally accepted that Hubbard wrote it, but the authorship has been questioned on the grounds stated. However, Young came forward and described the circumstances of the novel's production and his account is generally accepted by all except the CoS. Better wording suggestions are welcomed. 2, 3. User:Modemac wrote most of the plot summary - I'll try to invoke him here. I wondered about 2, but I'm pretty sure 3 is the way the book presents the opinions therein; I think it would be silly to put "The book says" all the way through the synopsis. 4. Added - David Gerard 14:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks, the dates help. Maybe we need to tone down the questioning of the authorship instead, if it's generally accepted to by Hubbard's own work? e.g., rewording "many have doubted" and "contentious", and noting that it is generally accepted. On the other hand, maybe putting a parenthetical remark in the first paragraph would do it? — Matt 16:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Regarding the plot synopsis: The James Bond comment is indeed mine, and can be removed if you wish. The perfection and incorruptibility of the lead character is hammered `into the reader's head shortly after the beginning of the first book, so I don't think my comment is inappropriate. The bit about rock music, sexual deviancy, and man-hating lesbians is (unfortunately) spelled out in the books themselves, and they are not simply my conjecture. The lesbian stuff takes place between book 4 and 5, for instance.--Modemac 19:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Cut the James Bond bit - David Gerard 22:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry to hear that; personally, I thought it was sharp, good writing. Ah, 1911....[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Authorship section reworded and shuffled quite a bit; I think it's clear now - David Gerard 18:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • A fine article, but not yet brilliant. Object for now. The sections could be refactored - The psychology of Hubbard and Young;
    • This does not seem to be a specific actionable objection. Please ask for something in particular.
  • what Young said about Hubbard and in his notes;
    • RVY's stuff about what it was like to work with Hubbard belongs in L. Ron Hubbard, I would have thought. I'll go through again and see what can be added.
  • and the new terminology coined in the novels and about them (the aside about "dekalogy") should find their own place in the article.
    • I'm not clear on what you mean by "should find their own place in the article."
  • The article feels incomplete. Is the synopsis one of the entire decalogue? Does it end without real conclusion? The article introduces a few characters, but there must have been many more over the course of the million words. Who were they?
    • It's a paralysingly slow-moving book. LRH had given up brevity; when you have thousands of followers who regard you as their messiah and give you all their money, it's hard to accept the need for editors. (That too belongs in the LRH article.)
  • Listing the 10 books without any note as to their differences seems hasty, considering the brevity of the article.
    • They're ten slices of a single sausage. There's probably more to add to 'Authorship' on the slicing.
  • What about non-critical public reaction to the novels?
    • This is mentioned - the non-Scientologists who read it largely hated it. The main reaction appears to be "why the hell are all these books in the remaindered bookstores?" but that's hard to put encyclopedically and it's answered.
  • Thoughts of further distribution or movie rights? +sj+ 05:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • No word of such. Nor do I don't feel it's right to write something claiming absence of something because I happen not to be able to find such; if you know of positive evidence of such, please point me at it - David Gerard 09:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Supply and demand (17 Jun)

Self nomination. This article is probably one of the most linked economics article, and I believe it to be high quality. Jrincayc 02:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • object, the section on elasticity is fairly central to supply and demand theory, and so far I have added only a section heading. Other than that I think it is a pretty good article. I will try to add at least a start at the elasticity section, which may be a bit of a challenge since the Elasticity (economics) article is not all that well developed. - Taxman 17:35, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • I edited (err, mostly rewrote) the section on elasticity in the article. Take a look at it. Jrincayc 21:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I mostly like those changes, needs just a bit more, see Talk:Supply and demand#Elasticity I think it just needs a diagram showing movement towards the equilibrium point which is pretty central to market economics and supply and demand theory. I fully support. - Taxman 16:31, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) Some of the writing on the graphs is really hard to read; the font needs to be a bit larger, or something. 2) The graphs could also benefit from being in colour (seven black and white graphs need livening up a bit, and colour would add to the clarity, rather than using different line styles). 3) The graphs could also do with some copyright information; are they PD, GFDL, Fair Use, etc? 4) I don't understand half the arrows on the third graph. 5) The fourth graph has a stray pixel floating in the middle of it (*cough* nitpicking)...etc. Executive summary: I'm not so keen on the illustrations ;-) — Matt 21:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • 3) GFDL. Feel free to upload new versions. I may get around to uploading new versions later. Jrincayc 02:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've started working on new versions, I have one for the first image in the set here. Fredrik | talk 02:12, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • That's spot on, cheers. — Matt 02:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • There are several supply and demand topics in most intro micro textbooks that are not included. They are: the detrminants of demand; the determinants of supply, construction of a demand curve from a demand schedule, construction of a supply curve from a long run average/marginal cost curve, and the distinction between the movment of a demand curve and movement along a demand curve. Intermediate micro textbooks include compensated demand curves. My question is, "Should we include these topics?" They are all very important topics, but their inclusion might make the article too long. Any comments? mydogategodshat 04:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Feel free to add any of that, but to me, this article should be aimed at the introductory level and any more advanced topics should be mentioned and summarized, but point to the more advanced article. Construction of the curves (more than is already in the discrete example) and compensated demand curves should clearly only have separate articles. Movement along vs. shifts in the curves is nearly already covered, just some clairifcation on the distinction would be good. This article does not need to be an entire article on microeconomics - Taxman 14:11, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I like this article and the subject matter, but (like many econ articles) it needs a lot of work; more concise writing, better layout, and more extensive cross-referencing. Specifically:
    1. Wikification: no red links on the first screen or in the intro, please. A few more links to other related economics, sociology, and philsophy articles would be useful, and could help make the article more concise. Better use of bold and italics can help elucidate new concepts break up long paragraphs.
    2. Layout & Format: This is hard to read! More subsections and more concise paragraphs will help. The double-navtable at the end of the article feels heavy and out of place (after the external links would be better, or right-aligned so text can flow by it), and the second table takes up way too much space. Try to combine the two into a single set of navlinks, with a coherent style.
    3. Images should be smaller, but with large crisp text (current text size is fine; make crisper). Text should wrap around the images. Add image alt text. Use images to improve layout, not to disrupt it; label images and refer to "Image 2" rather than inserting an image as its own paragraph. A bit of color wouldn't hurt, either; say 1 or 2 small non-graph images somewhat related to supply and demand added near the start and end of the article.
    4. Cross references: only one external link for such a central concept? 8-10 seems more appropriate.
    5. Content: Use shorter and clearer examples. Unify use of "dollars" and "$"; "$24 dollars" is redundant.
  • +sj+ 05:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article One (16 Jun)

Self-nomination. I think that some might object to the article's overall length. The length, however, is caused by the inclusion of the text, which was desired when the First Amendment article was nominated. The remainder of the article, I think, is of appropriate length (about 30K). -- Emsworth 18:29, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • The length is no problem. Neutral for now, leaning towards object. These are really good legal histories--they would make fantastic sections of an eventual article. What's missing is some kind of overview approach, something that speaks to the general relevance of Article 1 beyond the narrowly legal. Am I being clear? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You are indeed being clear. I presume you want an expansion of the material within the first paragraph of the lead section? -- Emsworth 18:52, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, the lead is quite good--concise, yet informative. Maybe another section detailing the broader impact, or just material within the other sections explaining what effects this has had on the country as a whole. Hope this helps, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added material in certain sections: Congress, House of Representatives, Senate, Elections and Meetings, Bills. Feel free to inform me if more, in your opinion, is necessary. -- Emsworth 20:32, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • Much better--those were really interesting. Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. TOC is too long (see Wikipedia:What is a featured article), and article is too long (see Wikipedia:Page size) because of the inclusion of the source text (see Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources). The source text should be moved to Wikisource and a link provided. That should take care of all the issues I have with the article (which is rather good). --mav 21:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Done -- Emsworth 22:13, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • I withdraw my objection and change to accept. --mav 03:13, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 07:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. One image is not credited, and two of the other images are only believed to be in the public domain. Jeronimo 09:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The issue of the Senate picture is addressed above in the Separation of powers section. The others are not just "believed" to be PD according to the summaries, which simply give the source and state "public domain." -- Emsworth 13:05, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, but if you follow these links ([4] and [5]), it reads "Images of American Political History. All images are believed to be in the public domain.". There is no source stated, and no evidence that these images are really in the PD. As for the Senate image: see my comment at Separation of Powers. Jeronimo 11:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lovely! Support, pending confirmation of status of Senate picture. +sj+ 05:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nominations with unresolved objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

X Window System (23 Jun)

Self-nomination. It's technical, but we've tried to keep it as clear as possible. The technical detail is put at the end after the explicatory text, so as to supply the detail to those who care without exploding the heads of those who don't - David Gerard 23:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) Oh yes, and it already rated a press citation - David Gerard 00:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. The explanation, especially towards the bottom of the article, could use a lot more detail. For example, what's meant by the color packages? Also, I'd like to see more about its reception. What have critics of X said? How does it compare to MS Windows? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent points. I'll work on those and get back to you - David Gerard 15:33, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. No mention of Schiefler and Gettys. Nothing on X-extensions. Need to better describe the seperation of powers between components, and (just a one-liner) give the scope of the Xprotocol and Xlib. Need to at least touch on visuals, and server-side image storage. Needs a one-liner compare'n'contrast vs sunray/VNC/windows-visual-networkything. Needs a one-liner on window managers and ICCCM. Needs to cover some of X's real (past and present) and perceived problems: complexity and (supposed) expense of implementation, ageing image-model, neglected and/or costly (pre kde/gnome) widgetsets. History really should talk about the looong pause in innovation s (i.e. much the 1990s) where X's advantages were frittered away. Equally history should emphasise the latterday renaissance of X, and a one-liner for X on embedded systems (who am I to argue with Gettys). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:47, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent points too. I can see I've got some work ahead on this one ... - David Gerard 11:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kuru epidemic (16 Jun)

This is a self nomination. But the article I used as a source was pretty good as an encyclopedia article to start with. User:Viz 21:01, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • The capitalisation and punctuation are a bit erratic, and the intro needs organisation and tightening. I'll have a go later. - David Gerard 19:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Considerable copyediting and reshuffling. The content itself is good (and the references impeccable!), but it needed considerable clarification. How is it now? Could do with a picture - David Gerard 20:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Corrected the capitalization of kuru. Uncopyrighted images are harder to find though. User:Viz 15:00 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: 1) A sentence introducing the "South Fore", who are mentioned at the beginning and end of the article, would be helpful, particularly as we don't have an article on them. 2) We should use only one capitalisation style: "kuru" or "Kuru" — currently there's a mix. 3) Minor (IANAL) concern: Talk:Kuru epidemic gives us permission to include the article; do we have explicit permission to include it as GFDL? 4) Why's it called "laughing sickness"? 5) The article says things like "all but disappeared in New Guinea" — was kuru exclusively restricted there, or did it occur elsewhere? — Matt 23:27, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I have dealt with the issues you mention here. As for the GFDL, It was explained in the previous email. However from the author's email we can see that she was very happy to have her article used. User:Viz 15:00 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: I've just done a shuffle and tighten on the intro paras for clarity, trying to keep in mind the above-noted ambiguities in the previous text - David Gerard 00:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. No image. Jeronimo 10:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This objection may not be actionable - David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Eye of Argon (20 Jun)

Self nomination. A science fiction curio which surprisingly little is generally known about - if I say so myself, this article is the best reference available on the subject. (Best bit of working on this article was discovering there is in fact such a thing as a [[scarlet emerald.) - David Gerard 18:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Objecting for the moment. It seems just a bit too short. Hopefully sections like "Chapter 3: Grignr sits despondent in his cell." can be fleshed out. After I've seen a bit of editing, I'll probably take the objection off but not now. TheCustomOfLife 18:54, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Chapter 3 is three paragraphs; there really isn't much to say about it. Remember that this is a novella, not a novel. The text of the novella is linked at the end of the article - if you have questions about the synopsis, you have the source text to refer to. The synopsis isn't that important - it's the quality of the writing that makes the story article-worthy. I could add more particularly clunky quotes.
For length of the article: what is the criterion for minimum length you have in mind? Give me an objection I can act on - David Gerard 21:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh, for heaven's sake. Objection is retracted. TheCustomOfLife 21:25, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As a principle i dont think articles on television series or series of novels or series of films should be featured articles. Muriel G 10:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Er, how is this any of those? (Not that I agree necessarily) - David Gerard 17:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the record, this objection is not actionable and therefore is not valid. →Raul654 17:43, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
(not an objection) Is there any possibility of an image? The cover of the OSFAN issue? A photo of some dog-eared mimeograph? Or better (worse) some (ideally hideous) fan-art? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Presumably Don Simpson is traceable, or someone from the LASFS may be able to help ... I might ask around - David Gerard 17:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Object. No image. Jeronimo 09:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've put out the call for an image, preferably a scan of the original magazine - David Gerard 11:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue (24 Jun)

Very complete and thorough with lots of information and pictures to boot. CyclopsScott 03:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. One of the images has no copyright information supplied. Jeronimo 07:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Gotta second that one, I'm afraid. (The image that purports to be from a video but looks like a promo shot) - David Gerard 07:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fuck (22 Jun)

Excellent article. Etymology, history, usage, grammar--a legitimate encyclopedia article on a word. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • (Not a vote) for the record, our Fuck article was used as evidence in a court case. →Raul654 22:38, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs a picture. (sorry.) Support. Whilst it's unlikely to get voted onto the front page, it's of suitable quality for Featured status - David Gerard 22:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak objection: more pictures needed. I'm thinking stuff like real-world posters and headlines etc. Fredrik | talk 23:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • object. Bad pic - it is just a headline. Needs pics of real word, a help: "graffitis in the streets" or... ;) . The usage of the word, in the article's end, seems just a warehouse of sentences, reaching the redicule and ofensive. How can a subject like this be a featured article? This encyclopedia can be read by children. I've added info about Portuguese. -Pedro 00:03, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The etymology and history parts are interresting, the rest... -Pedro 00:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It matters not if the article is read by children or not, for Wikipedia is not bowdlerized or censored. As long as such articles are allowed to exist (rather than being deleted), they should not be disqualified on the basis that the topic is offending to some. -- Emsworth 00:16, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Objections that the article is too racy are not actionable (see the page instructions), and are therefore invalid. →Raul654 00:19, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The section "History of usage and censorship" needs some subsectioning (and possibly some paragraph refactoring): currently there's 21 paragraphs, many of them only one or two sentences long — this makes it a little hard to digest. 2) Conversely, do we need the subsection headings in the "Linguistics" section? I think it might be better without them. 3) We need a better picture; the current one doesn't really explain or add information (it's just a large font version of "F*ck!"). The graffiti / posters etc suggestions seem a good idea for a replacement. 4) I think the "Etymology" section should come earlier in the article, certainly before the "history of usage and censorship" section, and perhaps as the first section. — Matt 00:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I object as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and all non-dictionary parts of this article can be moved elsewhere, however I suspect this objection will be declared invalid. anthony (see warning)
    • I think the subject is sufficiently interesting to warrant an encyclopedia article about the word, whereas most words and phrases aren't sufficiently interesting: the word Fuck is 1) a taboo word 2) sometimes subject to censorship 3) surrounded by a variety of myths about its etymology 4) interesting and quite unique linguistically. Any writer on the topic of the word "door", on the other hand, would struggle to find material: it would likely never advance beyond a stub. Note also that people have written entire books about the word; this has happened for very few other words and phrases. — Matt 01:15, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think a word being interesting is enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Yes, it's a taboo word, in fact, I think that's the main reason why many people want to include it. I don't think being taboo in itself makes an encyclopedia entry. Yes, it is frequently subject to censorship, but we have plenty of articles dealing with censorship, including censorship. Etymology (and usage, which this article also focusses on) is a topic for dictionaries, not encyclopedias. But all of this is really an argument for deletion of the article, and I'm sure there wouldn't be a consensus support for that, so I'm really arguing something unwinnable there. I have other objections, but they're rather vague and probably are also not acceptable. I think the article is rather gratuitous. The linguistics section is just plain silly. And then, I just can't find anything else. Just a big dictionary definition with some silliness added to it. I don't like it. But, well, none of this is "actionable", I suppose. anthony (see warning)
        • If you believe that this topic does not warrant an article, then put it on VFD. You may challenge it under our "No dictionary definitions" policy. Until then, however, this article is as valid in terms of the topic as any other. -- Emsworth 02:06, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
          • As I've said (please read what I've said), I'm sure there wouldn't be a consensus support for deletion. So putting it on VFD would be pointless. anthony (see warning)
      • Object, the article needs more work. By the way, see door. :) Lupin 10:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • The door article is not about the word door, but about doors themselves. The fuck article is unusual in that it's about the word fuck rather than about the concept itself (which we cover elsewhere). — Matt 10:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I just read the above comments, and thought I was about to come to the defense of an important article being unjustly attacked by prudes. Then I read the article ... It's actually rather mediocre. The "Linguistics" section is not about linguistics, but grammar, and in any case could be happily condensed to a single paragraph. The "Secondary Meanings" section's efforts to analyse the nuances of popular interjections seems pointless speculation. The "History and Censorship" section is quite a mess; it is heavily US-centric, it is basically a series of trivial anecdotes rather than history, and these anecdotes are presented in apparently random order. Despite the section title, there is practically no discussion of censorship. Worse, I was looking forward to a scholarly exposition of the early history of the word and how it became taboo (most "four letter words" originally were not taboo); instead we leap through seven centuries with just four examples and no discussion. Oh, as for pictures: surely you're kidding? How on earth can a picture of a word add to an article about a word already written in the text? I see this as an example of an article for which the usual requirement for a picture should be waived. The only picture i can think of that might actually add to the article, would be a picture of Paul Robert Cohen being arrested. If you can get something like that, add it. Otherwise don't worry about pictures. Securiger 06:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • more objection. It really seems a dictonary on "Secondary meanings" and the new image continues bad. I wouldnt agree on its deletion, because of some content. If it hadnt that content it should really be deleted. The article didnt became better, became riduculous with some new content. -Pedro 11:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to this being on the main page. Class me under the "prudes" mentioned above; I don't think such naked vulgarity belongs on Wikipedia's billboard to the world. Though, I suppose it's better than featuring Internet child pornography. VV 11:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not because of reasons of "vulgarity," or "inappropriateness for the front page" (I think all Wikipedia articles are appropriate for the front page) but because it's not very well written, is lacking in ways others have already mentioned, and the photos don't work. It's a shame though as it's a very interesting topic. Would support if improved. Exploding Boy 13:47, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weakly oppose for the time being. I found the article interesting and informative. I don't think it's as badly written as some people have suggested, but the photographs are certainly not up to appearing on the main page. theresa knott 14:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • With nearly 290,000 articles in Wikipedia, Fuck is recommended as a challenge to our broad-mindedness. Oh, okay. yawn Featured articles are judged too often on subject, however, not on actual quality. Wetman 16:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think I'm a prude, but I will say that Fuck is not that appropriate for a featured article because of the wide variety of people (of all ages) that will be checking them out. BCorr|Брайен 16:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Not really an actionable objection. If it rates an article (which it does), then if it is of high quality it rates being listed with the articles of high quality - David Gerard 22:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we do this hundreds of giggling schoolchildren will come and try to edit the page;teachers will probably stop using Wikipedia in school; apart from a little schock value what's the upside?
    • People are using knowladge and freedom of Speech to support the write of nonsence, and the articles about the beheaded with links, etc is an example of that. An encyclopedia's aim is to gain knowladge about something. agree (largely) with Matt. Pedro 21:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Cautiously oppose for now. Under the Secondary meanings heading, there is reference to a third usage where only two possible usages have been laid out. This sort of thing needs to be sorted out before an article can be "featured", surely. (Alternatively someone can show me where the third usage is that I might have missed :-) --Phil | Talk 07:55, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Weakly though), I really don't like the idea of Fuck being on the main page, because many young children might see it. Comrade Nick
    • This is not the front page election page. See header - David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this is one of the most poorly written FACs I've seen. just an overwordy list. The Linguistics section is a joke. It's barely prose at all. Bmills 07:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK. Could people please prepare a list of what should be done to whip this into shape? I've picked what I can from the above, but a clear summary would be nice.

  1. Expand usage history to cover the period from Shakespeare to the 20th century.

What else is there?

Incidentally, this has caused me to make a FAC policy proposal--see the talk page. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Money (19 Jun)

I believe this article is complete enough to be a featured article. --172.171.166.184 02:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - David Gerard 14:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Great article, but the ==Money and economics== section needs at least a summary of the discussion about the difficulties of measuring the amount of money. Some of that could be taken from Money supply. I put a link to that in the article. That section is also a bit choppy and needs some cohesion. - Taxman 17:32, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Some high level observations: 1) The lead section's too short. 2) There's a "Related Concepts" section early in the article in "See also" style. This could be merged with the actual "See also" section. 3) "Modern forms of money" is too short to merit its own section. 4) "Private currencies" uses external links when listing private currencies. We shouldn't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia articles. 5) I'm a bit confused as to the relationship between the "How did it come into existence?" section and the "History of money" section; should we merge the latter into the former? — Matt 19:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arts and Crafts movement (22 Jun)

Though I've contributed to this, the entry is a good example of a wide-ranging community project with an outstanding result, a hub of useful links, one of the Internet's best brief characterizations of Arts & Crafts. It lacks some good illustrations, however. Wetman 21:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Definitely needs pictures first. But pics should be public domain by now anyway - David Gerard 21:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I feel like it's much too short. Arts and Crafts was huge. This could be the intro to an article/series 30x this size. jengod 21:00, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

El Cid (16 Jun)

A self-nomination, but it's a good article. Neutrality 17:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the edit. Support. Not an objection per se, but there isn't a picture anywhere in the article. Since El Cid died almost an entire millenium ago, can't there be a picture found from the movie version? TheCustomOfLife 17:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. I put two graphics in. Thanks.Neutrality 19:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Contains non-free image. anthony (see warning)
    • Which image? The album cover is explicitly under fair use, and the Cid painting could arguably be as well. Neutrality 18:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The album cover under fair use is not a free image. anthony (see warning)
        • What do you mean by "free image"? It's OK under copyright law, so what are your problems? Neutrality
          • Free content images are licensed freely in the same (freedom) sense as free software is licensed freely. That is to say, recipients are given permission to use the content for any purpose, copy it, modify it, and to redistribute modified versions. My problem is the image is we are building a free encyclopedia, and this image is not free. Whether or not the image is legal for us to use under copyright law doesn't matter. anthony (see warning)
            • This question (fair use images) has been discussed before (see Wikipedia talk:Copyright), and a no-fair-use policy has been roundly rejected. Anthony is just trying to cause trouble. →Raul654 17:51, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
              • No, the question discussed before was whether or not fair use images violate the GFDL. The conclusion was while they are legal, their use should be avoided whenever possible, and "most, possibly even almost all, of the fair use images that we have in Wikipedia should be removed" (that's a quote from Jimbo). anthony (see warning)
              • I see. These are not serious objections, then. Thanks, Raul. Neutrality 19:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                • No, it's quite serious. See for example the mailing list thread entitled [What would Richard Stallman say?. "The Wikimedia Foundation should be a beacon of what is possible with copyright freedom, and we should not allow anyone to ever point at our work and say 'Yeah, they talk the big talk about free licensing, but what would their site be without all those proprietary licensed images and fair use exceptions?'" Not even being able to create a featured article without such fair use exceptions goes directly to that point. anthony
                  • I'm moving this back up to nominations without objections. If people feel that the images are not acceptable, they can replace, credit, or modify them as they see fit. Neutrality 05:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                    • I moved it back. There is no requirement that the objection must be resolved by the person making the objection. anthony (see warning)
                      • And I'm moving this back again, because there IS a requirement that all objections must be "actionable." The guidelines further state that "if nothing can be done to "fix" the objected-to matter, then the objection is invalid." Neutrality 04:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                        • This objection is actionable. If the non-free images are replaced with free ones (and/or the copyright status of them is documented as free) then my objection will be removed. anthony (see warning)
                          • Antony, please see the Wikimedia article "Avoid Copyright Paranoia." In the meantime, I will move this back up, since you are the only one who has objections.Neutrality 14:58, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                            • My objection has nothing to do with copyright paranoia. You keep throwing that up as a strawman, but if you read my statements I have never claimed that the image violates copyright law. This section is for "nominations with unresolved objections". It is not for "nominations with more than one unresolved objection". Also, there are multiple other unresolved objections besides mine. anthony (see warning)
  • Object. Refeers extensively to Spain (a 15th century country) and Historical figure from 11th century (relating them excessively and with POV), and relating them as the country existed at the time and if it was unified, etc etc. And Garcia was King of galicia and Portugal, not only Galicia, both where already somewhat separate identities. Tought the article is interresting all wright. -Pedro 19:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I reference to Spain in a general sense; e.g., "El Cid was known throughout Spain as..." I do not, however, use the word "Spain" as a substitute where more specific terms should be use (I use "Castile," "Leon," etc. to refer to that specific political entities. With regards to the POV comment: where in the article is hat you feel is POV? Could you please cite an example so I can fix whatever problems you see? Neutrality 21:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • In Portuguese we refered to the collective (and independent) kingdoms of Iberia as "Espanhas" (Spains), NOT "Spain" that is a modern (15th century) alteration of a collective name. In that time there was the Kingdom of Leon and Castille and several others. Not a kingdom of Spain so he could not be Spanish, as its mentioned in the article. The most important entity of that time as the kingdom of Leon. We can read in the article: El Cid (1045?–July 1099), also called El Cid Campeador, is the name commonly used for the important Castilian-Spanish knight and hero, Rodrigo (or Ruy) Díaz de Vivar, who was born in Vivar, Burgos, Castile, Spain and died at the age of 44 in Valencia. Suggesting what can be read. -Pedro 22:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • more objection. The image that is in the middle of the article is excelent and the first image is terrible and gives the idea that it's a movie. Main idea of the article: "A movie about a Spanish hero" Both incorrect. Cid is Spanish as Viriathus is Portuguese. - Pedro 19:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I make it clear in the caption that the graphic is a poster for a modern film portraying a romantized character of El Cid. Neutrality 21:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, but dont you think that the other picture is better to put above? it is more heroic and prittier. The movie one can go to the middle of the article, cause that's a mere curiosity. -Pedro 22:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm assuming you meant "romanticized." I've edited the article to say it as such. TheCustomOfLife 23:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • Yes, sorry about the misspelling. Thanks, TCOL! Neutrality 05:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Featured articles should have a well-developed lead section. This article is long enough to have more than 5 sentences. ✏ Sverdrup 15:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. The lead section is, as noted above, insufficient. 2. If El Cid's date of birth is unknown, the article should not purport that he died at the age of forty-four. 3. The article uses the first person ("we"). I would suggest that it be replaced with "one," or, if the third person is undesirable, with the passive voice. 4. In several cases, the article uses the vague "this." Better would be to qualify the word, for example as the article does when it uses the phrases, "this story" or "this time." 5. The sentence "Sancho believed that as the king's oldest son, it was his right to inherit all of his lands" may be considered unclear. The first "his" refers to one individual, while the second one refers to another. Perhaps one might write, "Sancho believed that he, being the King's eldest son, was entitled to inherit all of his father's lands," or words to that effect. 6. Em dashes (—) should be used instead of ones currently employed ( - ). 7. The article inconsistently refers to "El Cid" and "the Cid." I would prefer if the article uses one or the other in all instances. 8. The article sometimes uses the present tense instead of the past: for instance, "Terrified after his crushing defeat, Alfonso recalls the best Christian general from exile." 9. In the sentence "It has been shown that he was at court on July 1087 (Kurtz)," one cannot be certain whether the "he" refers to El Cid or to Alfonso. 10. Consider the sentence, "In 1096, Valencia's nine mosques were 'Christianized,' Jérôme, a French bishop, was appointed." To which position was Monsieur Jérôme appointed? Furthermore, the sentence requires a semicolon rather than a comma after "Christianized." 11. The article uses "smart quotes" instead of normal ones, thereby breaching policy. 12. Several sections contain just a few sentences. I think each section or subsection should contain at least one substantial paragraph (if not two), or an independent list (such as the list of References). -- Emsworth 18:14, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutrality, it is you that is "striking" what I comment? I continue to disagree on some content of the article. It is not historically correct. We cannot talk about a country named Spain in the 11th century. -Pedro 03:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object in the same grounds as Pedro. Referring to Castile and Léon as Spain is not correct. Featured articles should be immaculate. Muriel G 10:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think Pedro's got a point there. Surely this is easily repaired - David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cardinal number (18 Jun)

Self nomination. Perhaps one of the few higher mathematics articles which are in a state of being comprehensible by non-mathematicans. (Splatty 08:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC))

  • Object. Needs a history section. Who contributed to the development of this concept? Who disputed it? Fredrik (talk) 09:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Could do with a bit more of the lower mathematics, e.g. the simple idea of 1, 2, 3 ... - David Gerard 09:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree it would be fun to feature more articles of this type. The history/origin section is a major lack we have to deal with first, however. ✏ Sverdrup 18:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is not in a very good state. It needs a lot of work, mostly reorganization and a more consistent treatment of the axiom of choice. --Zundark 11:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Switch order of last two sentences in first paragraph under Motivation. It presently reads as if infinite cardinals are identified with the natural numbers.

Nicholas II of Russia (16 Jun)

Nicely sectioned, smooth. Very comprehensive, purposeful and meaningful Avala 15:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1. The family background section needs expansion. 2. The vague term "this" is often used: "prevented this" or "previous to this." Some phrases from the article seem more appropriate: "this advice" or "this time." 3. More needs to be said about Rasputin's influence on the monarchy, and about the various hardships facing Russia. 4. The section on Nicholas' removal from power is much, much too brief. 5. More information is needed on Nicholas II's execution. Why did the government feel that it was necessary to end his life? Were there any in the government who felt that execution was not necessary? Why was the execution concealed? When was the execution made public? What was the reaction of the Russian people? 6. The section on sainthood is insufficient. It needs to indicate if he was indeed viewed as a martyr prior to the sainthood. Furthermore, the first sentence lacks agreement ("were canonized as a saint"). 7. Nicholas II's style was, I believe, "Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias," rather than "Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia." I am not, however, confident as to this point. So, generally, I feel that many sections are not comprehensive enough. -- Emsworth 17:19, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support I like this article because it was well written and informative. Comrade Nick @)---^--

George W. Bush (16 Jun)

Well written. Very informative Avala 15:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. 1. I think that the Civil Rights section needs expansion. The part about his views on marriage needs to be expanded. Furthermore, his ideas on abortion need to be indicated. 2. A section on Bush's religious views could be added. Firstly, one may indicate how he claims religion plays an important role in his public policy-making. Secondly, one may indicate his support of faith-based programs. 3. While the article does in many places mention that Bush has been criticized for his views, indications of criticism need to be made in respect of the aforementioned Civil Rights and Religion sections. 4. One should indicate why Bush is so unpopular with many members of the Democratic Party. 5. The pictures are all on the right side. Perhaps some can be shifted to other parts of the page, so as to offer a less plain view. 6. The article inconsistently uses "US" and "U.S." 7. Bush's relationship with Congress should be explored. His support in each House, and his use (or non-use) of the veto power needs to be indicated. This section would include his battle with Democratic Senators over judicial nominees, and his use of the recess appointment power. -- Emsworth 17:04, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Phrasing in the entire foreign policy section is consistently awkward, and does not exactly exemplify NPOV. Also, why is there a "Legislation" section? Presidents cannot introduce legislation in or vote upon any bills before either house of the Congress; IIRC the only thing Bush has done on those bills is not veto them. And I have reservations about featuring candidates for office on the Main Page, but I'll save those for Raul if/when this receives FA status. - jredmond 19:14, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, re: the "Legislation" section, he has a good amount of influence here--when I mention "the Bush tax cuts", everyone knows what I mean (everyone being fellow Americans). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:35, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Most Americans understand that - while you and I may have paid attention in civics classes, I can't say that everybody else did. (cf. the endless explanations of the Electoral College in the US media four years ago) Also, not everybody who reads here is an American. And "influence" is a slippery term... he farmed most of that work off to party whips in either house. - jredmond 19:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Very likely to get vandalized or deterioriate due to edit wars during the election campaign in the US. Looks bad for Wikipedia; besides, it's unnecessary to stimulate mishaps by flashing for the article on the frontpage. --Ruhrjung 19:22, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • This is not the front page election page. See header- David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I haven't read the article, but regardless of its content I think it would be a bad idea to put this on the front page. Doing so would probably attract ugly edit wars as partisan newcomers from one view or another tried to add or delete material. The article might or might not be featured quality now, but give it half a day on the front page and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be. Isomorphic 01:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This is not the front page election page. See header - David Gerard 18:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=4282465"