Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

Shortcuts

The Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive is a fortnightly collaboration to improve articles to featured article status.

/History - For past collaborations.

/Removed - For removed nominations.

/Maintenance - ACID upkeep.

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

Though this project is inactive, you can help with :
Tulmohan Ram (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 30 Oct 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF).

Introduction

To vote or nominate you have to be a registered user with at least one contribution that is not a vote. Anyone who does so is encouraged to make at least one edit per vote or nomination to the currently chosen article, Tulmohan Ram (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 30 Oct 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF). Any and all articles may be nominated except:

Articles that are currently at featured status
Articles in edit wars

How to nominate

I	Add nomination Copy and paste the following template to the bottom of the list of nominations on this page and fill it out. Please be sure to spell the article correctly, THE NAME IS CASE-SENSITIVE! ==={{la\|Article}}=== {{acid\|start=October 30, 2024\|votes=1}} <!-- Remember to update the vote counter when you place your vote! --> ; Support: # ~~~~ ; Comments: * (put your reason for nomination) --~~~~ ---- Under "comments" section put explanation of what work is needed.
II	Notify After submitting the new nomination, go to the nominated article's talk page and put this at the top: {{ACIDnom}}

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. Additionally you can give a comment in the comment section; use terms such as appalling and shocking sparingly, remember that every editor that has ever edited a nominated article probably did so to the best of his of her ability.

How the article is selected

Article with the most votes every two weeks or so is selected as "The current Article Improvement Drive article". If two articles have same number of votes, the nominee with the higher number of hits per day over the previous month wins. The following template:

is placed atop the article talk page.

How an article is removed from the list

Nominated articles remain on this page for three "selections", after which that article entry is removed from and moved to the page for removed nominations.

Notes

New nominations go *AT THE BOTTOM* :-)

Nominations

Pokémon

52 votes, Nominated November 4, 2006; needs at least 56 votes by February 10, 2007 Overdue

Support

Thamizhan 21:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UFOPOLI 15:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Celestianpower ^háblame 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A c1983fan^{(yell at me)} 21:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cohesion 19:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go Futurama! Sp3000 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Randfan 00:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920(Mind voting here?) 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pacaman! 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brandon Dilbeck 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FA! FA! FA! TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see this featured, much more than any random species article. Zappernapper 05:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BlueLotas 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 09:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Sure, why not?[reply]
Here we go. -- T H L^CCD 09:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's every article's dream to grow up to become a featured article. Ppk01 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gronkmeister 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sd31415 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (User • Talk)[reply]
JoshuaArgent 07:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Chalutz 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jay32183 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chastity Marks
mirageinred 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CG 19:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Luckyz21 02:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—AySz88 \^-^ 06:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clevedon-Tom 11:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
0L1 Talk Contribs 19:52 24/12/2006 (UTC)
G Ganesh 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Mhking 14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kyra_~(talk) 07:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dreambringer 12:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evil Eye 15:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Danielfolsom 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
// >|< Shablog 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Koyanagi 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aidnked 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pirkid 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EvaGears 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duran 05:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VelocityEX 06:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's 44. Ab e g92contribsBoomer Sooners! 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arjun 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:nicholassayshi 11:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilding87 21:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pea ceNT 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LamarChan 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeri-kun 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC
Bifgis 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Siddharthagandhi 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This seems like a major topic. This was the pathway to the millenium and it still must have a place in everyone's hearts. Make it featured, Thamizhan 21:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Idea. A major topic like Pokémon should have a main article (Which in this case is: Pokémon!). That main article deserves to be featured.
It was/is a huge phenomenon for almost all ages and left a stepping stone to other similar games. The other similar card/video games, shows/movies to fall behind the shadow of Pokémon in a multitude of entertainment venues. Chastity Marks 14:11, 14 December 2006(UTC)
Ah, good old pokemon. I used to love this in 3rd grade. mirageinred 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is really messy and doesn't tell enough!
Very messy article, but an important topic nonetheless.
I do not believe that this article should be improved to FA status, as it is not an article of utmost importance. Considering the fact that Universe is listed on here, which is probably the most important article on Wikipedia, I believe that that article should win. DavyJonesGSB
- There are too many articles about Pokemon for this page to be messy! I for one have looked up Pokemon on Wikipedia before, but never the Universe. This is an important article to clean up. --// >|< Shablog 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't this article be improved to FA status? It has just as much right as an FA as Universe does. All articles, regardless of their topic matter, are all still articles, and should be treated equally. Pokemon IS an important part of the popular culture of Japan and America, not to mention many other places around the world. It's also importiant in the history of Video Games, and the company which it came from, Nintendo. While Universe is quite important, don't get me wrong, I see no reason why this can't co-exist as an FA with it. While you chew on that, go read Exploding Whales and say what you said agian. Jeri-kun 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very messy, I think it should be cleaned up. pirkid 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be improved though? The current AID winner is a complete waste of nomination, because there is little that could be done to improve it. BlueLotas 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not so much that it needs a lot of improvement (content wise, although some content things have been identified), but its more the fact that it requires a lot of people to go through the article and clean it up, source things, and fix some sad parts with prose and other things. Not to mention refrences, and a crapload of them. We need as many referneces as we can get. And referencing an article of this size TOTALLY is extremely hard to do with the "task force" we have now at PCP. Jeri-kun 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

60 votes, Nominated November 6, 2006; needs at least 64 votes by February 26, 2007 Overdue

Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 20:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CloudNine 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sharkface217 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duran 02:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 00:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BigrTex 00:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh!!!! Randfan 00:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipidian 01:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BlueLotas 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Clamster5 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)~~ changed my opinion Clamster5 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gronkmeister 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radioheadhst^talk? 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avala 23:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 12:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sd31415 (User • Talk) 17:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehjort 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go Futurama! Us e r:Sp3000 04:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria 04:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tito xd^(?!?) 07:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sefringle 03:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jay32183 04:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hornandsoccer 17:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TrevorLSciAct 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
St. Jimmy 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mkuehn10 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mhking 14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colds7ream 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sr13 (T|C) 06:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CAN 09:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Slam 7 14:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello32020 17:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim (Talk) 17:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defy 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Davodd 22:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 08:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aidnked 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aarontay Aarontay 03:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terence Ong 04:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
>|< shablog ^talk/_cont 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jesusisalive 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Amphytrite 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Quiddity 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BenWhitey 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tjss (Talk) 08:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yonatanh 11:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man 19:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yeah. Jeri-kun 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
– Qxz 07:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harryboyles 12:12, 27 January 2007
Siddharthagandhi 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myrockstar 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Karla karla ^(talk)

Comments

Providing detailed information on our own website is vital. The "To Do" list on the talk page includes getting Wikipedia to featured status. Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 20:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
High time this article was promoted to FA status again. CloudNine 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia wiki page always needs work. Sharkface217 00:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like another Pluto to me - that page received few improvements as well because the page was already quite large and most of the work was in trying to resolve disputes. The Wikipedia page is already paid attention to enough, and the subject matter is not interesting to the average person either. IMHO of course. Mithridates 09:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASR says that we are supposed to refrain from self-reference. Clearly there does need to be an article about Wikipedia itself - but paying excessive attention to it because it is a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia is not good. Ask yourself whether you would be so quick to support a nomination for a drive to improve (say) YouTube or Slashdot? If the answer is "No" then you are promoting self-reference and that's against policy. If your answer is "Yes" then please look at the pages for all similar 'social' web sites and encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc - I guarantee that some of those are in greater need of improvement than Wikipedia. Either way, IMHO, one should not support this nomination. SteveBaker 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr. Baker, hence my unwillingness to vote for this. —EdGl 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 205.206.146.22's vote per [1]. - SpLo T | '07 _(*C*+u+g) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our most important article. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's debatable whether it should be an article at all. Can any Wikipedian truly write on this topic with NPOV? I doubt it. SteveBaker 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After much consideration, I have decided to support this article. It is important that an article permanently linked from the homepage, and from every new editor's welcome message, should be of the highest standard: this is what we can acheive when we work together. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to make a few improvements to it, but it still needs a lot of work – Qxz 07:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this one become a featured article as well. Even though it may be systematically bias, we can only try to make this neutral. Anyway, the about is meant for editors rather than the casual reader and shows a lot more bias than the mainspace article. Harryboyles 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy

49 votes, Nominated November 15, 2006; needs at least 52 votes by February 14, 2007 Overdue

Support

Comments

A very important subject in the field of biology as well as a Core Topic. In its current state, the article has no references or citations and needs to be heavily expanded and cleaned up.TBCΦtalk? 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is barely above stub class. I would vote twice if I could. Dekimasu 07:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. --Ohms law 11:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Dar-Ape 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A great candidate for improvement. —EdGl 03:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White blood cell

30 votes, Nominated December 7, 2006; needs at least 32 votes by February 1, 2007 Overdue
Support

EamonnPKeane 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xiade n 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coemg e nus 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Territory 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Agree ... needs improving[reply]
Keesiewonder 17:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WS 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diez2 23:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do it wrong 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radioheadhst^talk? 02:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Is it really this pathetic!? ♥ Fr ed il 00:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 02:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lystrablue 17:22, 19 December 2006
SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 06:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! All of us need this to survive, you know! -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 06:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SERSeanCrane 18:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colds7ream 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Natl1 16:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twerbrou 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 07:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GassyGuy 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Derwig 08:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Quiddity 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Iotha 01:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nemilar 10:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tribute to my immune system. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Disastrously poor for such an important article in the Biology section. EamonnPKeane 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 205.206.146.22's vote per [2]. - SpLo T | '07 _(*C*+u+g) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I could give only one vote, this would be it. Twerbrou 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole

36 votes, Nominated December 8, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by February 16, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This was former FA one time, but it is no longer (see Talk:Black hole). I think it deserver to be FA again, being quite important topic. Territory 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, black holes are quite important Go Futurama! Us e r:Sp3000 09:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 205.206.146.22's vote per [3]. - SpLo T | '07 _(*C*+u+g) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 69.122.92.161's vote. Er rab ee 00:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rwandan Genocide

34 votes, Nominated December 12, 2006; needs at least 36 votes by February 13, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

One of the most important events during recent world history, and the page is in a real mess. No images, clutterd text and loads of otherr problems. This should be priority! Jonte-- 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article seems very lengthy and disorganised. This is a very important topic and is worthy of much more than the article as it is.
The genocide was tragically ignored and so has this article. Wiki-newbie 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very important momemnt in world history. In many ways, it represents the breakdown of order following the end of the Cold War. --Tjss (Talk) 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page is a total mess and very hard reading. Let's kick it with a tasty groove. Budgiekiller 08:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable event + Well written article = Amazingness

Danielfolsom 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great nomination. I'd vote a thousand times if I could! Maybe I'll just have to register some more accounts :) Jim (Talk) 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What James Kemp said. Great candidate for improvement. —EdGl 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of Church and State

34 votes, Nominated December 12, 2006; needs at least 36 votes by February 13, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This article was voted as the main article an AID in April 2005. However, since then, the article has deteriorated. Weasel words plague the place, and there is a POV dispute. Also, Separation is a very important part of society today, and shoud be a good article. Diez2 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeps an atheist like me safe from theocracy. This is VERY important to me and to the world. mirageinred 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment shows one reason the article needs rework. It becomes a stomping ground for atheists. The article in general is incoherent, lacks relevant citations, and becomes wound up in the pov of the authors, whether atheist or religious. It needs to be much shorter. CBadSurf 05:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the best I can to prune the pointless material and source/de-weasel what I can. It's way too much for me, though, but at least now it's just incoherent and random, rather than huge, incoherent and random. I'm quite sure that an improved article would last a lot longer than the last one. After all, the angry atheists, "Christian America" advocates, and other people that wrecked the article before in order to push their agendas have Separation of church and state in the United States to throw their crayons at. ;) Collard 07:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I STRONGLY believe any rewrite needs to balance FAIRLY both sides to this issue. Contrary to modern secular progressive dogma, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest the founding fathers did not practice the kind of separation of church and state as the popular media and modern debate would have most believe. I have documented my claims with linkage to the LOC web site which can be found here.

Curators for the LOC web exhibit have published the following material based on factual historical accounts:

“

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

”

The factual truth behind the practices of the Founding Fathers should NOT be ignored in any presentation of this issue on Wikipedia. If these facts are buried or ignored by those who wish to give a modern day reinterpretation of the concept of Separation of Church, then any rewrite of this article will be based on a MODERN POV rather than a historically accurate recounting of the contemporary practices of the day during Jefferson and Madison’s administration.

Mactographer 07:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The founding fathers also allowed sexism and racism. Anyway, this article needs improvement badly. Xiner (talk, email) 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - All of that is rather irrelevent though. Since there is a separate article about Separation of church and state in the United States, this article needs to say a lot less about the US situation - founding fathers, the US constitution, etc - and concentrate much more on antidisestablishmentarianism in other countries, and as a general discussion subject. The US situation should be about a paragraph and it should start with a {{main|Separation of church and state in the United States}}. That's a much harder task - the breadth of the subject is huge and would (by necessity) cover a huge range of religions and government systems. My concern is that judging from the commentary above, this effort would get derailed into making another article that would be almost entirely about the US situation - and that would be worse than doing nothing IMHO. SteveBaker 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... the ACID is for improving the article in general. Right now the article is in sorry shape because of POV, weasel words, and a US focus. Diez2 13:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano

25 votes, Nominated December 13, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by January 31, 2007 Overdue
Support

As nom ;) Yuser31415 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zytron 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BigrTex 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CG 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 17:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Territory 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jay32183 19:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul James Cowie 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Godfather 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 06:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before more people die, please improve this. -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 06:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Lake 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Annandale 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Yes please.[reply]
Terence Ong 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Iotha 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Punkmorten 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joyous! | Talk 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Badly organized and definitely needs a cleanup. In my opinion it does not follow along smoothly in a same tense, but switches between different topics out of order. And we have to remember that volcanoes are on other planets as well as ours. Yuser31415 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church

24 votes, Nominated December 19, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by February 6, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Article needs to be cleaned up and expanded. Also, it is a very important topic and a perfect candidate for the Article Improvement Drive. —EdGl 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an atheist, and even I think this really deserves attention. Blood red sandman 23:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. H4cksaw (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs an urgent clean-up !!!!!! Twerbrou 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes

24 votes, Nominated December 20, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

One of the greatest thinkers in human history. His page deserves to at least be brought up to GA status. RJH (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outer space

24 votes, Nominated December 23, 2006; needs at least 28 votes by February 10, 2007 Overdue
Support

Yuser31415 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Territory 09:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 10:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 04:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blood red sandman 12:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starghost (talk | contribs) 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Mks 14:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mithridates 14:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evil Eye 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—sd31415 (sign here) 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defy 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Koyanagi 03:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Rory096 08:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 11:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T0ms 17:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJH (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird 15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilding87 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nemilar 11:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Miopportunity 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)~~ User has no edits other than this vote. Er rab ee 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chastity Marks

Comments

One of the should-be-core topics of Wikipedia, it should definitely be featured, in my opinion. Yuser31415 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agreed; this should be a featured article. Whilding87 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's lack of FA saddens me. Very much so. I'd say that it's a core article, and the FA'd be nice. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It surprises me that such a expanse subject has a small article. I agree with Jerichi. Chastity Marks 14:15, 29 January 2007

Atmosphere

34 votes, Nominated December 25, 2006; needs at least 36 votes by February 26, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A really important article in really apalling condition. Blood red sandman 15:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is shocking. Yuser31415 02:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For such a vitally important aspect of a planet, especially like our own planet's, one would expect a more comprehensive and organised article. - Iotha 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.com

21 votes, Nominated December 30, 2006; needs at least 24 votes by February 10, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Widely known topic around the world, and is sort of important in regards to the Internet culture. One of the first things you learn when you first go on the internet is the .com thing. Maybe we could improve the article enough to get rid of the nasty cleanup tag, and improve it to make it good, or possibly featured. --andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 09:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is something we all know a lot about.--C J King 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I voted for it but… how much could we improve/expand it? All other generic top-level domains entries seem to be about the same size and quality. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could source the unsourced statements, cleanup the article, and expand it a bit. It's really short (all the other domain articles could be improved and expanded too, this is just the most common domain, so it's the most "important"). -theblueflamingo^Speak 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate scandal

24 votes, Nominated January 3, 2007; needs at least 28 votes by February 21, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This was the only scandal to cause the resignation of a United States president, but few people under the age of fifty know much more about it than that. For two years requests have piled up at the talk page for the article to explain its subject with tolerable clarity. Today's reader still doesn't learn why five men burglarized the Democratic National Committee headquarters shortly before the end of primary season during an election year or that twenty-one federal officials received actual or suspended prison sentences as a result. Major players such as Richard Kleindienst - the only United States Attorney General ever to receive a criminal conviction for misconduct in office - aren't even mentioned. Although edit wars rage over at Kennedy assassination theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories, the most meticulously documented actual conspiracy in recent history languishes: this is probably a B class article but no Wikiproject has bothered to evaluate it. Let's fix this major gap in our encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say B-class as well; I assess articles for a couple of projects. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 13:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova. I still ask the "Why?". It has all the info of who was involved with much gusto and mentions the tampering of the tapes, but there is no explanation as to why it happened in the first place?

Unfortunately the article lacks a good grasp of the names. CREEP only turns up in the infobox, and that was the central funding body for the illegal schemes. The burglary was the culmination of a coordinated dirty tricks campaign through the entire primary season where they smeared every major Democratic presidential candidate except George McGovern because McGovern polled the weakest against Nixon. Gaps of that magnitude are all over the place at this article and most people who didn't live through the era or study it on a university level don't know enough background to spot the omissions. It even misses easy stuff, such as how New York Times columnist William Safire (a former Nixon administration speechwriter) is the main source of -gate as the common suffix for subsequent scandals. Durova^Charge 05:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the aftermath of Gerald Ford's death, I think it would be entirely appropriate to turn this into a featured article.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

16 votes, Nominated January 4, 2007; needs at least 20 votes by February 8, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This page is the page that appears at the top of the list when anyone runs a search on Google about Jesus, and is currently only at "GA" class status. It is also probably one of the most important articles we have. Badbilltucker 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally not support an article already at GA - there are other articles that need the help more - but this one's important enough that it really should be an FA. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School

14 votes, Nominated January 4, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 1, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Such a basic core topic should not be this meager. Davodd 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is in need of many more sources. --Kukini 22:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning

12 votes, Nominated January 5, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 2, 2007 Overdue
Support

—EdGl 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defy 12:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Territory 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User: Cuthbert24 14:11, 6 January 2007
SpLo T | '07 _(*C*+u+g) 15:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 06:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigr Tex 06:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Iotha 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead is too short, a few tags to work on (wikify, merge, globalize), seemingly sufficient number of sources but at least one entire section and many "trivia facts" are unsourced, very unbalanced with some sections horribly long and some horribly short, and possibly too many external links. All this in an article about a basic, common subject. —EdGl 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh

14 votes, Nominated January 5, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 2, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Needs clearing up and a lot more information can be added, G8 meetin, live8, university, financial center, castle...
The capital of my home country, the city I was born in, I can't possibly resist supporting this nom. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Edinburgh so should be able to help out with this. Also, if anyone wants any photos taken, my girlfriend is a pro photographer and should be able to go out for half a day and get the pics done: leave a message on my talk page with photo requests. --Jim (Talk) 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information about golf could also be added.
205.206.146.47 00:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Anonymous vote removed Er rab ee 01:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of this article not remaining a B-class, because it really looks much better than that ... -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horse

8 votes, Nominated January 9, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by January 30, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Woefully undercited, rather bulky, and is one of the most recognized animals in the world. Though it's not much of an argument, it really does deserve to be at featured status. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough of an argument for me. I may not be able to do anything other than copyedit, as I know nothing about the field, but I'm willing to help where I can. Badbilltucker 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. I know a good amount about horses, so I'll see what I can do. Amphytrite 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Woefully undercited" is an understatement, and I am one of the editors! I have been keeping an eye on this article for quite some time and adding bits here and there--more often moving bits OUT and creating new articles! The lack of citation is a major problem for FA status, I agree...we may want to first try for GA status...I know for myself, much of the material I added is knowledge that I have in my head, I've only been around horses for over 40 years, after all...I can dig up books and web sites where it can be located, but so can anyone else...anyway, I strongly encourage anyone with texts or good links (University Extension sites are particularly good, they have scientific authenticity that "Susy's pony page" does not...) There are also problems with organization, some things are redundant, and the constant threat of POV pushing of people's individual "thing" is always lurking...the article is also subject to constant vandalism every time it gets unprotected...I think we seem to have won at least semi-permanent semi-protection, at least. Anyway, the article needs help, and it particularly needs citations. I'm voting for it, but just to see if we can draw in more good, experienced editors to the project, not because I think we are anywhere close to "good." Montanabw 04:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art

19 votes, Nominated January 9, 2007; needs at least 20 votes by February 13, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Critical topic for an encyclopedia, yet it has no references and has stylistic issues. Has been rated "A-class" supposedly, but I don't see how it passes that. Failed a GA nom. Keitei (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An embarrassment. --Dweller 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tone veers into the unencyclopedic, the introduction is hopeless, the layout is confusing, weasel words everywhere, minimal references etc. Mark this one as urgent.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did the last big overhaul, so most of you insults are to me, (although if you think its bad now you should have seen it in summer). But I have no time to do anything. Dark Kubrick gave a lot of detailed suggestions for improvement when it failed GA in August and nobody has taken the time to implement them. If you think its unencyclopedic or embarrassing, please help to improve it, and defend any improvement from erosion for months to come. Oh and it does have references, its just that no one has updated them from the old style to the newer in-line footnotes. ... Bmorton3 20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik 1

21 votes, Nominated January 10, 2007; needs at least 24 votes by February 21, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This year (on 4 October, to be precise) will mark the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite. The article is now somewhat incoherent and elaborates on further missions, the space race etc. It is also lacking in-line references. Let's get this article to FA-status! Er rab ee 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't even mention Sergey Korolyov. Sad. But there may be a problem in trying to get sound references for this page. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article is too bad due to absence of in-line references. There is also a bunch of POV issues there, for example: "Both nations attempted to out-do each other in space exploration, eventually culminating in the launch of the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon". Who decided that this was the "culmination"? The "Space Race" section at all should be replaced by only one sentence, stating, that Sputnik started the space race. Cmapm 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see more reference to the cultural significance and ramifications of the launching of Sputnik from a global perspective. Paul James Cowie 11:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athens

10 votes, Nominated January 12, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 2, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Hugely important just as a capital city, there is also a rich history sorounding Athens. Selected for version 0.5 and the next release version, B-class is poor for such an important city. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's article about one of the world's most historical cities currently has no history section at all! An internal link is not enough. Wilchett 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty

15 votes, Nominated January 13, 2007; needs at least 16 votes by February 10, 2007 Overdue
Support

futurebird 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kukini 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terence Ong 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crocodile Punter 13:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zreeon 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultramarine 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goldfritha 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Castellanet 06:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller 11:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
T.C. Craig
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(Important global topic. Article is long, but confusing and disorganized.) futurebird 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I also think that it has become too much of a POV battleground as it stands today in wikipedia. Perhaps there should be a new article on the diverging views of the causes of poverty? --Kukini 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cause and effect sections need to be reworked into narratives or removed, since the lists are just POV. Castellanet 06:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
futurebird really summed it up.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love

11 votes, Nominated January 15, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 5, 2007 Overdue
Support

>|< shablog ^talk/_cont 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<3Clamster 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goldfritha 01:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dweller 16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris 23:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amphytrite 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

An important topic that I'm sure many confused people come to the Internet to learn about. Such a popular article should be better than a B-Class! >|< shablog ^talk/_cont 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could give this two votes. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel the <3? - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Amphytrite 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but does the one for me? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs much, much better referencing and academic tone. -Silence 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peru

7 votes, Nominated January 15, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 29, 2007 Overdue
Support

Advance fee fraud

5 votes, Nominated January 16, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 30, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Interesting subject but has lots of original research and needs more references. Silver923 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precipitation (meteorology)

7 votes, Nominated January 17, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by January 31, 2007 Overdue
Support

Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 03:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 12:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouishoebean / ^(talk) _{(Humour =))} 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Iotha 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The WP:METEO page sums it up best: "Ick!" - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tunguska event

10 votes, Nominated January 18, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 8, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A lot of very interesting information but needs a little more references. M&NCenarius 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek War of Independence

10 votes, Nominated January 19, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 9, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This is the war that started the independence of modern Greece. It was an important war and I think with proper TLC and attention this article can make it all the war to FA. Kyriakos 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Air Force

8 votes, Nominated January 19, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 9, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Ew...that's just...ew! - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. —EdGl 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set

5 votes, Nominated January 19, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 2, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A vital article. Needs expansion of history sections, and it needs to not duplicate naive set theory. Should be a featured article, as it is such a core mathematical topic. CloudNine 17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. - Iotha 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell

7 votes, Nominated January 20, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 3, 2007 Overdue
Support

Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Badbilltucker 16:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 11:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A hugely important article in a really huge mess. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 15:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television program

4 votes, Nominated January 20, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 3, 2007 Overdue
Support

<3Clamster 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—EdGl 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This page needs a substancial rewrite and expanision. This is pitiful. <3Clamster 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe this doesn't have more votes by now. It's a gross article in great need of improvement! —EdGl 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The banners have been placed on the article page as per the instructions above now. That might help generate more response. Badbilltucker 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This really is an important article that should explain some of the many different interpretations and uses of the term, as well as point to the articles and production and history etc. It really fails at being an article now. With so many Television related articles in Wikipedia the quality of this one is a shame. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck E. Cheese's

4 votes, Nominated January 20, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 3, 2007 Overdue
Support

bibliomaniac 1 5 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—EdGl 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bigr Tex 03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's been tagged for cleanup since August 2006. Surely we can pull it out of its misery. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Chuck E. Cheese's! —EdGl 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Lenin

9 votes, Nominated January 21, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Paul James Cowie 11:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richiar 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC). There's a lot here already, it just needs some referneces and a little tidying.[reply]
Badbilltucker 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S .D. ¿п? § 02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caponer 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiolap 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silence 06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not a bad article, but one lacking in depth and documentation for an historical figure of such importance. Let's endeavour to get this to Featured Article status! Paul James Cowie 11:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

5 votes, Nominated January 21, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 4, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Briney! Britney! Britney! Let's endeavour to get this to Featured Article status! Prince Godfather 12:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate her music. Really, really hate it. This is more my sort of thing. Even so, I've gotta admit she has a massive following, and probable does deserve featured status; must be a very high-traffic article. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how much I can't stand her, this is a kind of article which should be an FA, due to her sheer popularity. And, anyways, I wouldn't mind seeing a celebrity get an FA. There seems to be a lack of celeb FAs here. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

8 votes, Nominated January 21, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Goldfritha 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—EdGl 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S .D. ¿п? § 02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpLo T // 11:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bibliomaniac 1 5 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article seems to be rather narrowly focused, especially for so broad a topic. Goldfritha 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already working on it a little. Really needs help. —EdGl 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 8 racing

3 votes, Nominated January 22, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 29, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A lot of "meat" can be added to this article, such as its history and significance in different parts of the world. —EdGl 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLCL

2 votes, Nominated January 22, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by January 29, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

I believe, even though that while this article has gone up for ACID before, it's still pretty much a mess. Almost sourceless, no international view, "trivia" section, some sections very tiny and need expanding, etc. TheLH 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drink

10 votes, Nominated January 22, 2007; needs at least 12 votes by February 12, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

This article is included in a release version of Wikipedia, and has even been cited as a source in a United States court case, and it is currently just a stub. Badbilltucker 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D:! Bad! Core article! Needs major cleaning! And its just one big list! Bad! Bad! Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle

7 votes, Nominated January 23, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 6, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A must-have article for any encyclopedia, this is a mess. The relevant Wikiproject has only just been created and as yet has very few members. This should be a well-written, lavishly illustrated FA. Instead, it's a Eurocentric playground for people to edit war over photos of their local castle. Ugh. Dweller 15:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could the gallery be moved to the commons? — RJH (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaoundé

5 votes, Nominated January 24, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

A national capital, a city of 1.4 million, a Wikipedia:Release Version article, and just a stub. Badbilltucker 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt this will be the winner, but I've got a lot of sources that could help on this and would be happy to contribute if this were a collaborative effort of some sort. -- BrianSmithson 04:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conakry

4 votes, Nominated January 24, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

The national capital of Guinea, a city of 2.0 million, a Wikipedia:Release Version article, and just a stub. Badbilltucker 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lusaka

5 votes, Nominated January 24, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

The national capital of Zambia, a city of 1.08 million, a Wikipedia:Release Version article, and a stub. Badbilltucker 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manama

6 votes, Nominated January 24, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 7, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

The national capital of Bahrain, also a Wikipedia:Release Version article, and also just a stub. Badbilltucker 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial warfare

3 votes, Nominated January 26, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by February 2, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

During the past century, aerial warfare has played an increasingly important role in the resolution of conflicts. So the topic deserves a high quality article. This page has undergone a decent amount of development, but it is still only a B-class article and lacks references. RJH (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmabteilung

2 votes, Nominated January 27, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by February 3, 2007 Overdue
Support

Paul James Cowie 12:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

More needed on the SA, the Nazi Brownshirts.... Considering the importance of the role of the SA in Hitler's rise to power, this article is quite underdeveloped... Paul James Cowie 12:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Border

4 votes, Nominated January 28, 2007; needs at least 8 votes by February 11, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

Miserable for such a common topic; looks extremely stubbish. Should have a major expansion! - SpLo T // 06:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Li Bai

2 votes, Nominated January 28, 2007; needs at least 4 votes by February 4, 2007 Overdue
Support

Comments

As one of the two foremost poets of the language spoken by more people than any other on earth, Li Bai deserves a collaboration in his own right. Yet this nomination is also a polite gesture to the government of his homeland: in keeping with Wikimedia Foundation's practice of emphasizing the advantages of open Wikipedia access, support of this nomination demonstrates that people in the rest of the world are interested in Chinese culture and would be delighted if the people of mainland China were free to help us improve our understanding. Durova^Charge! 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborations
Articles
Articles for improvement
Science and technology
Birds Dinosaurs Palaeontology (new)
Miscellaneous
Inactive collaborations Latin music (new)
v t e