Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Delirium (talk | contribs) at 10:33, 21 January 2004 (second Poetry of the United States). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This page works similar to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, only the other way around: If a page is listed here for at least a week with no objections, it can be added to Wikipedia:Featured articles. If there are objections, they have to be worked out, until a nearly unanimous consensus is reached. However, if the article with objections remains listed here for more than a month, the nomination will be archived in Wikipedia:Feature candidates/Archived nominations.

If you nominate a page to which you have contributed all or a large majority of content, then it must be seconded by at least one more person in order to be accepted. Some people may object to self-nominations on principle.

If you are trying to decide whether to nominate or second an article for featuring, it is worth reading Wikipedia:The perfect article to see how high the bar can be set.

Also, be sure to sign (with date/time) your nomination ("~~~~" in the editor). If a nomination, comment, or objection is not signed it might be ignored.

After nominating an article, you may want to place a notice on it to alert readers:

''This article has been nominated on [[Wikipedia:Feature candidates]]. Please refer to that page if you wish to second or contest the nomination.''

If an article's nomination is accepted, this statement should be removed and a notice placed at the top of the talk page:

''This is a [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]].''
Join the Wikipedia:Cleaning department to help maintain this page!

See also:

  • Geyser -- Partly self-nomiated by: mav 01:00, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I like this too but sadly can't be an official seconder ... the few photos mav didn't take I did! Pete 13:03, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
    • Looks good. How about some more links and a bibliography?—Eloquence 06:55, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've added additional links and a small bibliography in need of expansion by someone actually familiar with this subject. :-) The rest of the article I found comprehensive, informative, and perspicuous—entirely deserving of being called Brilliant Prose. Second. Chris Roy 08:36, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Added 20 Jan 04
  • Foundation Series - Pretty much covers the entire series, history, the add ons, the impact on pop culture, et al. Article flows very nicely as well. Number 3 on a google search (1 and 2 are amazon.com) --Raul654 17:30, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC) (Self Nomination)
    • Support. Although maybe I'm biased, as I love this series. But I did a few things reading this, and I doubt there's much more to say on the subject. Sarge Baldy 08:44, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. spelling and grammar errors (now corrected). Text scores grade 12 on the Flesch-Kincaid scale - too complex. Edmilne 21:19, Dec 26, 2003 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the fixes. IMO, just because it has elaborate sentence structure (hence, a high score on the FK scale) doesn't mean it is not "brilliant prose". --Raul654 22:57, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • And for the record, I ran it through the analyzer here. It came up as 11.1 as-is, and 10.7 when you omit the list of books at the end (all those titles have longs words with lots of syllables; hence a noticably higher score). I don't think it's as complicated as Edilne considers it to be. --Raul654 13:55, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. I honestly cannot see that being well-written and not dumbed-down is a reason for not adding to BP. Bmills 14:24, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Good article, and the writing is not opaque or complex or loaded with sesquipedalian classicisms. Perhaps this discussion ought to go to Village Pump: is an article sub-standard if it requires (according to a mechanical test) a high-school education to read? Dandrake 20:20, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support, and I completely disagree that an entry requiring a certain level of reading ability in any way reduces its value. If your too dumb to read the article, forget about reading the series! Jack 04:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Given that this has been listed here for nearly three weeks, with a vote of 5-1 ("nearly unanimous" is the criteria set forth above), I'm tempted to declare the matter decided and put it into the Briliant prose list. --Raul654 07:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Vacuous truth - an entry speaking of a mathematical subject, that I actually learned something from, and was entertained by readin. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:14, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Clear and entertaining. moink 20:20, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The article is generally fine-to-excellent, but the section dealing with the following sentence needs attention:
If Peter wins the lottery tomorrow, then he will buy a new house.
The treatment assumes that this "natural language" statement must be treated as a formal statement in conventional two-valued logic. There are other (perhaps more plausible) treatments. Suppose, for example, that Peter did not win the lottery on the specified day, but that Peter was in fact dead at the time the utterance was made. Must we say that, in retrospect, the statement was true at the time the utterance was made simply because Peter did not win the lottery? We might say it was false because there is an implicit (and false) claim that Peter was alive at the time the utterance was made; or we might say that for this kind of "if/then" statement about the future to be true at the time it is proposed, there must be some possibility that the consequent will be true. In brief, let's not encourage confusion between meaning and symbolic logic. Peak 09:20, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Concept album - very well written, including the history. Amazingly long/complete list of albums. --Raul654 17:43, 22 Dec 2003
    • Object. [I posted this a while back but it got deleted, then the repost was immediately separated from the subject. Hope it is appropriate to bring this up again here.] The list of albums is nice, but the definition "concept album" is hazy, and the related history is far from complete. Why did the "concept album" emerge? Are there early proto-concept examples? When and where did the conventions of the "non-concept" album come from?, etc. Difficult to know why any given album would or would not qualify for this category. Would Frank Sinatra's "Songs for Swingin' Lovers" count? How can I judge? BT 02:06, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Mitochondrial Eve. "I not only tremendously enjoyed reading this article, but have since discussed what I learned here with family and friends. Well done Jack" (posted 05:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC) in seconding a self-nomination)
    • Seconded. Very good article. Gentgeen 06:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Recently removed articles, and reason for removal

Current nominations

Current nominations without objections (so far)

  • Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge the content critically. Certainly reads as a solid, well-written, "encyclopedic" article with good, even coverage of the topic, a good photograph, etc. Dpbsmith 14:39, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Indus Valley Civilization An outstanding example of multiple authors evolving a well-written, polished and professional entry. Wetman 02:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Ralph Yarborough - I wrote all of this article starting from nothing using mostly the Handbook of Texas and Texas Almanac. (Jan. 15 8:34CST).
    • I second this. The article is very well-written, and the prose is bright and imaginative. - Scooter 09:23, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Medieval literature - I'm rather proud of my little child...it's still perhaps on the short side, but I think it's a nice summary of a big topic. If you think it's incomplete, well, tell me why, as I would love to see others join me in expanding the article. :) Jwrosenzweig 16:45, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Although I lack much knowledge of the topic, the article is well-written and, considering that it was written largely by a single person, it's thorough. Second. Chris Roy 03:58, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Current self-nominations (need to be seconded)

  • Maciste - I assembled and added most of the data; it's as thorough as I know how to make it, about an interesting figure from Italian pop culture. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:12, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Japan general election, 2003 - not sure if the writing is brilliant but the article is completely done now.
    • not an objection or a second, just a timestamp to get the clock rolling. Gentgeen 08:40, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Rao-Blackwell theorem - what do mathematicians here think? Michael Hardy 00:59, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As a person whose knowledge of mathematics would fit under a dime, with plenty of space to spare, I do wish that some note would be taken in articles such as this about practical applications or the significance of the theorem, if there be any. Remarks about "idempotence" (at least I learned a new 8-cent word) don't really tell me much. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:59, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Battle of Oudenarde - Finished this marathon project in about an hour... and right before Thanksgiving weekend, in fact! I cited my source (a good book, by the way), and I wrote it completely by myself (using only information from the book). It's a good article... :-) ugen64 21:38, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's a very good article, but I would change one thing: you need a stronger introductory paragraph. Remember the journalistic style of writing - make that first paragraph a topic 'graf that gives the reader the who-what-when-where-why-how, boom boom boom. From a strong beginning, the rest of the article should flow naturally. Scooter 23:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Restriction enzyme - Needs some formatting of the illustration and would benefit from some art, but the text is very good, I think. 168... 17:42, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Truncated dodecahedron - Although the current revision is a little less interesting... Κσυπ Cyp   19:13, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The current version is fine but not brilliant. The previous version is ummmm... interesting. Very cute but the current version is more appropriate. moink 00:24, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Philadelphia Experiment - This is almost certainly presumptuous of me, since I only recently listed this article on Wikipedia:Peer review, but then, since I got no comment there, I suppose it needs no changes. Keeping NPOV here was difficult, since the topic is rather loopy. I think I did a fair job, but some friends who read the article seemed very impressed, so I was emboldened enough to list it here. - Scooter 06:29, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nominations with objections (being resolved)

  • slashdot trolling phenomenon BL 13:25, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • seconded, I've never used slashdot but this made everything perfectly clear (and extremely funny). Fabiform 21:46, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. I'm an avid slashdot reader, so I can say with good knowledge that this is very well written. →Raul654 03:39, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Too much original research, too few citations.—Eloquence
  • Eureka Stockade - Superb historical retelling. jengod 04:42, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • The article needs headings. Gentgeen 12:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. This currently fashionable and quite obsessive desire to sprinkle headings over everything in the vain hope that this will make complex and subtle subjects understandable even by morons with a 30-second attention span is one of the sadder aspects of this project. The entry does not need headings. It does, however, need a good copyedit to streamline the language. The fundamentals are there but it needs more work. Tannin 12:57, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I disagree, Tannin -- while headlines are sometimes overused, an article of that length should provide the user with three or four headings for basic orientation. So I also object until headings are added.—Eloquence
      • Actually, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style recomends using headlines, for they help orginize the article, both for the reader and the contributer. As BP is supposed to be the best articles here, they should conform to our style guide. Gentgeen 08:33, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • The MoS says a lot of things, some of them good advice, others bad. Life is like that. Sensible use of headings according to the task at hand is good writing. The current mania for putting a heading every 2.37 sentences whether the article needs one or not is bad writing, no two ways about it. A really well-written entry often reads best without headings, which serve only to break the flow. Oh well .. roll on the 30 second attention span. (sigh) Tannin
  • St. Francis Dam - Great integration of fine writing, knowledge of history and engineering and good article design.
    • I object. Seems very anti-Mulholland, needs some copyediting for clairity, for example, the "Also, the dam was built" line in the Construction begins section seems out of place. Gentgeen 12:04, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Pentecostalism - I found this article to be well written, flows well, and leaves me with a feeling that i've learned something. iHoshie 08:55, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Eh. I think this could be much more complete. And prettier. Aimee Semple McPherson on the other hand, is marvelous. jengod 21:49, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Jet engine - A complex technology described well and completely. GreatWhiteNortherner 11:03, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • I object. I read the first three lines and found a bunch of innacuracies. I'll fix those at some point and then you can re-nominate it. moink 00:08, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Operation Bojinka Mind blowingly thorough, which is what I expect from a wikipedia article. Amazed me repeatedly with how in depth and intricate it is. Jack 04:50, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Lead paragraph needs more info so it could stand alone as an entry in a concise encyclopedia. --mav 09:23, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Japan - good content, balanced and the format and heading are complete. -- Taku
    • Object. Seems far from complete, and some entries seem clumsy and problematic. One user appears to be repeatedly editing the page back to his/her original prose. Exploding Boy 11:41 14 Jan 2004
  • Bacteria - great article 217.4.3.238 20:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Seconded, although the article is actually at Bacterium. Gentgeen 08:54, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It's very good. What's with the "history" at the end though? It feels like a "don't edit this, it's been peer-reviewed" warning. moink 00:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Needed and still needs some work, to my mind, but I've been going at it. I know enough to have spotted a few glaring holes. Still, I'm no bacteriologist, so I really think someone like that (or maybe a physician) ought to look at it.168... 00:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Not brilliant. Perfectly good, but not brilliant. My credentials: I took one bacteriology course once, thirty-five years ago. My impression: everything that's there is fine, but the coverage is uneven. Heavy on evolution. Light on pathogens, significance in disease, antimicrobial agents... there's a link that says "see more at Pathogen" but Pathogen is practically a stub. Nothing on genetic recombination and bioengineering. Nothing about bacteria as model systems in biology. Not enough on commercial importance of bacteria. Oh, and I think the picture with the candy-colored bacteria looks stupid; and "cocci" may mean "comma-shaped" but that is not how they look. There should be a photomicrograph or two (maybe a pitcher taken with one of them fancy new-fangled scanning electronic microscope things?) It's a perfectly good article, but it doesn't have any "wow" factor for me. Dpbsmith 01:11, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Settlers of Catan - good content, excellent graphics to guide the reader's eye, and an overall impressive overview of the game. --Chuck SMITH 02:30, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Strongly object. The creator refuses to compromise on any issues regarding this subject, including its copyright status. RickK 02:31, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I disagree. She has systematically stated all of her copyright arguments on her user page at User:Stardust. I may however decide not to argue here to eliminate my personal Wikistress. I just assumed that it was self-evident that it belonged here. --Chuck SMITH 02:38, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • She has stated them, and it's possible that the statement contains only one major error concerning copyright law, but that doesn't mean that the page's interpretations of law and fact are so indisputable as to show all objections to be baseless. A reliable source on copyright law would never say that "the copyrightable portions are not under copyright protection unless the registration process has been completed", because it's false: you must register before you can sue, but an infringement before it's registered is still an infringement. [1] Dandrake 03:22, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Strongly question. Should an article that (apparently) is still violently controversial be even considered seriously? It's hard to see how anyone can expect a consensus, which is what we're supposed to have here, just yet. What harm is there in a delay till article contents and people's tempers settle down? Dandrake 08:24, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • Support. Still a little early but this is looking like an excellent example of how to do a thorough game guide, with good description and excellent, lawful, use of images. Certainly shouldn't be discounted just because RickK is making baseless copyright infringement claims about it. [User:Stardust]] seems to have an excellent understanding of copyright law as applied to games, reviews and commentary on them. Jamesday 09:53, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Should really not have been listed here while still on VfD. Bmills 10:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • This particular article isn't on VfD, articles about rules variants to the game are. I object because this isn't an article about the game, but a guide for playing the game, as JamesDay states, which I believe should go to wikibooks. Additionally, the images are not from the game itself but from an un-offical java based program based on the game that is frowned upon by the game's copyright holder. Gentgeen 10:24, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No, but if the merge suggestion on VfD is accepted, then this article will be significantly altered. I think it would have been better if the nomination had waited until after a consensus on the project was reached.Bmills 10:44, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This just doesn't look to me like a true "brilliant prose" candidate. It's not exactly an ad for the game, but to me it resembles a magazine article—in one of those hobby magazines in which all the articles are flattering articles about products that just happen to have big ads in the magazine. All that stuff about how many awards it's won, why it suitable for every level from family play to competition, how it "showcases the heights of adaptive analysis, which the human mind does best" (whatever that means... how is that different from bridge or poker?) The lead photo looks like a pitchman hawking his wares. It even tells you where to buy the game and associated game paraphernalia, (covering this with a fig leaf "This article in no way takes a position on whether people should or should not buy this game...") It says that "Settlers is perhaps the first German-style board game to reach any degree of popularity outside of Europe," but does not explain what a "German-style board game" is, give any examples of other "German-style board games," or compare it against its rivals. The article's point of view is clearly that of a Settlers of Catan fan. That's not terrible, but in my opinion it is not a good exemplar of an ideal Wikipedia article. Dpbsmith 13:05, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree. It's well writtin, isn't it?
      • I didn't think that was supposed to be the only criterion. From the comments at the top of the page, I thought that Wikipedia:The perfect article was supposed to express the criteria, and it says the perfect article "is completely unbiased" and goes on to elaborate. If there's general agreement that an article can qualify as "brilliant prose" even if it is not a good example of a truly neutral point of view, then let me know and I'll withdraw my objection. Dpbsmith 17:38, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Dictionary - decent content and good references. Need some heading. -- Taku
    • Agree that it's close, but it needs better organization and doesn't flow very well. Could probably be expanded too, still an excellent article but I wouldn't say brilliant -- oppose Tuf-Kat 03:59, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
  • Urban renewal -- I wrote this one a couple of months ago. I had decided to try to be comprehensive and not just throw up a stub, so I spent a couple of hours on it. I just realized today that no one has made any edits to it -- which means it's either brilliant or not worth reading... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Second. A really good, well-written article. Bmills 10:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. If it was Urban Renewal in the US then I would agree as far as I can tell it is good; but there is no international element to it other than the intro and conclusion. It needs to give far more than a passing mention to urban renewal in Europe. : ChrisG 12:08, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Fair enough criticism, I have to admit. I think renamimg it is a good suggestion. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:06, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Ought I to rename (i.e., move) this article, or would that be shameless self-promotion? :-) BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:40, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)~
        • Since it is really an article about urban renewal in the US then renaming it would make sense; but since you obviously know about urban renewal, it would be nice if you could also create a new short article about urban renewal using the generic parts of the article : ChrisG 00:45, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Richard Wagner - thorough and (AFAICT) accurate article on a prominent classical composer, no brilliant prose listing of any classical music topics, demonstrates NPOV handling of a highly sensitive issue. --Robert Merkel 08:41, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. Still needs much more on anti-Semitism, particularly concerning theories regarding anti-Semitic motives in Wagner's operas, also on the use of Wagner's music by Hitler (maybe in a separate atricle, but it needs to be there) and scholarly views on Wagner's actual influence on Hitler. Bibliography is hardly comprehensive.—Eloquence 07:32, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • Second. Excellent article. Too much emphasis on antiseminism detracts from the main subject (his music) and is in danger of being POV. It's fine as it is. 80.255 23:00, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed, this article is excellent, for the reasons given by User:Robert Merkel. The writing is bright and engaging, and the NPOV aspect is well-handled. Obviously, Wagner is a complicated personality, and the article could be longer in places - indeed, entire books have been written on the man, with good reason - but this article does a more than competant job in summarizing his life for an encyclopedia. - Scooter 06:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Dim sum - I've no idea who wrote this, but it's very evocative, thorough, and well-written. Scooter 08:17, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Sure. It lists more dim sum than I've tried! --Menchi (Talk)â 08:33, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Objection: It appears to have northern-China POV, with myths such as connections to the Silk Road -- unless references are produced, I am not convinced. My guess is that many Chinese far from Guangdong would not know what dim sum is. Statements such as 'Almost all Chinese know what dim sum is' should be made VERY CAREFULLY, after substantial surveying about 900 million people! Many items listed also did not give Cantonese (which would be very useful when the dim sum lady with cart comes by.) Sorry to be a killjoy. --Kaihsu Tai 12:23, 2004 Jan 2 (UTC)
        • I don't have enough knowledge to comment on the objection. However, the problem seems to be with the content rather than the prose. If we were to change the parts of the content causing the problems, could we then list it? - Scooter 08:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Alanis Morissette --Kaihsu Tai 20:23, 2003 Dec 30 (UTC)
    • Disagree. The prose has a tendency to ramble, and at times reads more like a record review or a segment of one of those gossipy "Hollywood insider" programs such as Entertainment Tonight instead of an encyclopedia article. The elements of a good article are there, but this needs editing. - Scooter 08:07, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Disagree. Doesnt look "clean" and does not really fit into an encyclopedia. Also i don't like the external links to Amazon under Notable works. bbx 15:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nominations from voting

These will rest here for one week, the articles are still on BP and will remain there unless an objection is raised during that time. Bmills 10:01, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One week is far to short a time to judge these articles. : ChrisG 20:51, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Philosophy, Mathematics, and Natural Science

  • Carbon
    • I object. The line about the change from diamond to graphite being so slow as to be unnoticeable is incorrect. While it is true that changing carbon from diamond to graphite is an exothermic reaction, and thus will self propigate if started, it does not occur at all at STP, as the activation energy is so high that the reaction does not begin. It's not that it's slow, it doesn't happen at all. That's the big factual error I found, but there might be more. I'll go look more closely. Gentgeen 07:07, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Diamond
    • I object. Some items are not well established. For example, the last line in the Sources section is. A city of major importance in diamond trade is Antwerp, Belgium. Yet, there is no meat behind the statement. When did Antwerp become important? Why? Also, in the Symbolism section, we have, The "tradition" of diamonds as engagement rings was created by De Beers as a promotional tool, which they continue to use to this day. Contrary to popular belief, they were not used as engagement rings previous to De Beers's advertising campaign. Where are the supporting statements, what are the refrences? What were used before. In general, I think much of the history of diamonds has been left out. Gentgeen 10:08, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


  • Game theory
    • Object. I don't like the History section. It feels like it was just tacked on later, and the information would fit better if it were incorporated into the main article with the sections it talks about. Gentgeen 18:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Obliged to agree. The History is sketchy, and so is the treatment of non-zero-sum games. Things it would benefit from: some mention of attempts to apply GT to political strategy (Rand Corporation and its critics); analysis of whether the reduction of non- to zero-sum game is of any use. Dandrake 03:13, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Occam's Razor
    • The Numerous ways of expressing it section is a mess. Bmills 13:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Applied Arts and Sciences

Medicine & health

Psychology

Biography

  • Achilles
    • I find much of the writing somewhat confusing or akward. For example, the sentence near the beginning on Homer's failure to mention Achilles's weak spot seems self-contradictory and the handling of alternative versions of storied is quite repetitive. Bmills 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Alexander the Great
    • Some poor writing. Here's an example:
      • Alexander married several princesses of former Persian territories: Roxana of Bactria; Statira, daughter of Darius III; and Parysatis, daughter of Ochus. However his greatest emotional attachment is generally considered to have been to his companion, and possibly lover, Hephaestion. He also took as lover one of Darius' minions, the eunuch Bagoas, as Plutarch tells us. Roxana eventually gave birth to the boy Alexander IV "Aegus", putatively his son.
    • Now I know that means Alexander's son, but grammatically it could be the eunoch's. And what does "Aegus2 refer to?Bmills 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Object, not to English but to POV. The article minimizes his effect on India, saying that all he did was vandalize some little principalities. This would not explain the quite visible Greek influence on Indian art at the time, nor the usefulness of Alexander as an anchor in figuring out chronology in India. Also, the name Iskander spread in the Muslim world well beyond Central Asia. —Well, OK, I also take exception to the suggested some-people-think comparison to Hitler. Really, I don't like Alexander much, but I'm not aware of any genocidal madness in his case. BTW, what is the difference between a heroic empire builder and Hitler? Dandrake 03:30, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ibn Battuta
    • Object, perhaps tilting against political windmills. If you're going to explain what the hajj is, explain it in English; the English word for the relevant city is Mecca. Formally, all this requires is a global search-and-replace; in fact, most of the article looks good & does not hide its points behind unfamiliar language. Dandrake 03:37, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with this objection. Bmills 09:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Culture

  • Crime fiction
    • Object. The original article(put on brilliant prose) has been split into three different articles because of length. The existing article needs considerable polishing to make it suitable for brilliant prose.
  • Prostitution
    • Object. The article is not comprehensive enough.

Economics

  • London Congestion Charge
    • (Not a vote, just a note) This was voted 7-1 to keep on the refreshing brilliant prose page. The disenting voice declined to say what could be done to improve the article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:59, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      In a way, that's what this listing is about. The objector has a few days in which to come up with a specific objection; failing that, the article is accepted. At least, that's how I understand the setup. Dandrake 03:05, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • Exactly Bmills 09:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Film, TV and radio

  • Three Colors: Blue
    • Much of this seems to be slightly non-native English. An example:
      • "Blue" is a movie that is impossible for most anyone to fully understand with only one viewing.
    • Also missing commas, etc. Bmills 14:02, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Games

  • Blackjack
    • Object. The article itelf notes that it is incompolete; and so it is. It needs at least a reference to Thorpe, who started the counting business by making the first full analysis of the odds (or to whoever is claimed to have beaten him to it). Dandrake 05:23, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Chess strategy and tactics
    • I object. Much of the article is written in the second person; I think that such sections should be converted to the third person, as doing so would make it seem less like a chess manual. Secondly, some explanations are lacking in some areas. For instance, it is suggested that "In the endgame, if there is a passed pawn which is a candidate for promotion, the rooks, both friend and foe of the pawn, belong behind the pawn rather than in front of it." The beginner, however, would not know why rooks belong behind rather than in front of a pawn. Lastly, I would recommend that in the section on doubled pawns, it be noted that doubled pawns are often accompanied by an adjacent open file, which could counter-balance the faults of the doubled pawns. But in any case, the discussion might become moot, as the idea that the article is more like a guide (in my opinion, especially due to its use of the second person), and therefore deserves to be moved to Wikibooks is being discussed. -- Lord Emsworth 02:26, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Language

  • Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
    • Needs TOC. The sentence So-called politically correct language stems from the belief that using (for example) sexist language tends to make one think in a sexist manner. seems just to have been thrown in. Criticisms need to include the case of people without language: can they think? Bmills 14:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Music

History

  • Battle of Jutland
    • Object. The prose is not brilliant, though the article is good. Needs a good deal of copy editing. Dandrake 04:23, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Chinese history
    • Object, regretfully. Needs copy editing by native English speakers. Hesitantly doing some, but people with subject-matter knowledge could do better. Dandrake 05:34, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)


Religion and beliefs

Law

Military

  • Tank history
    • Object. As the article itself indicates, it needs vastly more on non-German history. Dandrake 04:22, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Politics

  • Anarchism
    • Reads like a string of unconnected sentences in parts. Bmills 14:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sport

Other

  • Gulliver's Travels
    • Object. A consistently gushing tone of "this is the greatest satire ever". POV of the applicability of much of the satire after 250 years needs review. E.g., the "special cant and jargon" of lawyers may refer to the survival of old legal French, not really applicable now. Dandrake 04:33, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Nominations withdrawn by nominator

  • Hamas - laid out nicely. easy to follow. complex issues explained for all to understand. Kingturtle 05:46, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I object in the strongest terms. In the "beliefs" section, the only thing we learn about is Hamas' beliefs about Jews and Israel. It doesn't explain what their conception of an Islamic state is, how they're organized (no, "loosely structured" doesn't cut it. Do they have a supreme leader? A council of elders? How do they make decisions? How would an Islamic state make decisions?) It's discussion of the complex relationship between Hamas and secular nationalist Palestinian organizations is so paltry as to be embarrassing. Its activities mentions in passing 'relief and education' efforts, but doesn't even say what they are. Hamas has had many famous activists. Where are the links to their articles? This is all through a cursory glance; this article is nowhere near ready. DanKeshet 06:26, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
    • Agree with the objection. At the moment it reads like a piece written to color it just as a terrorist group, rather than a political/community organisation which changed into a combined poitical/community and terrorist group as a result of the occupation. One of the major groups fighting for political power in Palestinian circles deserves far more complete coverage than this. Jamesday 01:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have decided to withdraw this nomination. Kingturtle 05:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=2199948"