Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Commenting, etc

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut

Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE

To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

MDAC

Self nomination. This is a very important Microsoft technology. It is now very comprehensive and it is extensively footnoted. Compare it to the MDAC Roadmap and I think it compares favourably! I think it is ready for FAC nomination. - 203.134.166.99 08:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, is this going to be finalised soon, or are there some further issues that need to be resolved? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - The software infobox is inconsistent with others - it has a logo where others have a screenshot. Cedars 08:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised in peer review. There are no screenshots to be had of MDAC, it is a framework - not a GUI app. You mentioned headers, which I asked what you meant but never answered. Could you clarify what you meant so that I may sort this out? - 211.30.175.238 10:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I agree with the comment. However, the diagram is actually the real representation of MDAC and gives a great overview (IMO) of the architecture at a glance. I hope that this will overcome the objection. - 211.30.175.238 11:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diagram is fine. Cedars 00:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cheers Cedars. - 203.134.166.99 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cannot vouch for the technical accuracy of the content, but it's well structured and easl to follow, even with my very limited knowledge. 12:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Ooops, forgot to sign. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. In Image:MDAC Architecture.PNG, the arrow from ".NET managed provider" to "ODBC" points upwards, while every other arrow points downwards. This makes the diagram look more complex than it actually is. --Carnildo 21:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. - 203.134.166.99 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object It's quite a nice article, but needs a little bit of work. The lead should be longer by a paragraph or two, I think. And it needs a copyedit -- for example, Microsoft have seperated the data store from the application that needs access to it through the use of this technology: this was done because different applications need access to different types and sources of data and do not necessarily want to know how to access functionality with technology-specific methods. this sentence alone is too long, has one spelling error, a subject/verb agreement problem, plus some general diction issues (some vague pronouns that makes it unclear what the application needs access to and which technology allows the access, plus it's weird to say "applications don't want" something, since applications don't really have wants). In general, I don't really understand the article at all, but since I don't know anything about the subject, that may unavoidable; still, it's worth looking through to see if anything can be made clearer for noobs. Change to Support Tuf-Kat 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya. On review it badly needs a copyedit. Can anyone assist in this matter? - 203.134.166.99 02:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done a bit, probably needs more. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some changes. They need to be looked over, as I don't understand this topic. I also left behind a few invisible notes about unclear bits and stuff I couldn't figure out how to fix. Overall, some bits were clearer than others (may be the bits Filiocht did), but at least one author would be advised to avoid the passive voice as much as possible. Some commands are in italics, some are not, some are in <code> tags -- is there a reason? I got about halfway through, but I gotta go now. Tuf-Kat 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both you and Filiocht are legends :-) I'll continue doing some copy-editing. - 211.30.175.238 14:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a large copyedit, I'm sure there are still somethings I've missed however. What do people think now? I'm actually wondering if the history needs a copyedit also. - 203.134.166.99 02:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is much improved. I'm hesitant to actually support because of the lead though. For an article of this length, it should give a two or three paragraph summary of the content. Tuf-Kat 04:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've lengthened the first paragraph and added a second paragraph to the lead Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work! I think this is pretty much all the objections dealt with now... any others we can fix? - 203.134.166.99 07:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks very nice, I've changed my vote. Tuf-Kat

Under Obsolete Components, DAO, the sentence "RDO 2.0 was the final version developed by Microsoft." appears. This sentence also appears under RDO. It probably doesn't belong in both places. Kelly Martin 13:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support. The diagram really should be a SVG. Would you like help making a SVG version? Gmaxwell 22:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm... why? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be better, but I'm not good at SVG stuff and I don't see a problem with PNG, at least in the interim. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Because it's an image full of text, so even if we ignore how difficult it is to update and translate (SVG fixes that), we are still left with something that looks like crud when printed. Most of the time diagrams are made using a vector editor, so it's best for the orignal author to create the SVG. Since thats not how this one was made, I've offered to redo it myself. I've just started on it now. Once done, I'll pull my objection. :) --Gmaxwell 18:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The diagram is SVG now. The bottom text needs destuffing because RSVG handles text areas a little incorrectly, it's easy enough but I need to catch an plane atm. --Gmaxwell 19:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American popular music

previous FAC

Featured articles missing pictures

The following featured articles lack copyleft pictures and would greatly benefit from having one added:

Michel Foucault

One image, unverified. →Raul654 20:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

The best thing I could find was this book cover [1] is has a decent pic and is a good size, usable as fair use.--nixie 11:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a book cover, are you sure you've got the right to reproduce it here? Buffyg 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Only as fair use. --nixie 00:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And since the article isn't about the book, we can't rightly claim fair use. Gmaxwell 19:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um, no, that's not true. →Raul654 22:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Since you've made no argument to consider, I am left only to criticize your judgment on these matters. Lets not forget who uploaded Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg and insisted that it was public domain. Gmaxwell 23:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please show me where it says in title 17 that fair use of a given work only applies to criticisms/summaries of that work. Hint - it doesn't at all. It does say that it is acceptable "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" - any and all of which might cover this article. →Raul654 23:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Fair use is fine for all of those activities, but only when the activity is related to the work in question. These uses are not a free pass to copy, if it were the case why would schools spend any money at all on educational materials, and why would newspapers pay such high prices for the use of AP photographs. Fair use is intended to protect public discourse and the expansion of knowledge, it does this by allowing access to unique and important works where there could be little acceptable replacement when copyright would otherwise allow the copyright holder to deny such access. As such, it is almost always the case that fair use needs to be directly related to the specific work whos copyright we are infringing. This same reasoning is why it is not permissible to take a microphone manufacturers product images to make a point on pressure transducers. Gmaxwell 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Fair use is fine for all of those activities, but only when the activity is related to the work in question." - would you care to cite the place on that page where it says this? I see no mention of it. →Raul654 00:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have westlaw access? Almost every case on the use of copyrighted material in satire is decided on this aspect of fair use. Again, complex analysis of the law isn't needed here, if your simplistic decoding of the rules were true no school or news agency would ever need to pay for copyrighted works... which is clearly not the case. Gmaxwell 01:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is complete lunacy. If fair use were to be interpretted that way, which is incredibly narrower than anyone would think, it stands to reason that there would be something *actually written into the law* that says that. Some kind of limiting clause, like "for purposes such as criticism ..." except where the use is outside the scope of the original work. So, please cite something more substantive than 'IANAL and the law doesn't really say this but here's how I think should is interpreted.' →Raul654 01:47, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what more to say but you are completely wrong. The position you are advocating would make any use of copyrighted material in wikipedia into fair use, a view which is consistent with your other dealings with copyright, but a view we can clearly reject as false. You've still failed to answer my simplified argument on educational use. As far as citations, see "Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.", "Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc.", "Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.". A core consideration for fair use is Is the use of the work transformative?, that is Are we parodying, criticizing, or otherwise commenting on the copyrighted work. If we are not, it is much less likely that our use is fair use. Gmaxwell 02:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The image has been added to the article. Stop cluttering this page. If you want to debate copyright policy, do it at Template:Bookcover or some related page, please. --brian0918  4 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
Interestingly, my father (who got his PhD in Philosophy from Fribourg and has a lot of connections to the European academic scene in the field) may get me a free (as in GFDL) photo of Foucault. I just hope he finds one of reasonable quality. More on this in a week or so. Phils 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)
- Any joy? Pcb21| Pete 07:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're still searching hard, but I currently have a lot less time to devote to Wikipedia. I hope this changes after September. Phils 00:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Davis

Has two (rather low quality) pictures - a fair use and a noncommerical-wikipedia-only image. It's crying out for something a bit better. (If peeing you're pants is cool, I'm Miles Davis - Billy Madison) →Raul654 05:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Will this do? I'll have to check for availability. 24.254.92.184 23:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that was an unsigned me. Jobe 6 23:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)