Jump to content

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Today's featured article

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karanacs (talk | contribs) at 19:25, 29 October 2008 (→November 4: thanks, Gimme, for giving me a momentary heart attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank, Gog the Mild and SchroCat, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.

  • The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR.
  • The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that:
    • The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
    • The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system.

If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand.

It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.


II.
Write the nomination.

On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page.

Your nomination should mention:

  • when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out);
  • when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks);
  • and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
III.
Write the blurb.
Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
IV.
Post at TFAR.

After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article):
===February 29===
{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}

Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date.

It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary.

If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.

Scheduling:

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from October 30 to November 29.

The chart will be updated regularly by editors who follow this page:

Date Article Points Comments
November 4 Harriet Tubman 2/3
November 11 PlayStation 3 2 2nd anniversary of release
November 11 Second Ostend Raid 1 NEXT TO BE REPLACED
November 14 Surtsey 5 45th anniversary of discovery
November 23 Doctor Who missing episodes 1/4, depending on "Treehouse of Horror" 45th anniversary of premiere

Requests

November 4

Harriet Tubman (1820–1913) was an African-American abolitionist, humanitarian, and Union spy during the U.S. Civil War. After escaping from captivity, she made thirteen missions to rescue over seventy slaves using the network of antislavery activists and safe houses known as the Underground Railroad. She later helped John Brown recruit men for his raid on Harpers Ferry, and in the post-war era struggled for women's suffrage. Born into slavery, Tubman was beaten and whipped by her various owners as a child. Early in her life, she suffered a traumatic head wound when an irate slave owner threw a heavy metal weight at her. The injury caused disabling seizures, headaches, and powerful visionary and dream activity. A devout Christian, she ascribed her visions and vivid dreams to premonitions from God. In 1849, Tubman escaped to Philadelphia, then immediately returned to Maryland to rescue her family. Slowly, she brought relatives with her out of the state, and eventually guided dozens of other slaves to freedom. Traveling by night and in extreme secrecy, Tubman "never lost a passenger". When a far-reaching United States Fugitive Slave Law was passed in 1850, she helped guide fugitives further north into Canada, and helped newly-freed slaves find work. When the American Civil War began, Tubman worked for the Union Army, first as a cook and nurse, and then as an armed scout and spy. The first woman to lead an armed expedition in the war, she guided the raid on the Combahee River, which liberated more than seven hundred slaves. After the war, she was active in the women's suffrage movement until debilitated by illness. After she died in 1913, she became an icon of American courage and freedom. (more…)

2/3 points:

  • 1: Date is relevant to article topic. Nov 4 is U.S. Election day. Tubman was a prominent campaigner for Women's suffrage in the U.S.
  • 1: Notable topic. Harriet Tubman is prominently discussed in U.S. History books. She is probably the most notable African-American woman in U.S. History.
  • 1(?): Diversity: We don't have many African-American women featured on the main page.
  • 2: Main page representation: Haven't seen any abolistionists, feminists (Emma Goldman was early April), or African American women on the main page in 6 months.

Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • An implication of racism is unwarranted here. History simply doesn't keep track of common people. The vast majority of those who made notable differences in world history pre-1900 were white due to the racism of the time. The common folk, regardless of the color of their skin, were nameless and faceless. This is not a reflection on current policies anywhere, but simply reality. The same holds true today and common people aren't kept track of much and I suspect that the vast majority of us will never make history in any seriously meaningful way regardless of the color of our skin. Pre-1900 history will always have more people who were white who did notable things than those of minorities. History cannot change that. I hope that we can look back on this current time and see a proportional representation across the board where every race and ethnic background is represented appropriately in our history books. That said...
Come down off your high horse, Awadewit, the lack of oxygen is getting to your brain. The enthusiastic response of the community to the Tubman article shows that your implication is unwarranted. Had she been nominated at any time, I think the response would have been the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is which came first. The systemic bias in Wikipedia's articles is well-known and easy to document (there is a whole project dedicated to it) - that it would seep into decision-making is only natural. Awadewit (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am concerned that a featured article on a prominent black woman on election day could cause some consternation with the coinciding vote on that day (let's face facts that the first black candidate with a significant chance is going to be on the ballot and some people are going to jump to the conclusion of bias on Wikipedia). However, my concern is mitigated by the fact that her efforts towards women's suffrage are pretty substantial. If Raul doesn't choose her for 4 November, I would request that she be given another day around that time or of significant linkage to election rights (such as Inauguration Day or the date when the electors in the electoral college meet). IMHO, the potential point total is immaterial. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 points makes no difference to me. — BQZip01 — talk 04:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My miscalculation. Still support, but only as a two pointe--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)r.[reply]

  • Oppose Nov 4, Support Nov 5, regardless of what we all may think, we are a limited group of editors who view and use this page; this will be viewed by some (many?) as a controversial mainpage choice for election day, and it may stir controversy and criticism of mainpage choices. I don't believe we should go there; we get enough complaints already. On the other hand, I think it would be an excellent choice for November 5, when people's minds will still be on elections, but running the article won't open us up to criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we shouldn't put Harriet Tubman on the main page on election day because she's black? Do you realize how crazy that is? (Not to mention the irony that Tubman was probably a Republican!) I thought it would be a good suggestion precisely because it would avoid partisan controversy. Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I've read my post above over and over and I sure can't locate those words or anything similar to them; maybe you can point them out to me or explain if you're reading invisible words between the lines that I didn't write? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is it a "controversial" choice, then? Please explain more clearly. Awadewit (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Sandy, I assumed your criticism was a continuation of BQZip01's concerns above. If that is not the case, please let us know what you actually meant. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Assumptions often lead to misinterpretation: I thought I had clarified below when I added, "Drama will unfold if we do anything on Nov 4 that anyone can perceive as election related ... " Some readers will see it as a statement about female candidates, some will see it as a statement about black candidates, some will see it as the mainpage being too US centric, some will see it as politicizing the mainpage, and so on. My point is that drama may unfold if we do anything that can be perceived as election related on the mainpage on Nov. 4. The buck stops with Raul, he gets to make that decision. I'm just saying that those of us who opine here are a very small group, the wider audience always reads "something" into mainpage choices, drama will likely unfold, and one way to solve that is to run her the next day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit my comment about Tubman affecting an election was mostly facetious. I can't imagine the cranial gymnastics that would be required to compare Tubman's role in helping escaped slaves to perhaps the first black president in the US. To those obsessed with race it will be a big deal and they will complain (in fact, I imagine they would complain upon seeing the article on any day). However, certainly Obama and Tubman have nothing in common other than race. Would someone holding a sign at a polling place the morning of November 4 reading "Remember Harriet Tubman" affect the way you vote? It would puzzle me. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drama will unfold if we do anything on Nov 4 that anyone can perceive as election related: I'm in favor of not touching it with a ten-foot pole (same for the McCain, Obama proposals). People say the darnedest things about Raul's mainpage choices, but ... that's why he gets paid the big bucks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that someone would make a big deal of it just makes me want it more now, I admit. I'm not a fan of placating masses of people to avoid unpleasant opinions, particularly if those opinions are not well-formed and come from a place of knee-jerk reaction to something as arbitrary as race. I understand your hesitancy to avoid teh dramaz since you get a heck of a whole lot of it in other places here, but I can't even imagine trying to form a cause and effect relationship (or draw a schematic) between Tubman on the front page and Obama being elected president. People will perceive the placement of Bob Ross on the front page related to the election. Happy votes. --Moni3 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't putting Tubman up really an endorsement of the McCain-Palin ticket, since Tubman is a woman? Or maybe it is a subtle endorsement of the Hillary write-in vote? Doesn't gender trump race? (Awadewit adds more insane arguments to the mix.) I would say that we should be able to put up an article related to the American elections, particularly becuase it is about a topic that is 150 years old. Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sandy. If McCain were to be featured on this day or Obama were to be re-featured on this day, this might see Wikipedia as a biased enterprise. I don't see personally how Palin connects to Tubman, since Tubman was an abolitionist and Palin is a state governor. If McCain or Obama wins on Nov. 4th, I think the President-elect's biography should be featured on Jan. 20th, but that's my two cents. miranda 05:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy is opposing Tubman. Also, I think you misunderstood my post - I was trying to point out the convoluted argument behind that opposition - it was not a serious argument. Awadewit (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Fine, Washington, D.C. - has some tangential connection to the date and should be neutral to all sides. But I'm tempted to suggest Nimrod Expedition since their march started 100 years ago today. Gimmetrow 13:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just how nutty this sounds: Jim Bowie was a white man with military history. Putting him on the main page would prejudice the main page towards John McCain. I'm not being facetious this time, though. If Harriet Tubman invites too much controversy, then we should choose no white man or woman, no black man (or woman), no topics about Delaware, Alaska, Illinois, or Arizona...Kenya or all of Africa...Kansas, Vietnam, Russia (or within sight of Russia)...ok people are out that day. Something to do with math or science. But no economics, stem cell research or abortion. Reading this back to myself makes me seem really vindictive, as if I'm saying since we can't put on the main page who I want then no one goes on the main page. In actuality, we either take it seriously that we must not provoke protest from any group of people, or we tell them to shut up and deal with it. It seems contradictory to the not censored nature of Wikipedia that we would go to such extreme lengths to deliberately avoid controversy, though. It's kind of why I'm here - to help educate people about controversial topics. --Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec with Moni) Please God (or Raul), not James Bowie. I can see it now... James Bowie, a nineteenth-century American pioneer and soldier, was a (Democrat or Republican) who caused the f!@#@ Iraq War and put the economny in the !@#* TOILET & WHY CANT I VOTG3 I NO STUFF too?.... I'll probably be waiting in line to vote all day and won't be able to watch the poor thing. Then again, maybe a lot of the vandals will also be waiting in line...but no, they aren't old enough ;) And Moni is right...Bowie was a white man who served in the military and was sort of captured (in a siege) by the opposing side. Plus he died in Texas, which is a red (Republican) state. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

The PlayStation 3 is the third home video game console produced by Sony Computer Entertainment, and the successor to the PlayStation 2 as part of the PlayStation series. The PlayStation 3 competes with Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Nintendo's Wii, as part of the seventh generation of video game consoles. A major feature that distinguishes the PlayStation 3 from its predecessors is its unified online gaming service, the PlayStation Network, which contrasts with Sony's former policy of relying on game developers for online play. Other major features of the console include its robust multimedia capabilities, connectivity with the PlayStation Portable, and its use of a high-definition optical disc format, Blu-ray Disc, as its primary storage medium. The PS3 was also the first Blu-ray 2.0-compliant Blu-ray player on the market. The PlayStation 3 was first released on November 11, 2006 in Japan, November 17, 2006 in North America, and March 23, 2007 in Europe and Oceania. Two SKUs were available at launch: a basic model with a 20 GB hard drive (HDD), and a premium model with a 60 GB hard drive and several additional features. (more…)

I think this one has two points: one for date relevance (the console's first launch was two years ago on this date) and one for this being my (so far) only featured article. Also, for those who might wonder, the last video games-related TFA was on October 6, so this wouldn't currently lose any points for an over-represented topic. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 11 (#2)

The Second Ostend Raid (officially known as Operation VS) was the latter of two failed attempts by the Royal Navy to block the channels accessing the Belgian port of Ostend during the Spring of 1918. The German Navy had used the port since 1915 as a base for their U-boat activities during the battle of the Atlantic and the strategic advantages conferred by the Belgian ports in the conflict were very important. A successful blockade of these bases would force German submarines to operate out of more distant ports, such as Wilhelmshaven, on the German coast. This would expose them for longer to Allied countermeasures and reduce the time they could spend raiding. The ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge (which had been partially blocked in the Zeebrugge Raid three weeks previously) provided sea access via canals for the major inland port of Bruges. Bruges was used as a base for small warships and submarines. As it was six miles (10 km) inland, it was immune to most naval artillery fire and coastal raids, providing a safe harbour for training and repair.

The Ostend Raid was largely a failure as a result of heavy German resistance and British navigational difficulties in poor weather. In anticipation of a raid, the Germans had removed the navigation buoys and without them the British had difficulty finding the narrow channel into the harbour in poor weather. When they did discover the entrance, German resistance proved too strong for the operation to be completed as originally planned.

Despite its failure, the raid was presented in Britain as a courageous and daring gamble which came very close to success. Three Victoria Crosses and numerous other gallantry medals were awarded to sailors who participated in the operation. British casualties in the raid were heavy, compared to minimal German losses. (more…)

Doesn't necessarily have to be this article, but I would like to see a World War I related article on the main page. Military history is not an under-represented topic by any means, but November 11 is Rememberance Day in Canada, and it is especially significant this year because it will be the 90th anniversary of the signing of the Armistice with Germany, which is very significant. -- Scorpion0422 13:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other options: Harry Murray, Ronald Niel Stuart, Thomas Crisp. Full listing here, but many have already been a TFA. -- Scorpion0422 13:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One point article, for one year as FA. I don't think it can claim points for anniversary, because it is not associated with November 11. I am also unsure that it can even be put on this page while a higher point article for the same date occupies a space.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

Surtsey is a volcanic island off the southern coast of Iceland. At 63°18′11″N 20°36′17″W / 63.303°N 20.6047°W / 63.303; -20.6047 it is also the southernmost point of Iceland. It was formed in a volcanic eruption which began 130 metres (426 ft) below sea level, and reached the surface on 14 November 1963. The eruption may have started a few days earlier and lasted until 5 June 1967, when the island reached its maximum size of 2.7 km² (1.0 mi²). Since then, wind and wave erosion has seen the island steadily diminish in size: as of 2002, its surface area was 1.4 km² (0.54 mi²). The new island was named after the fire god Surtr from Norse mythology, and was intensively studied by volcanologists during its creation and, since the end of the eruption, has been of great interest to botanists and biologists as life has gradually colonised the originally barren island. The undersea vents that produced Surtsey are part of the Vestmannaeyjar (Westmann Isles) submarine volcanic system, part of the fissure of the sea floor called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Vestmannaeyjar also produced the famous eruption of Eldfell on the island of Heimaey in 1973. The eruption that created Surtsey also created a few other small islands along this volcanic chain, such as Jólnir and other unnamed peaks. Most of these eroded away fairly quickly. (more…)

Points: 5 Points: Promoted on August 19, 2005, two or more years ago: 2 points, Discovered on 14 November 1963 so date relevant to article topic: 1 point, A similar article (no volcanoes) has not been featured on the main page for 6 months: 2 points Halgin (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

The Daleks are perhaps the best-known creatures from Doctor Who. Several episodes featuring them have been lost.
The Daleks are perhaps the best-known creatures from Doctor Who. Several episodes featuring them have been lost.
Doctor Who's missing episodes are the many instalments of the long-running British science fiction television programme Doctor Who that are missing, with no known film or videotape copies existing. They were wiped (or "junked") by the BBC during the 1960s and 1970s for a variety of economic and space-saving reasons. In all, there are 27 serials that do not exist in complete form in the BBC's archives, because 108 of 253 episodes produced during the first six years of the programme are missing. Many more were thought to have been lost in the past before episodes were recovered from a variety of sources, most notably overseas broadcasters. Doctor Who is not unique in this respect, as thousands of hours of programming from across all genres were destroyed up until 1978, when the BBC's archiving policies were changed. Unlike other series, Doctor Who is unique in having all of its missing episodes surviving in audio form, recorded off-air by fans at home. Additionally, every 1970s episode exists in some form, which is not the case for several other series. Stills or short video clips do exist of several missing episodes. Efforts to locate missing episodes continue, both by the BBC and by fans of the series. Extensive restoration has been carried out on many surviving and recovered 1960s and 1970s episodes for release on VHS and DVD. The surviving soundtracks of missing episodes have been released on cassette and CD. Both fan groups and the BBC have released reconstructions of missing episodes, matching photographs from the episodes with the soundtracks. Two episodes of the serial The Invasion were reconstructed using animation and released with the surviving episodes of that serial on DVD. (more…)

Points: 2 for age (promoted Nov. 4, 2005), 1 for relevant date (45th anniversary of broadcast of first Doctor Who episode), 1 pt for 3 months since last similar article (The Quatermass Experiment, July 18) if Treehouse of Horror (series) is not put up. But if "Treehouse" or another TV-related article goes up, that would be -2 points for a similar article within one month. So the total would be 4 points without "Treehouse", and 1 point with "Treehouse". for a total of 4 points.

Incidentally, I considered waiting longer to nominate this because I didn't want it to clog up the page for a month, but there have been less than 5 entries on the page for several days now, so it doesn't look to me like "clogging" is a big problem at the moment. Anyone who feels like condensing the blurb is welcome to hack away at it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are a number of image options for people to compare and consider:
  • File:Dalek - Dr Who.jpg
  • File:Dalek - Dr Who black and white.jpg
  • File:Dalgrunt1.jpg
  • File:Dalgrunt1 black and white.jpg
    • The highly pedantic reason I'm favoring the Dalek images over the TARDIS image is that the TARDIS prop pictured above was the version used in the 1980s; the prop used in the 1960s (the period from which episodes are missing) was slightly different. Only pathetic Doctor Who obsessives like me would know the difference, of course. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Treehouse didn't run. So you are in the clear. For now!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope — the episodes that are still missing starred William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton. Some Jon Pertwee episodes were formerly missing, and some exist only in black and white, but I don't think any of the Tom Baker episodes were missing at any point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Per Juliancolton (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks like Treehouse is running on Halloween, see here. As Josiah recognized in making in making his nomination, this mean the loss of the one bonus point for no TV within three months and two more because there is now a similar within 30 days. I haven't taken down the points because it is not in the queue yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Raul still hasn't scheduled Oct. 31, and I think we should wait until he does before reducing the points on this. I fully acknowledge that if "Treehouse" is scheduled (as that diff would indicate), the points on this go down to 1, but I think there's still a chance that Raul may reconsider.  I've dropped him a note, but he hasn't responded yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=248459954"