Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bevo (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 1 March 2004. 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.

How it works

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 and dated, 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:Featured article 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:

Current nominations

Please add nominated articles to the bottom of one of the categories below.

Nominations without unresolved objections

  • Carlsbad Caverns National Park -- Bevo 03:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. After reading the article I still have no idea where it is located. -- Kaihsu 18:17, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
      • Several days ago I added a small state map of NM that highlights the approximate location. Bevo 02:35, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I have to say that when I read it there was no location information. (See history of that page) -- Kaihsu 08:30, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
        • Objection withdrawn, but not a vote in support. -- Kaihsu 11:39, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
    • Approve. "Southeastern New Mexico" is a very good description of its location (there are hardly any people in this region, so you can't miss it if you simply drive! Just follow the other cars and you will get there. It's not like California, where there are millions of competing stories). Ancheta Wis 02:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Approve. I just gave it a nice edit. I did, however, remove much of the Mexican Freetail Bat details. That should be its own article....maybe someday a FEATURE article? :) Kingturtle 19:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • LEGO - detailed, great pictures.—Eloquence 07:40, Feb 26, 2004
    • Support. -- Kaihsu 18:18, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
    • I support as well. moink 22:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Kylie Minogue - Dmn 21:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Second. -- Kaihsu 18:43, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
    • No vote, but would it be possible to use a photo that's less erotic and, I don't know, shows her face or something? :P Garrett Albright 23:59, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't ever call the photo "erotic", but I agree that a photo showing her face might be a good idea. - Gaz 07:26, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Any better? Dmn 11:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • No, the old one was better! Still, very good visuals overall. 172 14:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • I second this as well! Earl Andrew 02:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unseconded self-nominations

  • ROC presidential election, 2004 -- Kaihsu 20:36, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
    • Neutral. I would like to see this promoted, but I think the organization needs some help. I tried to add subheads, but left stuff that didn't quite fit or would belong in mutiple sections into "other developments". --Jiang 06:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks great but against it as vote is not yet done. I don't mind to having this article nominated again after results are in.Revth 15:02, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Good call. Let's keep the article a candidate until the candidate becomes elected. -- Kaihsu 17:24, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
  • San Gabriel Valley - Comprehensive and insightful article on region of Southern California. My edits are most copy edits and a fact here and there--there have been many contributors since its fairly recent creation. jengod 06:16, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a vote (to ensure editing harmony). Need photographs. Please review the use of the word 'xenophobia'. Also, no link to 99 Ranch Market? (By the way, I used to live in Pasadena.) -- Kaihsu 20:35, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
    • Just a suggestion, in the spirit of the non-vote above: the ethnic groupings mentioned in the article leap out as future trends for the nation. If SGV goes prime-time, sub-articles will need to be split off. I in fact vote for inclusion, but rework seems inevitable, just like the History of the United States which has been withdrawn from the Featured article series. Yes. Ancheta Wis 02:14, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • DXM - this is largely my article, I added info on dosages, safety issues, expected effects... it may be somewhat pro-dex POV, but I've tried to work around that... Pakaran. 23:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Poetry - partial self-nomination as a lot of people have worked on this article. I think it's a good overview of a complex subject and lots of useful links at the end. Bmills 14:39, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Shell game - very well done, and even includes a picture →Raul654 03:27, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote. This is a question. Should Shell game and Three card monte be merged? Or are they completely different games? Kingturtle 20:10, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • They're similiar, but not the same. One uses cards, while the other uses shells (or cups, et al). They are always called by different names →Raul654 21:05, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • S2 -- Timwi 17:28, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" - About a famous short story by Jorge Luis Borges that makes an enormous number of references to non-fictional individuals, many not well known in the English-speaking world. I believe that this article is the first good English-language guide for the perplexed. I didn't write all of it, but at this point it is mostly my work. -- Jmabel 05:08, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nominations with unresolved objections

(add articles to the bottom of this section when they get their first objection)

  • Congo Free State - Superb work on a topic that strikingly overlooked and difficult to research in scholarship, especially by User:Tannin, who must've expended quite a deal of effort, given the attention to detail and sources. This article provides excellent background for anyone trying to understand the civil war in the Congo since August '98. Mobutu's post-independence "kleptocracy" is the heir to the plunder of the Congo Free State. More recently, before the July 2003 power-sharing agreement, the DRC saw much of the same, with warring parties intentionally prolonging the conflict to plunder diamonds, gold, coltan, and timber. Although refugee agencies often attribute 2.5- 3.3 million deaths - directly or indirectly - to the civil war, reliable news from Congo is still so hard to find. It's to Wiki's credit that such an easy-to-overlook topic wasn't left to languish as a stub. 172 18:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not ready for Feature. Needs more editing, more wikifying...needs to be adjusted for the everyday reader to understand. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I made some changes for the sake of accessibity and presentaion. (Nothing substantial - so this isn't a "self-nomination" by any means) Are the changes enough for you to withdraw the objection? 172 23:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I spent an hour or so wikifying and performing small edits. I also listed some comments and questions on the talk page of the article. We need to get some other opinions and editors involved. I still don't think it is ready. Kingturtle 10:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Socialism - Jmabel's version is the most neutral and accurate article I've read on any controversial subject at Wikipedia in the last 2 years! He should get a barnstar, too!! --Uncle Ed 15:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The language of the article, particularly the informal tone, the passive voice, and the many generalizations ("Marxists would...") is getting in the way of me understanding the content of the article. DanKeshet 20:32, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Content: If I think it's reasonable and Uncle Ed doesn't think it's left-wing POV, it must be well done. Style: If it could use improvement, it's not something I'll put on List of articles that dandrake slammed for not being in good enough English. It has some things we've been warned against as weasel-words, but I think the references to other articles cover the ground. Another reason for support: unlike other pages with sub-standard style, it has a lively Talk page, and it appears that any questions about its language will be seen and addressed if raised there. Dandrake 19:16, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • Why don't we leave it here for a little while (say until the end of the month). Give me a chance to edit the language I find inappropriate or confusing. You can see the starts of my edits on its history now. DanKeshet 23:42, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Erie Canal - the geology and its effects on history alone would make this a candidate. Wetman 19:35, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent, IMHO. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. I was utterly confused by the tenses, does this canal still exist today, if so is it used? E.g in the first line "The Erie Canal was a canal in New York State, United States, that runs from the Hudson River to Lake Erie, connecting the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean." The English is spotty, strangely informal in places and unclear in others. I was left hanging a number of times: e.g. construction started in 1817 and finished in 1825, so we cannot say that 1000 workers died due to maleria (no date) and that they did the swamp section when it froze in the winter (which winter?). I added some metric convertions, but wasn't sure what tons (or even "tones") were referring to. It needs a map of the route of the canal, I was hopelessly lost since I know nothing about the geography of NYS, and a specific map showing the movement of population and goods would be fantastic. This article seems important and worth improving, its influence on American history was fascinating (if not always clearly expressed). fabiform | talk 12:00, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • In the Erie Canal area, there are freezes every winter, so any is a candidate for doing the swamp work, but nonetheless it would be nice to know just which winter. The Canal is still in use (as, I think, the NYS Barge Canal. As for malaria, I was surprised to learn that it was an issue that far north. Is this accurate? ww 14:59, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Québécois language Quebec French: very extensive article on a topic rarely discussed in English. -- Kaihsu 16:44, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Good beans. jengod 23:35, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support (except as Quebec French) -- Stewart Adcock 21:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. It still needs work. The English reads like a translation in places, and in others, frankly makes no sense to me: (e.g. this one-sentence paragraph) "This is due to the long history of French in Canada, the fact that the 16th and 17th century French immigrants to Canada were largely from areas outside Paris, and the strong influence of the French spoken by the King's Daughters who were of little bourgeois class from the Paris area (Ile-de-France) and Normandy." I also spotted some untranslated French, and felt a bit confused by some explanations which rested solely on comparisons to American culture. fabiform | talk 12:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Some edits made to address this. 67.68.254.41 05:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Cryptography and related pages -- this article does a pretty good job of introducing the modern practice of crypto, with some brief connections to its history. It is not overly technical, despite the ever present tendency to disappear in the technique or mathematical underpining. It's a good article in part because it avoids much of the myth and legend that encrusts the subject, warning in several instances of such cruft. Also, I goofed in adding it before noticing the candidate page. It's been removed, but adding it officially would be a good memorial to its evanescent existence on the list. Sorry about that.
The related pages are also pretty good, though perhaps not of quite the same standard. A reader looking through them would get a quite reasonable, and responsible, sense of the current state of the basic field, and some sense of the history. ww 16:53, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree. Reads like a rant in places. Needs a bit of work. -- Arvindn 08:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Arvindn -- The article has been pretty stable for some time save for some organizational rearrangments. Those who have done minor typo fixes and such have included some crypto well informed folk. Can you suggest some of the work to be done in your view? ww 17:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Chosen people - I enjoyed reading this article very much. It seems very well-rounded and complete. -Alex S 14:33, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I object, it seems particularly incomplete (lacking well rounded perspective) and is frankly biased. Sam Spade 21:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I object. This viewpoint arises in most ethnic groups for some reason and is not something that should be tied to Jewish perspective only. I recommend that authors check other cultures and religions before nominating it again.Revth 14:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Dragon boat race -- Just damn cool. jengod 08:18, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Need a bit more copyediting, and comparison with other rowing sports. An accompanying article on Qu Yuan will also enrich this. -- Kaihsu 20:30, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
  • Chinatown - Good stuff, this. I'm putting it under self because I've copy edited it a bit, but it's a very well-done piece. jengod 06:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Next to nothing on European ones. -- Kaihsu 20:30, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
  • Bioinformatics - a very good summary, neither short on information nor delving into too much detail. Looks nice, too! Gaurav 13:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I weakly object. This is a good article, particularly in staying at an appropriate level, and refering to more detailed other articles. However, it's pretty disorganized, at least needing well-thought-out section headings. The selection of topics seems a bit haphazard, though this may just be an effect of the organization. There's also some claims I'm uncomfortable, some of which are non-trivial to fix, e.g. homology is clearly an important concept in bioinformatics, but it overly dominates this article. Zashaw 05:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I have made some changes, to add structure that hopefully addresses some of Zashaw's concerns. --Lexor|Talk 03:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I retract my objection. (Sorry for not checking sooner.) The article's on my list of things to have a look at, but I think it's already worthy of being a featured article, and your edits helped it a lot. Zashaw 22:05, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Critical theory 172 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not yet ready for primetime. -- Kaihsu 08:32, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)
      • You're probably right, given that it's so brief. But its quality stands out in that Wikipedia is weak when it comes to subject matter like this. 172 00:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Green politics -- Kaihsu 14:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
    • This article constists mostly of bullet points. That is not beautiful prose. The article is informative, but is too basic. Kingturtle 18:30, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Green movement -- Kaihsu 14:59, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
    • Not ready to be featured. What it lacks, and must have are: 1) History of the movement. Where did it start in various places around the globe? 2) Who were the important invidividuals to get the movements going, and how did they do it? 3) Where does and has the green movement have the most clout in the world? 4) As far as specifics, it really only mentions the U.S. Green Party, and the 2000 election...which is one of the weakest of Green Parties and IMHO the least Green of them all. Kingturtle 18:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Assassin -- Smart, broad base to widely linked topic. jengod 06:10, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • This article needs a lot of work. It speaks too often in generalities and interpretations. It needs more solid evidence and more facts. Also, there is plenty of information presented about the U.S. and the CIA, but nothing really of the USSR, Stalinism, suicide bombers, etc. Also, the article needs to explain...when is it called assassination, and when is it called murder? I will place in Talk:Assassin some links to help provide source materials. Kingturtle 19:08, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1. Under "Binomial name" in the taxobox, the trinomial names of the subspecies are given. I'd just list those in the opening paragraph after the common name, in parentheses and emphasized.
This layout is under active discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and it is probably best to hold on to the contributors there sort themselves out.
2. The opening paragraph could make it clearer that P.g. minor is the scientific name of the Indus River Dolphin (would also be improved if (1) was followed).
Opening paragraph clarified. (1) is already followed.
3. The binomial name should be centered in the taxotable.
See Answer to (1) believe it or not.
4. The distribution map is ugly. I started doing one based on the CIA factbook map of India, but somebody was faster. But it just doesn't look nice. I think it should use two slightly different blues for the two ranges, and it should show only the Indian subcontinent.
See Answer to (1), archive 2 - a fair amount of time was spent discussing the colours, and it would mean undoing >70 maps, so isn't going to happen any time soon.
Rules are there to be broken. In this case, it would make sense. See the page (and revert if you don't like it). Lupo 09:06, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
5. I'd take the range map out of the taxobox and let it float in the section on "Population and Distribution".
See Answer to (1) - this article should be consisent with all other ToL articles so if we want to change this one then we should change them all.
6. Picture credit: doesn't Wikipedia give credits on the image description page?
It is uncommon but not unprecedented to do it on the article page. I personally think it is quite rude to hide the credit that the copyright holder has asked for behind having to a click on a picture (which gives no impression that is clickable). I will doubtless be pointed to a policy on why we do this!
7. How about removing those water drops on the camera lens visible in the picture? Would be a derivative work then, but I think their "free use for noncommercial purposes, with credit" statement allows that.
I would be pleased if someone could do that.
Hadal did it. Looks way better! Lupo 09:06, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
8. "Other Names" lists a Spanish and a French name. These should be removed, common English names are sufficient.
I think Dante just listed the original common names as defined by the IUCN, reasonable to remove them.
9. Grammar and spelling in the last section need improvement: it should be "... throughout both subspecies' ranges" and "Both subspecies are listed by the ICUN...".
Second bit fixed, can't find the first bit, must be past my bed-time!
10. Separate online and book references, for instance with a "References" or "External links" section for online and a "Selected literature" for book refs.
They're more references than selected literature, but have no preference if they're split up or kept together. Interestingly someone at Talk:Sperm Whale didn't like it when they were separated so its hard to please everyone.
11. How about redirects for the scientific names and also for Ganges Dolphin and Indus Dolphin?
Why not :-). Which raises the point - should we be redirect from all scientific names (whenever the article is at the common name)
I think we should, at least for the binomial name. Lupo 09:06, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong: I do think it's good work. I would have done some these fixes myself, but wasn't sure whether I would then still be allowed to vote on the article. With fixes as indicated above, I could support it, but as it is now, I don't think it's ready yet. Lupo 20:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm so proud of authoring the most objected to article in Featured article/Brilliant prose candidate history! :-) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hm, maybe I should have put all this on the article talk page :-) Lupo 09:06, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Second now. (1) to (5) are a question of uniformity in taxotables: the article can't be held responsible for the layout. (6) is a genuine question, not an objection. (10) is a question of layout. I still think separating would be better, but that's a minor matter of taste. The others have all been addressed and resolved. Good job, guys! Lupo 09:06, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I hate to be a Scrooge here...but...yes, this article is nicely done, but should it be featured? Compare it to Sperm Whale, which is a Feature Article. This article on the Dolphin is going to need a lot more details...about feeding behavior, breeding, etc. Kingturtle 19:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • A lot of research has been done on Sperm Whales, and humankind knows a lot about them, and thus the Wikipedia article is fairly substantial. The fact is people simply don't know so much about river dolphins, and so the article is more threadbare. Having said that, lack of scope is a fine reason why an article shouldn't be featured to my mind - just that I wanted to explain why the lack of detail in this article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Jürgen Habermas 172 22:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. The discussion of Habermas' philosophy is mostly jargon, & I am left with no clear sense what his actual philosophy is, or how it might be different from, say, Noam Chomsky. -- llywrch 19:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, there's something wrong with your reading skills, not the article. 172 00:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • LOL! Now now.... I think readability is a factor deserving scrutiny. Perhaps a simplified synopsis would be an acceptable addition? It is true that a good many of our readers do not have english as a first langauge, and may benifit from a simple overview. Sam Spade 01:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nominations withdrawn by nominator

  • 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)
    • Object. Sure, there's a disclaimer about how it may be considered highly speculative, but the entire account of the alleged incidents, after one "allegedly" and up to a preety feeble "problems" header, treats the story as a recounting of sober facts. At a minimum, it must include the fact the Some People Think that the whole tale is a blatantly ludicrous piece of nonsense, or anyway an extreme claim, contrary to everything else that is known about this universe, that requires extraordinary evidence. Dandrake 20:55, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I would prefer to withdraw my nomination rather than make this recommended change. My understanding of the objection is that the article is, in fact, a recounting of neutral facts, allowing the reader to decide the issue on its own merits, which are pretty clear-cut, and that I have not given one of the "sides" sufficient vehemence. My opinion is that this would directly break NPOV. - Scooter 17:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Articles nominated for removal

  • same-sex marriage - heavily biased towards gay rights POV --Uncle Ed 18:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Huh? You're kidding, right? Please provide some evidence for this odd-ball claim. Tannin 19:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that this should not be a featured article, but not because of a heavy bias in any direction. It is a good example of how an article can become bulky by trying to satisfy every side of a debate. The current controversy and constant stream of news articles surrounding this topic garantees that people will argue over every sentence. As long as this situation continues it will be hard to keep it unbiased (or at least get everyone to agree on what unbiased means; see the article's talk page), or complete. -- Kimiko 19:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • When did this become a featured article anyway? It wasn't when I started working on it. At the same time, I don't see how it's biased, but --User:Ed Poor has made this claim on the talk page too, also without explaining it. Exploding Boy 01:33, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I see no actual reason to remove it Dmn 01:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Libertarian socialism
    • Discussion moved to Talk:Libertarian socialism/Featured article removal
    • Removed by Sam Spade 07:36, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (due to clear lack of Concensus)
    • Restored by Toby Bartels 03:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) due to clear lack of consensus to remove it.
      • What is the procedure on removal anyway? Do we require consensus to remove, or do we only require a lack of consensus to keep? If the latter, then Sam was right to remove it. OTOH, if the latter, then Sam could have removed it before the discussion, which certainly doesn't seem to be the procedure. I will ask for discussion on this talk page. -- Toby Bartels 03:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Clearly there is no concensus either to keep or remove this. From what I see on the talk, that means it must be removed. I am not going to edit war however, so would you be so kind as to remove it, Toby? Sam Spade 01:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Geologic ages and related pages
    • This articles dont make me especially proud. Not thats incorrect, its just not brilliant: much more can be done. Muriel 08:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Its incredibly short for such a broad topic. Sam Spade 08:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Recently removed articles, and reason for removal

  • DNA
    • (This article has been the subject of a dispute which won't be resolved in the short-term due to wikiegos.) The article is incomplete: DNA#More_on_DNA_replication -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. -- Emsworth 22:54, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Remove it till the edit wars end. It is completely outlandish that we should feature an article that's being protected! A truly great way of showing Wikipedia at its best, no? The situation is so bad that it may be best to take it up on WikiEN-l to ask for immediate action. Dandrake 23:23, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Homer Simpson
    • I can't find any evidence that this has gone through the nomination process, and don't think it is a very good article. --HappyDog 15:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Removed by HappyDog 02:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Glass
    • needs better structure, standard TOC placement; recent discussions in some newsgroups are not a proper source to answer scientific questions. Also: pictures! How can we have an article about glass without pictures? —Eloquence 05:42, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)


  • September 11, 2001 attacks
    • Ongoing neutrality dispute. -- Emsworth 23:56, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I also think it contains too many daughter articles, most of poor quality. The article itself is not impressive either. --Jiang 06:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Support removal. -- Kaihsu 18:28, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=2580825"