Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Purge server cache

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

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:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

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 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

Doctor Who missing episodes

Project nomination. This originally started as a section in the main Doctor Who article and expanded slowly over the months, with a companion article, List of incomplete Doctor Who serials, providing a bit more information. I took the discussion bits from the latter and merged it with the former to create this article, and it rapidly expanded from there, mostly thanks to Angmering (talk · contribs), with myself chiming in every now and then for the copyediting chores. It was then sent for peer review, with only one real comment and I believe the issues have been addressed. It would be nice to have a Doctor Who FA that was completely non-fancruft in nature, so I am therefore submitting it for consideration. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's not bad at all. However, one annoying aspect was the sporadic, inconsistent linking of low-value years and decades. I've removed these so that your readers will be more likely to follow up high-value links. It's easier to read and edit now, and looks better on the page. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. 'Compare with' for contrasts, 'compare to' for similarities. Prose needs a run-through to bring it up to FA standard ('compelling, even brilliant')—shouldn't be too hard a job, though. Tony 05:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I've had a tinker, and the only real problem seems to be little bits of grammar here and there, which is trivial unless the article is consistently in pidgin (compare for example Battle of the Bulge, which has been a featured article for some time and is much worse in this respect). Otherwise it is comprehensive, well-written, entertaining, and just the kind of thing I like to read during my lunch break. Also, it gives the impression that the writers are aware of the world outside Doctor Who, and doesn't give off the whiff of autism that emanates from so many other fannish articles. I imagine it will fail the nomination because of the pictures, though. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the images should pose a lot of problems. While the number of images used may be up for debate, it's clear there's no free alternatives to illustrate this article with, so claiming fair use on some images is in this case perfectly allowable - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. As noted above, the prose needs a strong copyedit to bring it up to standards. More importantly, though, this isn't really an article about the missing episodes themselves, as the title suggests, but an article about the loss and recovery of the episodes. It's historical rather than simply descriptive; and, aside from a better title, it needs a few gaps in its framework plugged -- most conspicuously, a summary of the missing material when the recovery process began in earnest and a comparable summary of the current state of the "inventory." A small amount of work is required for a substantial improvement in the article. Also, the timetable for audio releases mentioned here (finishing in 2005) doesn't match the schedule in the linked article (finishing in 2006). Monicasdude 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added a listing of the episodes missing at the time of the 1978 audit which have subsequently been recovered, with a link to the existing List of incomplete Doctor Who serials which lists the still missing material, and is probably too long to go in the parent article on its own. I hope that satisfies that point. As for the prose, I can't really comment on that as I wrote a substantial chunk of it, and it's always harder to edit your own stuff as I'm sure my fellow Wikipedians can relate to! So I'll leave tidying up my writing to others. Angmering 22:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as nobody else had I've now gone through and tried to tidy the prose here and there where it seems appropriate. Let me know what you think. Please do point out specific examples of what you think needs changing if it still doesn't come up to your standards. Angmering 11:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I just corrected the last point (about the schedule), and updated some of the other information in the "Orphans" section of the article, to match information in the previous section. --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support Looking good OmegaWikipedia 17:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Very Weak Object. The article is very well done, and worthy of Featured Article-ness, but it's still not the best it can be. A little more work, and my vote will be a support, just do what those above me said. --Quadraxis 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the only things left to do to make this article FA worthy would be to go through it for spelling and grammar mistakes, and perhaps to consider changing the title (but the title change isn't that important). Keep up the good work! --Quadraxis 15:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Since I only tossed "two cents" in, I hope that qualifies me to cast an objective vote. :) I would say Support - I think the prose and flow of the article has come along nicely, and I think the other objections have been handled, and handled quickly! --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, seems reasonable now. Could maybe use a different title but I'm not going to object over that. JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. An interesting piece of UK TV history. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A great article if not the best one written on the subject of missing episodes. It's always updated, when new information comes to light. Like any article it can always been improved but confident it deserves Featured article status. Kelvin 101 (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:28, 30 August 2007.

---

Dungeons & Dragons

previous FAC

Back for more abuse. :-) In addition to some massaging of the text, the following revisions have been made to address the actionable objections raised during the previous FAC attempt:

• Literary citations have been used in preference to user pages for referencing. (Because of its generalized nature, the suggested Fine book was not found particularly useful in this regard; although it has been cited once.)
• The two images that were deemed objectionable have been replaced.
• Some short paragraphs were merged.
• Mention is made of D&D's Hall of Fame status in the Games magazine. Otherwise, independent critical acclaim has proven hard to come by, alas. (But suggestions would be appreciated.)

Please take a look and see what you think. I'll try to address any specific constructive criticism. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I supported it last time, and I continue to do so. It has improved even more. I find no obvious variance with WP:WIAFA Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - I'm not a fan of See also sections but concede these are difficult to incorporate without impacting on the overall flow of the article adversely. Being a gamer intermittently since '78 I find it comprehensive; the prose is good enough not to be noticed and crisp anmd clear throughout. congrats. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Support seems to have scrubbed up well as it were, can't find nothin' wrong with it, well done --Brendan44 00:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

• I think there should be a summary of the article in the See Also section in the article

Then make them as Main Article links. Then lose the see also section.

• No mention of of it's reference in Futurama in References in popular culture section.
• Why is there a Notes and a references section? Buc 08:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Notes section is like footnotes, the are directly linked to relevant sections of the text. However, many of the citations are re-used over and over again. Instead of repeating the citatation (which is just wasteful of space and creates redundant entries likely to diverge) or having a single footnote (which means you can't give specific page numbers for specific citations), the footnotes contain Harvard references like "(Johnson et al. 2004:23)" and you go down to the references to get the full entry. It's a bit unusual, but I find it a good compromise and it's acceptable according to the "Citing sources" style guidelines — Alan De Smet | Talk 15:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There is still a lot of room for improvement in the flow of the article. --Hornet35 14:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please could you be more specific about what you find objectionable in the flow? The sectioning seems to have a logical arrangement. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This user has a "suspected sock puppet" warning on their user page and has not responded to a legitimate request for clarification. I'm going to treat this objection as addressed. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I think the article looks good, looks like there's been some hard work on it. I think it's ready. But everything can be improved, and made better. Thanks, Meldshal42 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, very well done. I've made a few minor edits. --GRuban 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your beneficial updates. — RJH (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Repeating since my pionts seemed to have ignored

Comment

• I think there should be a summary of the article in the See Also section in the article

Then make them as Main Article links. Then lose the see also section.

• No mention of of it's reference in Futurama in References in popular culture section.

  Buc 12:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • In response:
    • I'm unclear exactly certain what you're asking for in regards to the "See Also" section. Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, the "See also" section is just a set of links. Do you want a separate summary page of this summary-style article? The current "See also" section appears to be useful as is.
    • It's really difficult to include every bit of trivia in a high-level article of this nature, and still keep the page focused. Otherwise the section could conflict with Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. I think the statement that, "Numerous games, films and cultural references based on D&D or D&D-like fantasies, characters, or adventures have been ubiquitous since the end of the 1970s" covers it appropriately.
  • Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The intro should make it clear that D&D is principally played as a tabletop game. The concept of role-playing games is pretty hazy to a lot of people.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a sentence to the first paragraph of the first section to cover this. The lead is a getting a little on the large size, so I didn't want to add further bloat. (But I'm not sure how to trim it without losing useful summary information.) Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You also might consider changing the phrase "a fantasy role-playing game (RPG)" in the first sentence to "a fantasy tabletop role-playing game (RPG)". I think that would address Nydas' concern without significantly lengthening the introduction. Dugwiki 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately that definition would exclude other viable options used for play (such as play-by-post). But it's probably close enough for now. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
        • If it makes you feel better, RJ, think of it like chess. Chess would be called a "board game" even though technically you can play it online or by mail. Similarly, even though you can play D&D on formats other than a physical tabletop, and there are D&D inspired computer games, the core game from which it's all derived is a tabletop game. Dugwiki 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes. Like I said, it's close enough. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support The article seems to meet all the checklist points for featured article status. I disagree with the suggestion above that the Futurama reference specifically needs to be added to the article. Not every individual mention of D&D on television or film needs to be included. You only need to have enough in the article to reasonably verify the claim that D&D has appeared in "numerous" films and television shows, and I think the article accomplishes that goal. In making a pass just now I only had a couple of extremely minor quibbles, and I made only one very minor change. So the article would appear to be reasonably stable, comprehensive and accurate. Good stuff. :) Dugwiki 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I pointed an even more D&D knowledgeable friend of mine at this article and he said:

I was reading the D&D article and had a few possible corrections to offer. I'm not sure how to do that on wikipedia itself, so I am offering them to you directly to do what you will with them.

1) Under Game mechanics, when it describes methods for generating PC ability scores, it describes rolling dice. A new, and, I gather, fairly common mechanic in 3.0 and 3.5 edition, is called point buy. I haven't been in a group that uses it, but I have heard of groups that use it, and gather it is fairly common in D&D tournaments. This method involves using a certain number of points to buy characteristics. Typically PCs get 8s for free in the 6 stats, then pay 1 point for each point of a stat above 8 till 14 (costing 6), 2 points beyond that for a 15 and another for a 16 (costing 10), and 3 points more for a 17 and another 3 for an 18 (costing 16). I think typically people start with 25 points, but it can vary according to what the DM wants.

2) In the same section, hit points aren't really determined by race. Just by class, level, and constitution. There are feats and spells and magic items which can give more hit points, but race doesn't factor into it except insofar as some races get bonuses or penalties on constitution and there are a few classes that only certain races can play which may have higher or lower hit points. Oh, monster race characters (very rare) and various monster NPCs, do often have their hit die type determined by race, but an elven 5th level fighter with a 14 con gets the same rolls and bonuses for hit points as a dwarven 5th level fighter with a 14 con.

3) In the influence section it mentions "...The role-playing movement initiated by D&D would lead to release of the science fiction games Traveller (1977) and RuneQuest (1978)... ". Runequest is more of a medieval then a science fiction setting. Characters uses spells, swords, bows, and armor, not psionics, rayguns, and spaceships.

Ok. Hope that helps. It seems like a very thorough article on the whole, as most of the stuff on Wikipedia seems to me.

So there may be a few things to fix. Good luck. --GRuban 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Race has minimal impact on HPs: Agreed, "race" deleted from list. RuneQuest is not SciFi: Agreed. Clairified. Should mention point buy attributes: this isn't the default assumption for the game, so it's probably getting too detailed, doubly so since there are multiple different point buy systems. Thanks for the suggestions. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Voter turnout

Self nom. An important subject, but one where there isn't much agreement about what is going on. It has been through peer review, and the concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this a good article. I did a little copy-editing, but hit two sentences I thought needed non-trivial fixes:

1. This sentence should be either explained, or links to the explanation should be clearer: "Even game theory analyses have found that the equilibrium number of voters in any large election is zero." In particular, I don't understand what is meant by the "equilibrium number of voters".
2. This sentence needs a not-entirely-trivial rewritie for grammar: "Western Americans have often complained that since the election has already been decided in the east of the country that turnout is depressed on the Pacific coast." (Bonus for statistics demonstrating this.)

Fix those and you'll have my support; nice work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Support now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I've fixed those two sentences, though it will take some time to see if any statistics are available. - SimonP 03:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I've edited two-thirds of it, and will almost certainly support it. The reference for the basic formula at the top is unclear. Is it Riker and Ordeshoot? Please see my inline comments throughout. Tony 05:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC) PS What about some photos of some of the situations you refer to. Mugabe in victory celebrations?

• Support. Quite comprehensive and easy to read. Johnleemk | Talk 16:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, although you should make clear what Putnam book you are using in the references. (I assume it's Bowling Alone but it isn't specifically stated.) Christopher Parham (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, of the big efficacy, Gerrymandering sort. This is as clearly written and well researched work of Political Science as I've ever read, and I've read A LOT. It hits all the important points and factors-rational choice theory, game theory, negative campaigning, GOTV, and, of course, that very famous study (in US Poli Sci circles at least) by G. Bingham Powell. Another outstanding survey article Simon!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The section on 'Institutional factors' is long and involved. At the top, please consider a summarising the list of factors that may increase turnout. Then your readers will be armed with a synoptic view of the big picture as they navigate the subsequent details. Here's a draft:

Institutional factors that may increase voter turnout.

• Legal compulsion to vote, and enforcement of that compulsion.
• A high degree of 'salience' (the perceived effect of an individual vote), which may arise from:
  • strong relative power of the legislature in question;
  • the possibility or likelihood that a significant change of government, and policy, may result from an election; and
  • the accurate reflection of the people's will in the composition of the legislature.
• The convenience of voting, including:
  • accessible polling facilities; and
  • simple voting procedures, including easy registration and one-off votes.
• Low levels of voter fatigue, arising from not-too-frequent elections).

Tony 04:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added an introductory paragraph to that section. I've also made the changes suggested by the comments you left. - SimonP 14:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. This should be the benchmark for references in future FACs. Well-written, well-sourced, and comprehensive. Great work! PacknCanes | say something! 14:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support Tony 14:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Model article. Jkelly 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me. ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Simply great! Vb 09:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support The SimonP featured article mill churns out another masterpiece. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - very good! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comments:

1. Riker and Ordeshook Please prefix their names with their occupation. Similarly, the same with Francis Fukuyama. India's polling is not only due to the terrain, it is also due to the lack of security manpower available. And to clarify another point, voting in India is split into phases rather than days. That is, the days are not necessarily consecutive. There's also hardly anything on voting in the world's largest liberal democracy. If you need any specifics on Indian elections, I can help out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Human

previous FAC

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

---

Intelligent design

Archive Excellent work on a highly controversial topic. It does have difficulties: It's a discredited arguement, (c.f. s:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.), but a few, very vocal people still propogate it. A balance was, with great difficulty, attempted, and I think it comes as near to WP:NPOV (noting the "Undue weight" clause) as possible. What d'ye think? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There remains some unsourced theories and material in the Intelligence as an observable quality. Until that is resolved I don't think the article can proceed yet.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Working on it... Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Meets the FA criteria and one of Wikipedia's better supported articles. Oft cited offsite as a good article on the topic by neutral sources such as School Library Journal, Jurist legal news and research, Univertisty of Pittsburgh, Talk of the Nation on National Public Radio, and Librarian and Information Science News. Offered as a source by Salon and as a primer by Science & Theology News. FeloniousMonk 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment 21 citations in the lead??? It's meant to be a summary of the article where information is referenced in the body. Web sources are missing date retrieved and publisher (website). Image:Time evolution wars.jpg is missing a fair use rationale - too many external links. M3tal H3ad 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some of these seem like valid critiques and need to be addressed. However, just responding to the first concern 21 citations in the lead- the presence of those citations is due the controversial nature of topic which has resulted in everything being cited in great detail even when something is arguably a summary of a later information in the article. JoshuaZ 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read through WP:LEAD, it would appear that the lead should be supported like any other text (after all, it isn't an abstract). Anyway, there's a reason that everything is cited. Guettarda 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support An incredibly impressive article given the controversial nature of the topic. If this made FA it would serve as a great example of how this sort of thing ought to be done. But... according to WP:WIAFA, it really needs a "References" section that lists all of the sources that have been cited in the article. Given the number of footnotes, I don't envy the person who puts it together. But it really has to be done. MLilburne 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - this is an excellent article and is especially well referenced. Guettarda 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - fair use image (magazine cover) not significant to article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: it’s a good article, but there are some issues that stop me from supporting just now:
  • The article (correctly) portrays the issue as endemic to the USA, but this is only said explicitly once, in the ‘Movement’ section, and it is not cited there. If I understand correctly, there should be a mention of this earlier in the article (maybe in the lead?) and there should be some kind of citation to substantiate the geographical disparity.
  • There are several definitions of ‘science’ or ‘scientific method’ in the article that are not thoroughly referenced. It may be enough to have them all share one footnote, but that footnote must appear next to each.
  • Per the Manual of Style punctuation at the end of an inline quoted passage should be outside the quotes, “like this”, unless “the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation (‘logical’ quotations).” (Also, I happen to prefer Unicode quotation marks to ASCII quotation marks, but that’s not an objection to the article.)
  • Use a consistent dash style (outside of quotations, where of course the dashes should be preserved). Apparently the preferred style for the article is to use spaced em-dashes — like this —, but I’ve noticed several en-dashes.
  • There should be no spaces between punctuation marks and subsequent ref tags.

  —xyzzy_n 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Minor object. Not comprehensive - no treatment of how it is viewed outside US, UK and Australia. Also, there are some unreferenced paragraphs. See also is very large, per MoS the relevant terms should be incorporated in text. Finally - can we have some pictures?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is largely because it, as opposed to creationism, hasn't actually spread beyond those countries. Trying to find evidence of this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article on a controveisal topic. I do have a small quibble with the criteria listed in 'Defining intelligent design as science'. It says a theory must be "Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)" while at the same time being falsifiable. These would seem to be contradictory. Given that the "Evolution can't be falsified" argument is a common ID canard, this should probably be clarified. Raul654 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references? That's a rhetorical question by the way (please don't waste your time and tell me to read WP:LEAD. I practically have it memorized). The load of references in the lead is ugly beyond comprehension. Quadzilla99 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The rule as we have defined it is that the lead should established the notability of th subject, and summarize information found in the rest of the article. Thus, for a properly written lead, refs are not necessary, but not prohited either. This article is fine. Raul654 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I could explain the rule to you backwards with my eyes closed so there's no need to attempt to explain it to me. I commented the lead was ugly and your basic response was "This article is fine." Quadzilla99 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If you know what the rules are, you wouldn't have said "Whatever happened to the policy that the lead is supposed to be free of references?" when no such policy has ever existed. Raul654 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ugly but funtional. Being a controversial topic, content (especially in the lead) is regularly challenged or removed, especially by new editors. Referencing every statement in the lead reduces this problem, and thus improves the stability of the article. Guettarda 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as per comments below

• 2.5 out of the 3 lead paras discuss the controversy of the topic, and what it is not. More info needs to be put in on what it *IS*.
• The lead para, as per wikipedia policy, should not be so heavily cited
• You do not distinguish between footnotes and citations. See Roman-Spartan War for a far better way of distinguishing the two
• The "Creationism" navbar template is flawed, since it puts all the articles listed on a single footing and puts ID and Hindu Creationism on a similar footing, whereas ID and Young Earth Creationism are a sub-theory of "creation science", which is itself a subsection of christian creationism.
• "The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents" - "intelligent design" doesn't have a stated purpose, it is just a concept. People have purposes, concepts don't.
• "ID" - I don't like this acronym being used, since it has a much more common usage for another word. I'd use the full phrase.
• "Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology " Weasel words. Find someone who does say that and cite it, or don't say it at all.
• "Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical" Why? Were the earlier examples disproved? If so, I would mention this, it seems apposite.
• Proceedural Aside - I'm not sure I like the idea of the Featured Article Director supporting FAC nominations and contributing to discussions. the FAD is supposed to objectively review the comments made and reach a conclusion on consensus, this will surely be hampered by a personal involvement in discussion on the article

  I don't want to put too fine a point on this (so don't take what I'm about to say personally), but your comment is flatly wrong. I have been participating on the FAC for years, including making both support and oppose comments. My involvement in this case has been limited (A) to reviewing the article and determining whether or not it meets the criteria, which is something I unequivocally reserve the right to do AT ANY TIME to any article nominated on the FAC, and (B) giving clarification to others involved on this FAC nom as to issues of policy (since this is a topic where policies tend to get invoked a lot, both rightly and wrong). Raul654 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Raul's comments have no more or less weight than those of any other registered user. Consequently, there is no reason to bar him from contributing. TimVickers 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

When these are fixed, I am happy to support - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This is not an article about Intelligent Design, but an article against Intelligent Design. Many of the criticisms may be referenced, but that the criticism is there, especially in the quantity it is, is POV-pushing. This is not a neutral article, but an anti-ID article.

• The criticism begins in the introduction, and 70% of the introduction comprises criticism or rejection of the idea.
• Almost every section other than perhaps the sections under "Overview" includes criticism of the aspect of ID being explained.
• One section ("Arguments from ignorance") is entirely criticism, without even putting an ID answer to that criticism.
• It argues some points rather than documenting them, such as the second paragraph under "Peer Review".
• It makes demonstrably wrong claims. The claim (in the first sentence under "Peer Review") that there have been no peer-reviewed ID papers, whilst supported by the first of the two references supplied, is contradicted by the second reference (which tries to dismiss the paper, but does acknowledge that is was peer-reviewed). It also overlooks likely ID papers published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation.

The above is not meant as an exhaustive list, but merely to provide actual examples of the bias in this article. Philip J. Rayment 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the peer review comment, the article states "To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal". This is what the sources say. The "Journal of Creation" is not a peer reviewed science journal. Guettarda 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That is NOT what the second reference says. The second reference acknowledges that there was a peer-reviewed ID article, as I said above.

The Journal of Creation is (a) peer-reviewed, (b) has articles about science, and (c) is a journal. So your counter claim is false.

Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The peer review section could be better cited but the rest of your claims are less than persuasive. If a topic gets a lot of criticism, it isn't NPOV to pretend otherwise. If every single aspect of an idea is rejected by the larger scientific community, that should be clear. Meanwhile, attempting to argue that content published in an avowedly creationist "journal" constitutes peer review of ID is funny at so many different levels...(and in any event, we have reliable sources saying there is no peer review material making your personal opinion about what constitutes peer reviewed papers irrelevant)JoshuaZ 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that the article should pretend that the topic doesn't get a lot of criticism? I didn't. And neither did I say that it shouldn't be clear that it's all rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Both those points could be briefly mentioned (not argued). I said that the article should be about ID, not against ID, which is how it is at the moment.

What provokes your sense of humour is irrelevant. That the Journal of Creation is peer reviewed is NOT merely a personal opinion. It is a fact, despite what your apparently unreliable sources claim. If you still maintain that it is not peer-reviewed, could you please show me where these "reliable sources" claim that the Journal of Creation is not peer-reviewed. I will be interested to see if they exist, and if they do, whether they have anything to back up the claim or are mere assertion.

Philip J. Rayment 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Reviewed by a peer, to make sure it follows creationist values" is not what is generally meant by "peer-review". I suppose that definining terms might help here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help enormously if you didn't invent a fictional definition to argue your case. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review. Since you obviously have no idea what it means. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Me? You're the one that invented a definition. Instead of insulting me, how about you actually explain the alleged problem? Philip J. Rayment 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please show me some evidence that JC is "peer reviewed science"? It isn't ISI indexed, and while the Instructions to Authors say "Do not use too many big or extra words", there's nothing about peer review or any idea of the composition of the editorial committee. The assertion that there are no ID publications in peer reviewed scientific publications is supported by references, including evidence under oath by ID-proponent Michael Behe. Do you have any reputable references which say otherwise? Guettarda 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're simply looking for something that says that the Journal of Creation is peer-reviewed, see here.

I don't know why you are asking for a reference for peer-reviewed ID articles when I've already pointed out twice that one of the two references in the article to the very statement in question talks about such an article!

Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Rayment's "strong oppose," appears to be just the sort of objection with no basis in policy or fact that is discussed here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Intelligent_design as a bad faith or clueless objection. FeloniousMonk 16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think that no matter what the answer was to one of Rainman's objections, including agreeing with him, he'd find some reason why the answer was wrong and simply raise another specious objection. Best not to feed the trolls. •Jim62sch• 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to both FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch: Your responses appear to be merely dismissal of opposing views based on your own POVs. I have provided specifics as to what is wrong with the article, and neither of you has attempted to address them. And calling me names is not a valid form of argument. Philip J. Rayment 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And they have provided specifics as to what is wrong with your objections. It’s not a fallacy when it’s justified. —xyzzy_n 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I struggle to understand how you could possibly say that. Perhaps you are referring to the various people who have attempted to respond to my objections. In that case, I'll clarify that I was talking specifically about FeloniousMonk and Jim62sch, who have not replied to my objections here at all. The other objections have been answered. Philip J. Rayment 12:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that the Journal of Creation can Peer Review ID is abusing the concept of peer review. The term “Peer” refers to colleagues in the domain the subject is covering(experts in the field). ID wants itself to be a biology related domain, a scientific hypothesis. It should therefore be reviewed by biologists. It is not peer reviewing to submit a biology related article to “astrologists.” This doesn’t mean ID is not valid, it just mean that ID has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe this needs clarification by adding “scientific”, since when the term “Peer Reviewed” is used, it is in connection to science related journals. ID being also about creationism, I do admit that we can call it Peer review if it is reviewed by some “experts” in creationism like theologists. But it sure is not a “Peer Reviewed Science” it might be “Peer reviewed theology” though. So further clarification there could be worthwhile. I too have a problem with the introduction but the rest of your critics I don't believe are valid. Fad (ix) 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fad, I agree with the your description of what peer review is, but not with the unstated implication that the Journal of Creation doesn't do this. What gives you the idea that papers in the JoC are not reviewed by "colleagues in the domain the subject is covering(experts in the field)"? Your objection amounts to a slur against the JoC unless you can demonstrate the JoC does not do this. Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

“Demosntrating” is quite a strong word. I don’t have to support the thesis that they do not peer review, since this would be a logical fallacy. The existence and not the non existence should be supported. Do you have evidences that the JoC peer review in any field of science? If not, then we can’t claim it is peer reviewed science. Fad (ix) 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be a "logical fallacy"? And do you put the onus to demonstrate peer review on all claimants of it, or just creationists? Philip J. Rayment 11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The onus to support the position is on all claimants of existence. Nothing to do with creationists. This is how science work, I am not talking about sceptic organizations or other systems which claim to do science by trying to “prove” non existence. This article doesn’t mean the ID hypothesis is fake, it just highlight that it is not peer reviewed science and that this is not what most scientists believe. It is also pathetic that we need to transform such articles into a kind of “polling scientists” thing, which if you ask me is a success for those contributors who support ID. It’s obvious that most scientists support natural selection, obvious, we don’t go on writing thousands of words and polling articles by citing how most scientist believe in a well established hypothesis. If we are at a point that this need to be done, scientists are at the defensive and this reaction is a defence mechanism. Fad (ix) 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any reason why the Discovery Institute's reprint of "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure" is cited along with the original version from The American Spectator website? They say the same thing, and I don't have to worry about how on Earth I am supposed to indicate where it's reprinted using the template. Unless they have policy of making content unfree after a certain period of time, which seems rather unlikely given the date of publication, I see no reason to include the reprint.

And all web references --Rmky87 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not the referneces go to the web but whether or not they are reliable. One of the most cited sources is the testimony and ruling in the Kitzmer case (and specifically, links to them on the web). These are reliable. So to complain that they are "all web references" is to focus on the wrong thing. Raul654 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant that they should all have retrieval dates and other information like whether or not it is part of a larger work, who wrote it, who published it, when it was published/last updated, etc. I must have hit enter by mistake.--Rmky87 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- well-written and fully supported by references (which are necessary, BTW, given the controversial nature of the topic). •Jim62sch• 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, unless the section on the movement is reduced ' to a sentence or two leading to its article. & the section on Controversy made NPOV. ID (despite the motives on many of its proponents) is an intelligible argument, very much more difficult to refute than many other creationist positions. The article should be devoted to it in its own right, with of course the arguments against it. Having the material on the Movement is inherently NPOV, and the actual section on the movement is entirely NPOV without any defense of the Movement. Further, the section on the controversy is entirely devoted to arguments against ID. This is reasonable, except that there should be a rejoinder of similar some reasonable though not necessarily equal length--and there isn't. I notice that summaries of the same arguments is also placed at the end of each of the sections on the theory itself. (As for personal POV, let me mention that I am not a supporter of ID in any sense of the word, and most certainly not a supporter of the Movement) DGG 21:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This strikes me as another clueless objection since it references policies and FA requirements that do not exist. Can you please point us to the specific policy or FA requirement that specifies that sections of articles detailing controversies must have a "a rejoinder of similar length" and where sections that have spin out articles must be only "a sentence or two." Wikipedia:Content forking notwithstanding, is simply a guideline, and there is no way you can properly summarize a topic as complicated as the movement as required by WP:NPOV in one or two sentences. Unless you can provide specific policy to support your objection, it runs the risk of being discounted here. FeloniousMonk 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, from WP:NPOV, below. You are right that it doesn't have to be equal, but the basic requirement is that you cannot make criticisms from one side and not include replies. The section on criticism needs some perhaps smallish amount of ID rejoinder.

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.''DGG' 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're cherry picking from the NPOV policy. As the ID article states, ID is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. The WP:NPOV policy tells us when writing about pseudoscience: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." (emphasis in original) WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Clearly the article complies with WP:NPOV exactly, and your undue weight objection is baseless. FeloniousMonk 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It might also help both of you to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles Raul654 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not the least objection to adding the category pseudoscience, because, in summary, that is what I think it is. I can argue for it, but as Writing for the enemy. A category should indicate the various aspects of an article & pseudoscience is certainly one of them, and I have never said otherwise. But this is pseudoscience defended from another viewpoint. There's also the viewpoint of the ID Movement. Personally, i have an extremely negative view of many of the activities discussed there, but I do not think this theory owes its origin there--rather, it was conveniently at hand for adoption as being something not overtly ridiculous. ID still needs a serious presentation, and the article as a whole can not sum up for or against it. The reader will do that, and with a fair presentation and a good article, the reader will do that correctly. The reader without preconceptions will do so even without a slanted POV.

To write as much from the creationist point of view as from the mainstream point of view would give undue weight to the creationists. As for uncritical description, none of ID’s notability is directly due to its propositions so we shouldn’t waste any paragraphs on it. —xyzzy_n 22:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right that it need not necessarily be as much, but something. .DGG 00:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is supposed to be a "scientific" topic (it was designed to get around the Edward case, which declared that creation science was religion, not science. In the 20 years it has been around, something like 300,000 papers are published a year in the biological sciences; almost all of them work within the neo-darwinian paradigm. Even taking the broadest view of "publications" (ie, stuff in ISCID, etc) you're looking at something like 1 in a million papers which use the "paradigm" of ID, no matter how broadly...and these handful of papers have almost never been citationed by others (which is the currency of scientific publication). So, when it comes down to it, the ID perspective is given far too much space in this article. It's an incredibly tiny fringe position in science. So to say it need not necessarily be as much suggests a lack of understanding of the situation. Guettarda 06:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Those complaining about citations in the lead paragraph need to consider the nature of the topic. They are essential for such a controversial subject such as this, and are needed for stability, though I recommend condensing a few of the multiple footnotes into one note, rather than having a horizontal line of footnote numbers referencing one point. See example here

Also, as I commented above over a week ago, there are still some unsourced ideas and statements and my oppose still stands.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you must admit that it's far better than it was. Give it a little more time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work on clipping the references in the lead, indeed it is better now. As far as I'm concerned its just the unsourced points lower down the page.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. The article seems NPOV to me. An article on Adolf Hitler would include a great deal of negative information, and an anrticle on Martin Luther King Jr. would include a great deal of positive inofrmation. Likewise, an article on a discredited pseudoscientific theory would make that fact — that it is discredited both in United States courts and scientific circles — and therefore would include a great deal of negative information. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

the Article on Adolf Hitler is almost entirely devoted to a factual summary of his deeds, including several paragraph-length quotations from his work. There is no quotation from any of his opponents either in the text or the notes, though there are links. The only part that contains comment is "Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil. Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are, by virtually universal consensus, condemnatory." And that is the only negative comment necessary. Similar political leaders are treated in a similar fashion.DGG

So you are trying to say that the Adolf Hitler article is written from Nazi-party approved sources? It's entirely (or almost entirely) written from the perspective of "the other side". The entire article is written from a "negative slant"...I don't see any party-approved sources. And, you really need to read the article more carefully - it's full of negative statements (like that he dodged taxes on Mein Kampf) or the statement that "Opponents unconnected with the SA were also murdered". Guettarda 07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think he would have much objected to the article as a whole. The objective things that are said there are things he intended to do, knew he was doing, and generally did not try to hide. When he did what he did, he boasted about it. But back to our subject:

This should be such an article that the ID people could say--yes, it presents ID fairly. Naturally, we don't agree with the negative criticisms, but we have answered them, and anyone who believes as we do will see the merit of our case. And the strong evolutionists (like myself) could say, Yes it presents ID fairly, and it give our objections clearly, and although the ID people have tried to answer them, anyone who knows about science will see the justice of our case. DGG 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That’s not what WP:NPOV says. —xyzzy_n 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I totally endorse Philip J. Rayment's comments. Wikipedia has justifiably been called "The Abomination that Causes Misinformation". No where is this more true than the hatchet jobs performed by admins on articles opposing evolutionary dogma, while they censor any criticism of the most rabid antitheists like Harris and Dawkins. Evidently their idea of NPOV is "agreeing with me". Compare The Six Sins of the Wikipedia60.242.13.87 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A well balanced and well referenced article on a highly controversial topic. I would like to note that Rayment's objection that criticism is given too much weight is not conclusive. The controversy around ID and its total lack of success in the attempt to be accepted as science is much of what there is interesting about it, so the abundance of criticism in the article is absolutely justified. Kosebamse 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Adam (and to anyone else who is fixing the objections brought up here) - I'm satisfied that this article meets our criteria and all the valid objections have been dealt with. Finish off that last citation-requested tag and I'll promote the article. Raul654 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

About-Picard law

previous FAC

Felice Beato

self-nom When I first came across this article it was named "Felice A. Beato", but having done a lot of research on the photographer, I moved it to "Felice Beato", the name he is more accurately known by. I then added quite a lot of information that has recently come to light regarding Beato's life, clarifying a number of issues and filling in a lot of gaps. Pinkville 00:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Great work on this article, the references are especially impressive , but there are still some important problems. The lead is too short, and needs to be expanded. Somewhat ironically the article is also incongruously lacking in images. The article needs a picture of Beato, and should also include more examples of his works. In parts the writing also needs work. There are too many one and two sentence paragraphs, especially towards the end of the article. - SimonP 02:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support SimonP 14:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• If the article is on a 19th century photographer, can't we add lots of images with no copyright worries? Everyking 09:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. Lead section is way too short. And it needs more images. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Support. The concerns have been dealt with. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Fair enough on the lead and towards the end. As for the images, although Beato is a 19th century photographer - the copyright on his images is held by the institutions which own his photographs. Frankly, I'm not even sure the image I used (which I found on Wikipedia) is legal. Is it? I'm not clear about the use of his images. I know that the photographs in the collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture, for example, cannot be used (unfortunately). There is only one portrait of Beato in existence - Tony Bennett reproduces it on his site - again maintaining all rights. To compensate for the lack of images in the article I provided the extensive list of linked photographs at the end - but I too would rather see them in the article. Pinkville 18:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    While the institutions might claim copyright on the images, under U.S. law, which is what Wikipedia falls under, all of his images should be public domain. - SimonP 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten the lead and other sections and I've added some images (thanks SimonP!). How does it look to you all now? - Pinkville 00:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think the concerns of the above have been dealt with. I like it, Support. Broken S 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sverre of Norway

previous FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamburger Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Government of France

Federalist No. 10

This is one of 85 articles on the Federalist Papers. Let me know of any problems and I will try to address them forthwith. The article was peer reviewed, and you can find the archive here; I think the points made there have been addressed. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You have to explain what faction is in an article about Federalist 10! Superm401 | Talk 23:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Really good article, but I agree with Superm401. The article needs to define 'faction' as Madison used the word. Jkelly 00:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to these points, the article already specifically quotes Madison's definition of faction from Federalist No. 10: "He defines a faction as 'a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.'" Is more than this needed? Christopher Parham (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've pipelined the first instance to Political faction. That should do it.  BD2412 ^talk 04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It does for me. Jkelly 04:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I'm sorry I missed the inline quote of Madison's definition. To be fair, though, it's much better to have it defined (or at least linked to a definition) at the first mention. I'm satisifed now, at any rate. Superm401 | Talk 00:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Can the redlinks be fixed or unlinked? OmegaWikipedia 12:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If by fixing you mean stubbifying them, I'd be happy to but all I could write would be "X was a newspaper/publisher in New York in the late 18th century." This really doesn't seem worth it. On the other hand, most of the redlinks probably do deserve articles, and hopefully their presence will convince someone more expert in the area to add knowledge. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see. I still think a redlink would look bad for a featured article. Maybe you could move them to the talk page so that people who want to fix them could and remove them from the main article? OmegaWikipedia 06:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed 6 wikilinks from the article and created stubs for 2. A couple of redlinks remain, but only as the names of works in the references section, none in the article body. Is this satisfactory? It should be noted that many featured articles contain redlinks (indeed, quite likely a majority). Redlinks do, after all, help Wikipedia grow. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Great job on fixing the redlinks! It looks much better (you too BD2412) OmegaWikipedia 22:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have created stub articles for the three Supreme Court decisions cited, and will expand those later.  BD2412 ^talk 21:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Succint but a very informative and enjoyable article. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great article. OmegaWikipedia 22:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Have I mentioned, support?  BD2412 ^talk 00:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support, this is the best article I've read today. Falphin 01:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. User-unfriendly. Here, I've listed a small, representative example of what needs to be addressed throughout. It will take many hours.
  • Can you hit us with a more functional description right at the top? At the moment, the poor readers have to wade through several sentences to learn what the topic is about. It was a high-profile political commentary in the lead-up to the debate about the US Consitution, was it? How, very briefly, did it influence the consitutional debate? You need to engage the reader by painting the big picture at the start. It's kind of ... boring, as is.
  • What is 'faction' in this context? Without an article, it's an unusual usage; we shouldn't have to hit the link to learn about it—briefly gloss it in a phrase or two here.
  • Any reason for initial caps in 'Anti-Federalist'?
  • Again, in 'Circumstances', the reader first gets bogged down in matters of process; why not start with the larger meaning and then move to process.
  • Are you a lawyer? You write like one. Someone needs to go through the entire text and simplify expressions such as 'Madison comes to the conclusion' (Madison concludes).
  • 'Madison takes the position that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction. The first, removing the causes that provoke the development of factions, he contends can be accomplished in two ways. One, the elimination of liberty, he rejects as unacceptable, and the other, creating a society homogenous in opinion and interest, he sees as impractical because causes of faction, among them variant economic interests, are inherent in a free society.'
    • Unclear whether 'the first' refers back to 'position', 'way', 'damage', or 'faction', until you read further and then reread.
    • Rather long sentences, with multilevel nestings in one. We have 'The ffirst', then we have 'One ...'. Perhaps you might consider the judicious use of bullet points, for ease of reading, and to make the grey mass less daunting.
    • 'because causes'—avoid such jingles.
  • 'the majority can always enforce its will'—remove 'always'.
  • 'the number of citizens to a representative'—better wording required.
  • 'Each representative being chosen from a larger constituency also, in Madison's view, means that "vicious arts" of electioneering will be less effective.'—Clumsy word order. 'Each representative being chosen'—not strictly grammatical.
  • 'The larger populations and areas a republic is able to cover also motivate in favor of that form of government.' Huh?
  • 'This is a general application of the principle of checks and balances central to the American constitutional system.' Comma needed.

We want an interesting, enlightening text. This is boring, and you're asking the readers to work too hard. Tony 04:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • In most cases, I've altered the article to reflect your suggestions. Regarding two of your specific points: (1) "Anti-Federalist" is almost universally capitalized as the name of a movement or party. (2) Your first point was also difficult, as Federalist No. 10 did not especially influence the constitutional debate (hopefully the article did not imply that it did). I've tried to improve the lead in terms of placing motivating material nearer the beginning, however. If you could take another look, that would be excellent. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's a lot better now, but can you find someone else to have a run through? And leave it yourself for a few days and run through it again. There's still a considerable amount that needs to be fixed. My eyes picked out a few more things at random:
  • 'The fact that a republic can encompass larger areas and populations also motivates in favor of that form of government.' 'Motivates' is the wrong word.
  • A sentence like: 'This is a general application of the checks and balances principle central to the American constitutional system.' reads poorly without a comma after 'principle'. Go through the whole text looking for such places. Here's another example: 'differing economic interests had created dispute even when the Constitution was being written'. There are lots more.
• 'Madison's argument that restraining liberty in order to limit faction is an unacceptable solution has been used by opponents of campaign finance limits. This is a convoluted sentence. 'In order to'—PLEASE just 'to'.
• Sift through for redundant words: 'compromise ideas like this one' (remove 'one'); 'In making their arguments, the Anti-Federalists appealed to both historical and theoretic evidence in making their case.' (we don't need both first AND last phrases).
• Numbers over ten, use numerals (36, etc).

So you see that there's still work to be done to bring it up to standard. HINT: Read through each sentence in reverse order, starting at the end. It often helps you to see faults. Tony 13:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

PS Should the title 'The question' be 'The faction question'? Tony 13:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Tony, I'm afraid that going through the article myself will not be very productive in producing the sort of changes you seek. This is because most of the things you see as needing to be fixed I would say are fine as is; after all the way the article is written more or less represents my style of choice. For instance, I could read the article 10000 times and never add commas in the two places you suggest above, or change thirty-six to 36. If you want me to make changes to the style of the article to reflect your standards, I'm more than happy to do this, but the changes will have to be suggested by you. I have, however, made the specific changes you requested. "The question" refers to the question the essay answers. I have changed it to "the question of faction" to clarify this. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the article is fine stylistically - people looking up an article on an edition of the Federalist Papers should expect some erudition, just as those looking up an article on a math topic would expect to see some formulae. In any event, any reviewer who disagrees with the turn of a phrase or the lack of a comma can make that change to the article in less time than it takes to point out this shortcoming. Cheers!  BD2412 ^talk 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The changes I propose are to make the text easier to read. They don't arise from a personal preference on my part, unless that's for easy reading. For example, without the commas in my examples, and in many other instances in the text, nominal items jostle against each other, and initial adverbial phrases are not as clear as they need to be. Suit yourself: I'm only thinking of your readers. No matter how 'erudite' you intend the article to be, it makes no difference to these matters. Tony 01:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't mean to imply that they are personal preferences in the sense of being arbitrary or capricious, they are personal in the sense that they are not universal or fundamental rules of English. People can reasonably differ on whether to include a comma in a certain place, surely. My point as far as this FAC nomination goes is that while you say that there are lots more places where the text reads poorly without a comma, this isn't an actionable request unless you can indicate where such places are for me to fix. I hope I'm not coming off as rude, but our obviously differing interpretations of what's unclear means it will be difficult/impossible for me to imply your general advice. (By the way, I've refactored these comments in with your previous ones; feel free to reverse this if you want). Christopher Parham (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Someone looking this up on Wikipedia will find exactly what they wanted. If that doesn't qualify the article for featured status, I don't know what would. --⟳ausa کui ^× 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft

There's a lot of history behind this - for those who want to check my early edits - you'll see I made a rant last march on the talk page about how biased it was etc.. Well, of course as one might guess nothing happened for months, so for the past months I've been working countless hours bringing it up bit by bit to featured standard, and I think its finally there.

Well, and for the article itself, its an extremely comprehensive article on the controversial company that everyone loves to hate, otherwise known as Microsoft. Its written in a painstakingly NPOV manner, and was written, well, pretty much by me (with copyedit assistance from Wayward and random tidbits added mostly by anons :)) - there isn't really anything at all left over from the version from march, sans the business culture stuff. Its surprisingly stable given the subject matter, and I'd like to think the writing is good on it as its probably the best I can do.

The peer reviews are here(2nd) and here(1st). Hopefully the comments on those are resolved. Anyway, any comments etc. appreciated :).

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 13:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Was about to support, but I found a minor quibble: the facts & trivia section shouldn't be there, especially given its shortness and its only content being a two-bullet point list. The puzzle hunt could be moved to business culture, and the home computer system...well, I'm sure there must be some place for MSX in there. (Or maybe not? After all, it's already quite crowded.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I merged them into the appropriate places. In truth though the MSX thing was so minor to microsoft that they don't even mention it in their own timeline- maybe it should be just listed in see also instead? Currently merged in the history section. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: From first glances and fleeting scans it seems like a good, supportable article - I should be able to tell you either way if I get round to reading it tonight. Perhaps one odd point is that there are no pictures of any of the "key people" (Bill Gates seems like the logical choice) or any of its products (Windows XP perhaps? X-box?) except the blue screen of death... The current photos are good but I would consider a corporations key people and products an important item as a picture. --Oldak Quill 14:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the problem is that none of those photos are "free" and would have to be fair use.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I think fair use is quite justifiable in this instance. 14:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair use would be fine for this article. Microsoft as an entity can only be put into image form by using pictures of its key people, key products, or maybe headquarters. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-15 22:32
    • Nothing on their videogame system in the 2000-2005 when it played a large part in their effort to win the livingroom "war".
      • Well, it is mentioned in the product divisions section (perhaps it deserves a brief mention in the history section as well? I'm not sure if its "major" enough though - what do others think?).

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • It was their first major entry into the hardware buisness.I don't know but the history section misses something about their hardware stuff and their effort to diversify.
• Support it looks good, I added in the Xbox photo and the MSN homepage to illustrate their sections, I believe it would be nice if an MCP/MCSE would scan/photograph their card/certificate for the article... but other than that I think its good.  ALKIVAR™ 00:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• There are a couple fo pics of Gates on the commons.--nixie 01:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: "A great deal of time and money is spent each year on recruiting young university-trained software developers who meet very exacting criteria" —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, I mean take a look at [1] or [2] for an example of an "interview" there for the kind of criteria they want. I suppose maybe it could give an example or reword a bit though. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support—Good article; the plethora of useless links has been pruned, making it much easier to read, and focusing readers on the many high-value links. Tony 04:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC) PS Can the photo of the Indian headquarters be shifted up to the end of the previous section, where it's mentioned in the text?

Cleveland, Ohio

• Partial self-nom, on behalf of myself, EurekaLott and Beirne, who have both contributed significantly to improving this article. I think the article is fairly close based on the peer review comments. Feel free to comment, and I'll do my best to address any objections. Thanks! PacknCanes 20:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic work, everybody. --Arcadian 20:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:ClevelandCityFlag.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 22:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Replaced flag image with Image:ClevelandCityFlag.gif, which is tagged with the proper source and copyright info. PacknCanes 22:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Concern. There is only one sub-heading under Demographics (which makes the table of content look awkward). Also, there is an external link in the neighborhood section (there should not be any external links within the main body of the article, only in the external links section). Though this is not a major concern, but maybe you could add a short section on Cleveland's cityscape (under geography) if possible. Pentawing 03:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Content looks good. Length of the article is a concern though, but hopefully it will not detract too much from the article's positive attributes. Weak support Pentawing 05:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: It's good, but the prose needs work. I hope this candidate can be raised to FA status during the nomination period. Here are just a few examples from the lead to demonstrate the kind of editing that is required throughout.

Provide metric equivalents or insert a big sign at the top 'For US readers only'. Insert a non-breaking space between every number and its unit, e.g., '(96 km)' (see this edit box for the html insertion).

'because of access to transportation routes'—engage the readers by stating instead what these routes were (riverine and road transport?).

'33rd-largest'—in the same para you don't use a hyphen for this expression.

'2,148,143 people'—too precise to be credible; 'more than 2.1M people'? Same with county pop.

reference citation numbers: remove preceding space (looks better IMV), or insert a non-breaking space to avoid line overhang.

'Nevertheless, the city also faces some continuing challenges, notably from concentrated poverty in some neighborhoods and from difficulties in funding and delivering high-quality public education.' Get rid of 'also' and the first occurrence of 'some'; 'in particular,' would be better than 'notably'; 'in the funding and delivery of' would be more elegant. Tony 06:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I caught most of the metric equivalents, and did some copyediting to make the prose flow smoother. Also added a cityscape section, which should address (hopefully) the objections of MARussellPESE below. Probably not perfect, but I hope it's getting closer. PacknCanes | say something! 18:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent work! This article has changed a great deal in the last few weeks, and looks much more encyclopedic. Mamawrites ^{& listens} 09:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Object: Much improved over a month ago. Editing to date was thorough, but there are significant gaps. There are no references/links to the Zoo, Metroparks, Lakeside Park, Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath, etc. Items on the Zoo and Metroparks were added recently and immediately removed. Detroit's article includes discussion and links to her parks and zoo, even though the zoo is in Royal Oak. Both Detroit's and Ann Arbor's articles each have an entire section on their cityscapes, including discussion of their parks and architecture. I'm not sure if "Cityscape" is in the template, but as it reads now it's as if Clevelanders don't have any recreational opportunities, when I know from personal experience that these smack-down Detroit's and keep up with Chicago's. MARussellPESE 12:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Amazed to see most of my suggestions implemented! No lists, featured standard - its like it happened overnight! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object Good article, but some sections need a summary as the size is slightly on the higher side. 1) Summarise: ==Transportation==, ==Sports==, and ==Economy==. 2) convert those .gif files to .png 3) odd sentences such as He never visited the area again; 4) See alsos should always be after the section end and not at the section beginning. 5) avoid starting a section with a left aligned image. 6) 41°28′56″ North, 81°40′11″ should be wikified using the {{coor dms|}} template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The size cannot be cut further without compromising significant parts of the article. I asked this on the FAC talk page last week and got no response, so I'll say it again here: larger cities necessarily need to have a higher size limit than the Ann Arbors of the world. There's just too much stuff to cover; where Ann Arbor could go into minute specifics at 40 KB, Cleveland simply scratches the surface using that much space (to say nothing of the 68 KB New York City article). I've already cut it down as far as it can go while covering everything that needs to be in the article; if I cut any more, I'd be hearing objections that essential sections are missing. Bottom line: I cannot justify cutting out significant portions of the article to meet an arbitrary size figure, and I'm sure that EurekaLott would agree with me. That said, I've fixed that one sentence in the history section (you're right, it didn't look quite right there), I moved the see alsos to the ends of the sections, the lat/lon has been wikified, and I'll get around to the gif files. PacknCanes | say something! 08:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

size cannot be cut – are you saying you can't or will not? The size of the city does not matter. Take a look at Mumbai, obviously much larger than Cleveland. Secondly, just because I was inactive the past week does not mean I can't object now. I haven't asked you to prune it down to a specific size, please note this, I've asked you to summarise certain sections which are bulky. Since I have objected to many article on the size issue in the past, I believe I can spot bulky sections. I have noticed text which dwells on specifics rather than on the city. Now look what I've asked you to summarise: a) named after native Ohioan and former Senator John Glenn. no need for extra info. b) #1 heart hospital in the United States for eleven years running. It is also ranked #2 in urology and #14 exact rankings of institutions not needed. c) ...research campus to employ 7,000 as well... I have spotted three sentences which brief the reader on specific institutions rather than the city itself. d) CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett. Byrd-Bennett has announced her resignation as the system's CEO ; streets of downtown on September 1–4, 2005. Do you want me to list more such sentences? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I was saying I can't, but now that I have some direction on exactly what you're referring to, I can (and will) go through and edit those sections down. If I came across as antagonistic, I apologize; I didn't intend to do so, and the comment about what I put on the talk page wasn't a jab at you (I promise!). I was simply saying that I really didn't have any guidance to go on, so I just crossed my fingers and hoped for the best. Anyway, EurekaLott and I have both done a bunch of copyediting, so take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks -- PacknCanes | say something! 18:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the gif images with png images. Pentawing 05:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Weak support a summary is still possible, but its more or less ok now. I think you can add something on Courts. Pentawing can help you out there. Thank you for taking care of my objections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you'd want to see something on the courts, since it would go against what you said above. :) Seriously, the only thing that the Cleveland municipal court does, for the most part, is serve as a small claims court and traffic court. Most courts of any significance in Ohio, starting with the common pleas courts (essentially district courts), are county courts that don't have much to do necessarily with the city itself, although the physical location of the court is in the city. I'll be honest: I don't know enough about exactly what the municipal court does to put it into the article; maybe someone else can help. Thanks, though, for your support. Much appreciated -- PacknCanes | say something! 06:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that most of the courts wouldn't be notable, but the Carl B. Stokes Federal Courthouse which opened in 1999 might be worth mentioning. It's only the seventh tallest building in Cleveland, but because of its position on the river, it's probably the fourth most notable component of the skyline. --Arcadian 13:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

While the courthouse is tall and relatively new, I can think of several more significant cityscape-related topics I'd mention first, if there was room in the article. Examples include the impact of urban renewal and the Erieview Plan, the work of Walker and Weeks, the Rockefeller Building, the "Cleveland double" style of house, etc. - EurekaLott 14:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.

Self-nom. One of the leading football (soccer) clubs in England. Article is fairly stable and covers a wide range of aspects of the club. Has previously been peer reviewed. Qwghlm 12:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The references to Liverpool and Man Utd in the lead section ((only Liverpool and Manchester United have won more), and 10 FA Cups (second only to Manchester United)) sounds a bit like fancruft when included in the lead. Perhaps it would be better to include this information later on. TreveX^talk 13:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Have removed the bracketed terms (which were an attempt to justify the "one of the most successful" claim), the reference is now included in the #Achievements section. Qwghlm 14:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks well-written and comprehensive. I probably would have included Lee Dixon in the Famous Players section as well, though. Leithp 13:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As a further thought, how about including something on any Arsenal fanzines? I don't know what it's like for Premiership teams, but in Scotland the fanzines play a large part in unifying supporters as well as being hugely entertaining. This could also tie in with the requests below for more on supporter culture.Leithp 09:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: what about a section about the supporters like the IFK Goteborg article has? It would be nice for the article to have more about Arsenal's fans.Kevin M Marshall 14:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It was decided by consensus that a "famous supporters" section would be too long and inherently unuseful. See Talk:Arsenal F.C.#Famous Arsenal fans for details. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 15:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That is not relevant to Kevin's proposal. Take a look at IFK Göteborg and you'll see what he means, which is a section about the supporter culture around the club, not a list of famous supporters. -- Elisson • Talk 16:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Unlike IFK Goteborg, Arsenal's fanbase is pretty heterogeneous, it crosses both class and racial divides. It would be quite hard to do an article that could sum them all up like the IFK article does. Qwghlm 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't insist that you create a section like that, but your "objection" does really not mean much. The IFK Göteborg section has one paragraph about the fanbase structure, and four paragraphs about the supporter culture, supporter organizations, rivalries, attendance numbers, and so on, of the club. I do believe that Arsenal is such a big club that you could write a whole book about the Arsenal supporters. :) I will read the article later on and vote, but missing a supporter section won't make me object. -- Elisson • Talk 19:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

A subpage about Arsenal's supporters' clubs would be nice, but I think even a section would suffice. Just name any major fan clubs and discuss how Arsenal has attracted fans in the London area, in the UK, and across the world. It has quite a broad fanbase and I think that needs to be better reflected in the article.Kevin M Marshall 22:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all your ideas - I've now added a Supporters section, feel free to comment on it - though perhaps it would be best to start a new thread below. Qwghlm 12:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) subheading =Players out on loan= is unnecessary. Either merge with parent or promote to a higher level. 2) Do not fragment ==External links==. Use the semicolon (;) to create a bold heading. =Arsenal Ladies= needs to be expanded to at least twice its current size of not more. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Have done (2) and (3). I disagree with (1) - the players are registered to the club, so they should be in that section, but they are not in the playing squad (and hence have no number), so they should be kept separate from the main group. I could if you like prefix that header with ; instead of === so that it does not appear in the table of contents. Qwghlm 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, Use ; for that section. No, you'd need another paragraph on Arsenal ladies, before I withdraw my objection. ==Achievements== should be converted into prose. Also unbold the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Right:
      1. Have converted the === to ;
      2. The main article on Arsenal Ladies itself is little more than two paragraphs long at the moment, to further expand would basically mean duplicating the entire thing. I could just add {{main}} to the top of that section instead, to emphasise that it is only a summary.
      3. The History section, and the History of Arsenal F.C. article both double as prose versions of the Achievements section. It is meant to be a quick at-a-glance list of honours - to turn it into prose would add clutter IMHO. I'm not keen on unbolding either - it's the standard format across all football club pages, and demarcates the name of the trophy clearly. Qwghlm 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll review later, but you'll have to expand that paragraph. Most likely I'll get to review only by sat. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Have expanded Arsenal Ladies section a little further, but it really is hard to make a decent-sized section given how women's football is dwarfed by the men's game in the UK. Also do note that the two clubs are technically separate entities; the content on Arsenal F.C. should only be a brief summary of Arsenal L.F.C. Qwghlm 20:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Question for Nichalp: are you objecting to the article having a short section in it (which I've seen you object to before) or to there not being enough info on the ladies' team in the article? If it's just the section length, which looks like a reasonable enough objection to me, it should be easy to merge it into another section. I don't think it would be fair to say that the article needs more on the ladies' team than it has now: they aren't even remotely as notable as the men's team (wouldn't be surprised if average attendances for the men's team were 100 times higher, for example) and they've got their own article which is linked to in the text. One sentence mentioning them would be satisfactory imo. CTOAGN 00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Qwghlm, its fine now, and I've answered CTOAGN's query on his talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I admit the following comment nit-picking, but I have no problems otherwise with this article. (I'd be more likely to vote "support" if I knew more about soccer to know what I should learn from this article; Arsenal is one of a very few professional teams I have heard of.) The thing is this: in the section "Arsenal in popular culture", we read that "the film is centred on a friendly between Arsenal and an amateur side, one of whose players is poisoned whilst playing." While I assume that this is proper British English idion, without the noun, I am not entirely sure what "friendly" refers to; I presume "game". Unless it is unidiomatic, could the appropriate noun be added? -- llywrch 17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Have turned it into "friendly match", as that is what it means. In footballing vernacular the word "friendly" alone suffices as a description, but obviously the article should cater for all. Qwghlm 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would "non-competitive match" be acceptable as a replacement? It's not a phrase that's often used when talking about football, but should be understandable by everyone. CTOAGN 00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Just make it friendly match. Kevin M Marshall 02:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• 'Comment: I'll get round to having a proper look at this tomorrow, but I don't like the way that there are a few sections of prose, then some lists, then some more prose. I'd prefer to have all of the prose together and the lists at the end. Also, don't external links normally go after references and footnotes? CTOAGN 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. David.Monniaux 08:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've moved the links to the bottom, and the prose about Arsenal Ladies to join the rest. I am not sure what to do with the records/statistics section, as it is a few very short paragraphs of prose that summarise an article that is a series of lists. I would rather have it stay where it is as I feel it's more natural belonging there, following on from the list of honours. Qwghlm 10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: About the crest issue, I would have thought that it had to do with trademark and not copyright, but I may be mistaken. David.Monniaux 08:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The club explicitly mentioned copyright in the press release announcing the new crest [3]. In 2002, the club lost a court case against a street trader who reproduced the old logo after suing him under trademark law [4], as the defendant successfully claimed he was using it as a "badge of allegiance", not a guarantee about the origin of the product. So I can understand why the club might have turned to copyright, not trademark, law to protect its crest instead. Qwghlm 10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: From the first paragraph: "Arsenal Football Club are a football club . . ." and "the team has yet to achieve . . ." And in the third paragraph "The club was then known . . ." I'm not a BrE speaker, but the subject verb agreement seems askew. —Wayward 11:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Have converted to use the plural in all cases (which is how football teams are usually referred by). Qwghlm 11:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Six-goal Support Neutral: Still a few things:
  • but after hostilities ended, Arsenal won another two titles and an FA Cup. - in which years?
  • Crest - a link to a news article about the changes would be good, but not essential.
  • Kit - in which year did Forest make this donation?
  • Kit - last sentence - minus sign should be replaced by ndash or mdash, but can't remember which :-)
  • There are a lot of long sentences separated by with commas, especially at the start of the article, e.g. By then, Arsenal had been relegated to the Second Division, but despite only finishing fifth, Arsenal were elected to rejoin the First Division in 1919 at the expense of local rivals Tottenham Hotspur, by reportedly dubious means. I'd really prefer it if these were edited - they make the article come across as kind of choppy. CTOAGN 21:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Added those years in.
    • Added in a link in.
    • Unknown, it was very early in the club's history, soon after the club's first match in 1886 (but probably 1887). Thus I have put in "soon after" into the article...
    • I've used ndashes (the unicode version, not HTML entities) throughout, including that section. The Manual of Style doesn't care as long as it's consistent.
    • I have shortened some longer sentences, I could really do with a neutral party to do a few tweaks, though - it's hard copyediting your own prose. Qwghlm 22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone would call me a neutral party <grin>, but I've done a copyedit. Unfortunately, I've done it at 3am for some reason so I hope it hasn't introduced a load of mistakes - would be a little counterproductive. All my reservations have been dealt with now, so I'm changing my vote. CTOAGN 02:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
        • You put in a couple of mistakes but I've sorted them out now. Thanks a lot for doing this. Qwghlm 10:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - great. And we need more soccer FA! igordebraga ≠ 01:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - better than it was when it was nominated. Good enough to get my vote now. Kevin M Marshall 04:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Whole-hearted Gooner support - Not that I'm biased or anything. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Schabir Shaik Trial

Self-nom. I am relising this as I truly believe it deserves to be a featured article. Its first listing received little attention, despite this being one of the most important court trials in South African history. Previous lising is here. User:PZFUN/signature 07:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Mild Support This article seems very interesting to research and expand even more. I think that some people whould also like a large article on the front page. Wikizach 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Everyking 08:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Well written, but I'm a little surprised at the coverage of in-line citations in the article - All 31 30 of them are between the first four (excluding the lead-in) sections, and nothing else thereafter. I presume they all covered by the later two references? - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Um wait, there are 31 citations but only 30 at the footnotes...did I see something wrong here? - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One citation points to the same footnote, and I found it silly to continuously repeat the same footnote when from reading the articles its fairly obvious. User:PZFUN/signature 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The numbers in the citations and footnotes should line up. See Saffron for a nice little method of citing one footnote multiple times and keeping the numbers lined up. The Catfish 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed them The Catfish 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - More pictures would be nice, though. - Cuivienen 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. But an external links section would be good, and there are few references in the 'References' section - More pictures would also be a nice addition to the article. — Wackymacs 20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Good use of footnotes, but at the very least they should have 'last retrieved on...' date, and preferably they should be all mentioned and sorted in the reference section (see Wikipedia:Inline citations and Wikipedia:Manual of style.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object; it's not intuitive to me which citation goes with which fact in the last two-thirds of the article—inline citations are necessary there too. If only one source was used, then just put one citation per paragraph or even section. An external links section would be nice too. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - presumably all of the "Footnotes" are, in fact, "References" in addition to the two quoted "References"? Two online references seems a trifle slight for a featured article these days - are there no paper references? It also seems a little soon to be featuring a court case where the first instance decision was only given a few months ago and remains subject to an appeal that may not be heard for a few years. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object - The article contains a lot of information, however, there are numerous, significant problems, primarily with writing style, including basic writing quality (construction), section organization, and citations.

• The writing is overall rough, with many awkward sentences and redundancies, and repetitive use of words and phrases Some examples: a member of the wealthy and important Shaik family of Durban, proved to be important in re-establishing Zuma's life, The first joint ventures Thomson made bids for were not for arms: instead they made bids for an upgrade to Durban International Airport, The money for the construction was not paid by Zuma himself; instead it was paid in instalments by ..., At the same time as Zuma was answering his questions, Mbeki made statements that threatened the continued existence of the Scorpions., Schabir Shaik's trial started amid an intense media circus. It is more than a matter of individual sentences, many paragraphs are broken at odd spots. The writing simply needs to be tighter as a whole.
• Sections and section titles inconsistent Sections are created at odd breaks, particularly the first four. "Nklanda" appears in one title, and apparently misspelt since it doesn't appear anywhere else (Nkandla?)... The Arms deal section apparently changes topic halfway through. And so on...
• Inline citations seem to end after the third section They just stop, as if a top-down footnoting effort was cut short... It doesn't make sense and looks odd and is somewhat unsettling...
• The subject is not clearly and concisely summarized There is a ton of detail, but little synthesis; combined with the loose writing, this does not add up to a cohesive, summarized encyclopedia article, but more a chronological compilation of news report highlights. This makes it difficult and somewhat tedious to read, and therefore doesn't clearly present the topic. --Tsavage 03:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program

previous FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain

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 [5] is has a decent pic and is a good size, usable as fair use.--nixie 11:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• 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&#153; 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)
    • 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)

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)

• that was an unsigned me. Jobe6 23:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• A number of images to album covers have been added since this article was first nominated. Mamawrites ^{& listens} 10:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sociocultural evolution

The article has several portraits of important contributors and one nice, but only partially relevant and controversial graph. None of those pictures would be appopriate for the main page. It is quite hard to find any graphic related to this social theory - how can you *draw* evolution of the society, especially when there are many subtheories with very different ideas for x axis? I have been thinking about 1) creating a new pic merging all the portraits 2) finding something relevant, like the picture we now have in Sociology article. Any help appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)