Jump to content

Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spawn Man (talk | contribs) at 01:50, 3 November 2005 (→[[Ancient Rome]] (1 vote, stays until November 7, 2005)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article Improvement Drive
Article Improvement Drive
Shortcut

The Article Improvement Drive is a weekly collaboration to improve non-stub articles to featured article status. (For stub articles or topics with no articles, see Collaborations of the week.)

/History - For past winners.
/Removed - For removed nominations.

Nomination and Voting

Articles to be improved can be nominated by registered users in the "nominations" section below, with an explanation of what work is needed. To nominate an article, you can copy the template that you will find as a comment in the page when you edit it. Any and all articles may be nominated except:

Each Sunday, the article with the most support votes is chosen. Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting. You can vote for as many articles as you like. Articles need three votes per week to stay on the list.

Please do us all a favour: When you vote, update the vote count in the subhead at the same time. If you're feeling generous, check to see if you've put it over the "stays until" margin and update that line too, if needed.


Collaborations
Articles
Science and technology
Miscellaneous

Nominations

The next project article is to be selected on Sunday October 30, 2005.

Please add new nominations at the bottom of the page.

Rosa Parks (21 votes, stays until December 20, 2005)

Nominated October 25, 2005; needs at least 24 votes by December 20, 2005
Support:
  1. --Revolución (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Howrealisreal 20:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. cohesion | talk 01:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ZeWrestler Talk 01:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ---Spawn Man 01:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Robin.rueth 15:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Madison Gray 16:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Wikiacc (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Gflores 21:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wackymacs 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jacqui ★ 02:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Magicmonster 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. JordeeBec 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sahasrahla 00:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. nixie 00:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Carabinieri 09:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Waltwe 14:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --FloNight 19:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Litefantastic 23:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Dforest 07:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Behun 00:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Vincent van Gogh (15 votes, stays until November 24, 2005)

Nominated October 13, 2005; needs at least 18 votes by November 24, 2005
Support:
  1. Waltwe 22:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KingTT 23:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. RexNL 16:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ZeWrestler Talk 17:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Revolución (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carabinieri 19:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --bodnotbod 09:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Janderk 06:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Reflex Reaction 15:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wackymacs 16:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jacqui ★ 02:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Jules LT 04:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. JoanneB 13:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. AderS 14:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. JordeeBec 17:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 00:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:


Religious pluralism (14 votes, stays until November 8, 2005)

Nominated October 4, 2005; needs at least 15 votes by November 8, 2005
Support:
  1. Robin.rueth 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. C-squared 15:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ciraric 16:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BMF81 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cormallen 14:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Howrealisreal 17:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Gareth Hughes 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Squideshi 16:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mamawrites & listens 21:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Irmgard 17:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Mark J 11:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Carabinieri 22:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 20040302 12:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CG 17:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This is a rather lengthy article on what I consider a very important subject: What do members of different religions think about the creeds of the others and how do they manage to get on with one another? However, the article so far lacks a clear structure - you can see a proposal for a new outline under talk:Religious Pluralism#New Outline for Rewrite - New version. Furthermore, I have proposed a new conceptual framework to make things a bit clearer, but now the whole article needs reworking to eliminate the loose terminology throughout. Finally, claims in many sections are rather general, badly founded in facts and sometimes, in my opinion, not-NPOV. So lots of work to be done for everyone interested in questions of religion and Clash_of_Civilizations.--Robin.rueth 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that articles related to Religious_pluralism are also in bad need of editing, and the articles need to be linked better. Among the related articles, there is Interfaith and Religious_tolerance (with a POV dispute going on).
  • Robin and I have been looking through potential revised structures, and will be attempting to rationalise the entire topic area - tweaks, rather than overhauls. This includes mild structural overhaul of the main article as well as spawning off some specialization articles (for which there is already precedent for eg Judaism) I advocate a Stay FTM, and possibly a retraction, depending on how well we do. (20040302 11:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • A new outline of the article has now been proposed on Talk:Religious_pluralism. Everyone, especially those who have voted for this page, is invited to give their opinion on it and - if there is agreement - to co-operate in implementing the proposed new outline. (I suppose this is too much work for two people!) This entails a considerable amount of work because I reckon it's rather a complete overhaul than anything else. Expert knowledge is needed on
  • Concepts, such as: universalism, particularism, proselytism, exclusivism, inclusivism, syncretism
  • the teachings of different religions,
  • history of religions,
  • history of different situations of inter-cultural / inter-religious coexistence and conflict
  • the Clash of Civilizations theory
  • Enlightenment philosophy views on religious pluralism
  • and others

This is going to lead to a series of interlinked articles, with Religious_Pluralism on top, rather than to a single massive article. Expert knowledge is also required on how to organize such rather huge projects. So even if this page has not (yet) been agreed on for Article Improvement drive, I invite everone to participate in improving it.--Robin.rueth 13:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish (9 votes, stays until November 8, 2005)

Nominated October 11, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by November 8, 2005
  1. Howrealisreal 04:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idont Havaname 04:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BBlackmoor 16:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. elvenscout742 20:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Orborde 07:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KingTT 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wasabe3543 22:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Bash 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Litefantastic 23:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article, about a controversial term that brings up important issues regarding ethnic stereotypes and interracial relationships, reads more like a bad freshman sociology paper than an encyclopedia article. In particular, there is an overall lack of scholarly sources and a superfluous amount of POV statements. At the very least, I hope it can benefit from increased visibility which might encourage different viewpoints to edit, contribute, and create a more objective resource on this important subject. --Howrealisreal 04:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a mess. Scattered among the NPOV observations and statistics is an endless tirade of unsubstantiated assertions about "white" people who happen to be dating a person of Asian descent (and vice versa). Additionally, traits and beliefs are repeatedly attributed to "whites" and "Asians" as if these are homogenous groups. There is a section titled "Social Consequences" which is nothing more than a series of lurid crimes where individuals of Asian descent happened to be the victims. This is, at best, sloppy journalism. All in all, the phrase "POV" doesn't begin to cover the extent of this. This article needs serious work. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous poster is incorrect. The Social Consequences section lists crimes against Asian women who were targeted exclusively because they were Asian. Isn't that what the essence of what an Asian fetish is? You make it sound as if just random crimes were listed. But in each case it is clear that the perpetrator had a clear fixation and obsession with Asian women. Also, it is a fact that Western Culture has exoticized Asian female sexuality. Just type the word "Asian" into Google and see how many PORN sites come up. This article discusses a valid topic and should be kept the way it is. I have a feeling that the people objecting to the article are white people who object to being portrayed as the perpetrators of this fetish. --143.127.3.10 7:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record, if you do a google search for "Asian" it goes for pages and pages without turning up a hit for a pornography site. --Howrealisreal 21:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, search for "Asian Woman," and there's a mail order bride site listed on the friggin first page. -3

To "Howrealisreal", I find it interesting that you chose not to address the points I made in my post. I think it goes without saying that when one types in the word "Asian" in any search engine, there will be an overwhelming number of hits devoted to pornographic sites. You also failed to address my point about how the crimes listed under the "Social Consequences" section were indeed relevant and demonstrative of Asian Fetish.

I think what is being unsaid here is that the people on the 2 sides of this debate fall into 2 clear categories: Asian American men and women who are the victim of Asian Fetishm and White Men who are currently dating or are pursuing Asian women. Reading through the discussion page on this article is clear enough evidence of that. That being said, I find it difficult to give the people opposed to this article much credit. This is analagous to an article on racism where the victims of racism are saying one thing while the perpetrators of the racism are denying it exists. Does that mean that everyone opposed to this article is racist? Of course not. But I think a lot of the misunderstanding over this article is due in large part to the majority (white men) being unable to relate to the experiences of a racial minority.

There is a reason why Asian Female news anchors dominate television. There is a reason why people are yelling "ME SO HORNY" at Asian women on schools across this country. There is a reason why there are a number of successful Asian female actors in Hollywood but almost no Asian male actors. To deny that Asian fetishism exists is to deny that racism exists in this country. --143.127.3.10 7:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 18:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I did not address your comments about the validity of the subject matter because that was not what I had a problem with. I definitely agree that there are things that need to be understood about ethnic stereotypes in popular culture (and even ethnic stereotypes in pornography), but this sensational and accusatory nature of reporting fails to do it adequately. Keep in mind that I am not advocating that everything, including your perspective, is totally incorrect and I want to censor it; I was the one that nominated it here and not at Wikipedia:AfD. I also want to know the answers to the questions you raise in your comment, but using examples like google searches that don't even pan out to be correct just damages the credibility of the topic. Are we trying to get to the bottom of why we make these negative stereotypes and what we all can do to correct them, or are we just trying to perpetuate them? --Howrealisreal 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the aspects of the article that are "sensational and accusatory". Pointing out the fact that Asian Fetishm exists is not accusatory....unless you are the one promoting it. The article goes in depth as to the possible motivations of the people who use this label and discusses the various social and sexual stereotypes that contribute to it. Quite simply, I fail to see what your objection is other than the fact that you don't think Asian Fetishm exists at all. Denying it exists is just another way of perpetuating it. --143.127.3.10 7:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 19:45, 11 October 2005

I was just thinking the same thing. I am sorry to have complicated this page, I was not expecting it to turn out like this. I also welcome this discussion on the article's talk page and invite other users to join in. I believe the only way we can hope for this article to be improved is with wikipedia consensus. And by "improved", please know that I don't mean it to be understood as censorship, or an Asian fetish cover-up operation. Quite the contrary, by "improved" I would like to see expansion of the topic with sources. --Howrealisreal 00:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that these court cases are "non-notable" or that the victims "just happen to be Asian" (a phrase that has come up several times) is non-neutral. Rapes and murders may be isolated incidents, "non-notable" to those who are uneffected by the underlying social prejudices, but wanting to base what is including in the article on that single perspective is strongly POV. In fact, there's a strong argument that "race doesn't matter and these people happen to be Asian" in the face of pervasive media stereotyping of Asian Americans is not a viewpoint that warrants "equal validity".

The request for better sources for the article is a great suggestion for improvement. Adding a section that describes the fact that "fetishization" can be unintentional and non-malicious in intent would be a step forward. Omitting discussion of prevailing racial dynamics--"white men", etc.--when dealing with "Asian fetish" would be ridiculous. If you think that's wrong, come up with some solid sources, but remember this passage on the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View#Anglo-American_focus

That entry is not great either. It neglects an important fact--it's hard for non-white males to support their perspective without original research because the means of publishing in the society tend to be white male owned and operated. User:Xian 11:28 AM 10/11/2005

  • Let's stick to the topic please. Some people here fail at reading comprehension, it's about fetishes, not interacial dating. A lot of the arguments here are based on ad hominem. --Disco crusader 00:57, 14 October 2005
  • The article now has more of a diversity of sources. I think this is a notable improvement, because now at least people can read the article and realize it is a credible topic and not just write it off as a subjective rant. --Howrealisreal 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernetics (9 votes, stays until November 8, 2005)

Nominated October 11, 2005; needs at least 12 votes by November 8, 2005

Support:
  1. Joel Russ
  2. Jwdietrich2 23:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. David HC Soul15 October 2005
  4. James Howard (talk/web) 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wackymacs 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tarret 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. cohesion | talk 01:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. moxon 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sempron 05:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Smmurphy 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • The Wiki article is incomplete or inconsistent on its own terms. It alludes to the fact that Weiner was interested in aspects of how organisms function, as well as in the "governing" of devices and machines. The mention of this biological interest is little more than Weiner's first book title - which is Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and machine. Weiner discovered some principles functioning in the biological world and relevant to the discipline of biology - but this is not developed at all in the Wiki article (which will be many people's introduction to the subject of cybernetics). The article as it stands now is lopsided. Digi tech and computers etc have obviously become important in our world, but humans and other organisms utilize cybernetic principles in their physiology, and have been doing so for millennia and epochs. We shouldn't allow enthusiasms for bionics and "cyborgy stuff" (however interesting or valid these related topics) to obscure the more fundamental and encompassing insights that Weiner had. Here are some homely examples of the biological aspect ... Your your hand snaps back if you accidently touch a hot frying pan. Your house cat gets into the sunlight coming through a window for the added warmth. Cybernetics. I'm nominating the article because I couldn't learn enough from it, but the article should be fleshed out by people much more knowledgeable about this than myself.

Bill Gates (10 votes, stays until November 11, 2005)

Nominated October 21, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 11, 2005
Support:
  1. Wackymacs 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KingTT 20:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --bodnotbod 09:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC) mainly due to this: [1].[reply]
  4. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 10:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tarret 14:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. gflores 14:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reflex Reaction 20:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jacqui ★ 02:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam916 20:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Falphin 02:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Caravaggio (8 votes, stays until November 4, 2005)

Nominated October 14, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 4, 2005
Support:
  1. KingTT 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Waltwe 18:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Palladian 07:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PalX 15:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Robin.rueth 09:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reflex Reaction 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. anetode ¹ ² ³ 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Litefantastic 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Featured article in French. An important and influental Baroque painter, yet his article is in dire need of a rewrite. Some parts need expansion, and the pictures and lists need to be implemented better. KingTT 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have improved a bit with recent changes. KingTT 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki (8 votes, stays until November 4, 2005)

Nominated October 14, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 4, 2005
Support:
  1. Squideshi 21:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cohesion | talk 07:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sysys 18:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Freiberg 15:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tarret 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. gflores 14:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Litefantastic 12:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • If any article deserves featured article status, it's this one. This article is about the technology that we're all using right now. We want Wikipedia to be the best possible encyclopedia, and that means that we should be able to feel confident sending people to this Wikipedia article to explain wikis. The article needs a lot of work. For example, it barely touches upon the philosophy of a wiki, the language does not flow, and it is not organized very well. Let's collaborate on this important article! Squideshi 21:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% agreement. Freiberg 15:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point in wasting a week improving this article, as it is not as important as some of the other nominations that are currently up here. For example, how many people are going to want to read about Wiki than are about Bill Gates or Dinosaur? At the moment, Wikipedia has a serious quality problem (as discussed by The Register in an article of theirs, also linked to from this page in the Bill Gates nomination), and the majority of the most important subjects either have cleanup tags, tone problems, or need major rewrites, or they might need references, and it goes on and on. I'm not saying the Wiki article is not important, but it's not as important as some of the other articles that are in more need. — Wackymacs 12:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that it's critical to provide readers with information about the process used to create Wikipedia articles. Wiki technology is central in this explanation. Why should anyone trust an article about Bill Gates or dinosaurs if they aren't familiar with the source of the information? Do you believe everything you read, or do you sometimes check sources? The absence of this explanation undermines the credibility of all other articles; and that makes this article very important, indeed. Squideshi 21:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well what do you think Wikipedia:How to edit a page is for? The Wiki page is not meant to describe how to edit Wikipedia specifically, and shouldn't even describe how to use the Wiki software, because according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. — Wackymacs 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not suggesting that this article describe how to edit Wikipedia or how to use wiki software. I am suggesting that people have an opportunity to learn what a wiki is and, in theory, how a wiki is expected to produce quality articles. This is not tied to any specific implementation. Wikis are used on a variety of sites other than Wikipedia, so an article about Wikipedia is not sufficient--this is only one implementation of a broader technology. Squideshi 19:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur (8 votes, stays until November 12, 2005)

Nominated October 22, 2005; needs at least 9 votes by November 12, 2005
Support:
  1. Spawn Man 23:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 20:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AllanHainey 13:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wackymacs 18:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CG 15:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gflores 17:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carabinieri 09:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. File Éireann 10:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Was recently shunned miserably from FA Requests, with no support. Some parts are terribly written, others lack info, (like the "in popular culture" section). Would be great to upgrade a captivating article like this. Spawn Man 23:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency department (8 votes, stays until November 19)

Nominated October 29, 2005;needs at least 9 votes by November 19, 2005
Support:
  1. Brendanconway 20:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 16:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tarret 21:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. *drew 23:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Litefantastic 23:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Spawn Man 06:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dforest 07:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 23:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This article refers to the one place that we all make for when we are very ill. Its awful that we have a few short paragraphs dealing with this matter of life and death. Lets make this a detailed and useful feature article people can look up on their PDAs in ED waiting rooms.--File Éireann 20:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Gould (6 votes, stays until October 30, 2005)

Nominated October 16, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 30, 2005
Support:
  1. cohesion | talk 07:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Palladian 07:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This would be an ideal featured article. Very influential musician Fawcett5 15:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gareth Hughes 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Waltwe 13:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (6 votes, stays until November 12)

Nominated October 29 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 12, 2005
Support:
  1. Waltwe 12:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 13:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -Irmgard 17:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carabinieri 17:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ZeWrestler Talk 18:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Brendanconway20:55, 30th October 2005 (UTC)
Comments:


LOL (Internet slang) (4 votes, stays until October 30, 2005)

Nominated October 16, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by October 30, 2005
Support:
  1. Sysys 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 17:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Harmil 14:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tarret 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I would say 'LOL' is one of the most used of all internet lingo, and the current page contains very little interesting or sourced information. Currently the only sources are blogs, forum posts, and one remotely related editorial article. About half of the article consists of people listing their favourite 'LOL'-related acronyms. I'm sure this article could be much better. Sysys 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been criticisms of the lack of sources for both LOL (Internet slang) and Pwn. If anyone has good sources for those articles, it would be a huge help! -Harmil 14:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much you could say about "LOL" that isn't already said in this article. --Revolución (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I beg of potential voters not to encourage the waste of precious man hours on a subject that should be way down the list of anyone's priorities. In fact this is an example of an article that would probably be made miserable the more people add to it, since it's liable to be the addition of lots more obscure variants that people involved only in any one particular newsgroup or forum have ever heard of. --bodnotbod 09:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's the point, this article is always getting filled up with crap. If we took the time to make it better, people would probably be discouraged from adding stupid things like that. I'm sure with a bit of searching we might be able to track down the history of it, why it's used in so many different languages, etc..Sysys 01:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Prescott (4 votes, stays until November 1, 2005)

Nominated October 18, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 1, 2005
Support:
  1. Hahnchen 17:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 15:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GhostGirl 01:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AllanHainey 13:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, has a very long history in politics, and is a controversial figure. Yet the article is barely beyond a stub, can be expanded to at least the length of the Gordon Brown article, most probably even further.
  • Certain to fail here and would be better off nominated at Wikipedia:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board/UKCOTW.
  • This is very USA centred so the above comment is probably right, nonetheless we can but try. Frankly I'm amazed there isn't more about him punching that bloke in 2001.

Information Age (4 votes, stays until November 6, 2005)

Nominated October 23, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 6, 2005
Support:
  1. Tarret 13:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 14:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 20:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. File Éireann 22:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Its the current age whice we are in now. It could be expanded to reflect what is going on in the world today when it come to technology and the modern day economy. I added some pictures and information but it could still use work. It could also talk about the future. Tarret 13:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner (4 votes, stays until November 7, 2005)

Nominated October 24, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 7, 2005
Support
  1. Litefantastic 00:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZeWrestler Talk 01:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Waltwe 13:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carabinieri 17:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Colonialism (4 votes, stays until November 13)

Nominated October 30 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 13, 2005
Support
  1. Falphin 00:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Robin.rueth 07:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Howrealisreal 13:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carabinieri
Comments
  • This article and many related articles are INMHO worthy of the improvement drive. (Colonization:Spends too much time on history nothing on how its done), (Dutch Colonial Empire-Needs clean up) (Italian Colonial Empire]-Need expansion) etc. This article could particullarly use it. We need to start with Colonialism in Antiquity(no article) move on to the Middle Ages, etc. Specifically, it would be important to go over the Phoenecians, Greek, Romans, and then European Colonial Empires. There is really a lot that could be done. Falphin 00:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cusco (3 votes, stays until November 2, 2005)

Nominated October 19, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 2, 2005
Support:
  1. --Revolución (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KingTT 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AKeen 18:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:


Green Party (United States) (3 vote, stays until November 12)

October 29, 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 12, 2005
Support:
  1. Carabinieri 17:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Revolución (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Howrealisreal 21:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 12.72.150.90 06:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:


Ancient Rome (1 vote, stays until November 7, 2005)

Nominated October 30th 2005; needs at least 3 votes by Nov 7, 2005
Support:
  1. ZeWrestler Talk 16:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Spawn Man 01:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Karl Marx (2 votes, stays until November 7, 2005)

Nominated October 31, 2005; needs at least 3 votes by November 7, 2005
Support:
  1. Carabinieri 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Marx was one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age. His economic analysis is not only respected by communists and socialists but also by capitalists. He definately deserves a FA.--Carabinieri 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stairway to Heaven (3 votes, stays until November 8, 2005)

Nominated November 1 2005; needs at least 6 votes by November 15, 2005
Support:
  1. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Brendanconway 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Spawn Man 01:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:


Templates

  • {{AIDnom}}, please place this notice on the talk page of nominated article
  • {{IDRIVEcur}}, a notice for current collaborations
  • {{subst:AIDvoter}}, a notice for people who voted for this week's winning article.
  • {{IDRIVEtopic}}, a banner to announce the current topic

See also
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Collaboration_and_Improvement_Drive&oldid=27211492"