Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LordSimonofShropshire (talk | contribs) at 17:02, 10 April 2004 (=Wigwag= adding sign). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The purpose of this page is to determine which pages can be listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles (FA) (See also Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates).

A featured article should:

  • Be comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written. Please read Great Writing and The Perfect Article to see how high the bar can be set.
    • Accurate: support facts with specifics and external citations (beware vague justifications such as "some people say").
    • Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose--the former name for featured articles.
  • Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars).
  • Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
  • Include a lead which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic (see Wikipedia:Lead section).
  • Include images (pictures, maps and diagrams) where appropriate.
  • Include subheads and have a substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents.
  • Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual.

Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However excellent short articles are also accepted.

An article does not have to have a picture to be featured; however, even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the Main Page (it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself) is helpful.

Nominating and Supporting/Opposing an Article

Anyone can nominate any article; if you are nominating an article you've worked on or copyedited, note it up front as a self-nomination. Nominations need to be seconded (supported) by at least two people not significantly involved in the article's creation. Seconding an article implies that you have read it in full.

Sign (with date/time) your nominations and comments with "~~~~"). If a nomination, comment, or objection is not signed and dated, it might be ignored.

After nominating an article, you may want to place a notice on it to alert readers:

CODE: {{msg:fac}}
RESULT: {{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

The discussion period lasts at least one week. If, after that time, there are no objections and at least two supporters, it can be added to FA. If there are objections, a consensus must be reached. If no consensus has been reached after a month, the nomination should be archived in FC/archived nominations. Articles can be re-nominated once former objections seem to have been resolved.

Anyone can add approved candidates to FA and archive candidates with objections (if objections remain after a month).

After an article becomes featured, a link to the article should be added in the proper category on Wikipedia:Featured articles. The nomination statement should be removed from the article's page, and a notice placed atop its Talk: page:

CODE: {{msg:featured}}
RESULT: Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

The discussion of the article on this page should then be archived.

Removal from this page

If you are certain an article should not be featured, you can move it from one of the 'nominated' sections on this page to #Recent removals and proposals for removal (at the end of this page), together with your reasons to remove it. Be especially careful here to respect Wikiquette and to be as comprehensive as you can in explaining your reasons. If you are not really sure whether the article should be removed, ask first - without moving it's nomination/discussion - and try to find a consensus.

Entries that are removed should be archived appropriately.

Archiving

Discussion of articles which were previously on this page is archived in one of the following places:


Nominations without objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Hinduism

Self-Nomination

Support: Hinduism is a vast, vast religion which contains many diverse and colorful practices, philosophies and scriptures. For this reason, the newly-overhauled page (having taken into consideration many comments made on its prior nomination) is a completely different article from before. I think it does a great job of condensing a massive faith, with many variant beliefs, into a single page with clear, readable prose. Also, you'll be surprised at how many inter-wiki links related to Hinduism have similar depth and thus make for good surfing. All in all ambitious, informative, fun and NPOV. Questions, comments, criticisms? --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:47, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Wigwag

This is a self-nominated article that I wrote about the old-fashioned railroad crossing signals that once dotted the Los Angeles area. Most are gone now. Thanks for your consideration! 0:18, 8 April 2004 (UTC) Lucky 6.9

Support: It is a well-written, succinct article with plenty of pictures that give visual context to a relatively (at least for me) obscure subject. I enjoyed it, and am in favor. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:02, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Mail

I stumbled on this page expecting to find a small dictionary definition or a disambiguation page. Boy was I wrong! :) Thought-out and well-written, it's a very good example of how a seemingly innocuous article can be expanded greatly. RADICALBENDER★ 15:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Well written and informative.Exploding Boy 03:14, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I don't think it is the best title for the content. Ambivalenthysteria 12:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. While it covers the history of mail well, it says nothing about actual types of letters and postcards (till i added in a tiny bit). LUDRAMAN | T 14:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ford Mustang

I'm extremely pleased to have contributed to this listing's growth. Someone even took the time to add metric subscripts to it! Again, thanks for your consideration. 0:28, 8 April 2004 (UTC) Lucky 6.9

  • Paragraphs way too long. Sections also needed - but not too many. It also sounds a bit too glowing and ra-ra to me = POV issues (see NPOV). There is also spurious bolding. Things like Cobra Jet should not be bolded (only self-redirects should be bolded - then only bolded the first time they are mentioned). --mav 00:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the tip, Mav. I've been a fan of the car for years and I admit to being somewhat enthusiastic. I trust you'll find the update to be more NPOV. If we can get this article "detailed out" and worthy of featuring before the Mustang's fortieth anniversary on April 19, so much the better! -- Lucky 6.9 04:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Meticulous and informative. Chris Roy 04:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The changes improved the article greatly, but I'd like to see one more picture: something between the '69 and the '05 - maybe a picture of a model from the 1980s (even though I wasn't terribly fond of that design, it'd kind of bridge the gap in terms of pictures). RADICALBENDER★ 15:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Another great tip...thanks, Bender. There are now BBS photos of a '78, an '85 and a '99. Anyone have a good photo of the 1971-1973 version? Lucky 6.9 00:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Cool. I think it looks good. I support this as well. RADICALBENDER★ 02:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I did some copyediting and broke up some paras. I think it should be featured. RickK 01:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • There are still obvious POV issues with this article where subjective opinions are asserted without objective justification (these may be true assertions, but there's nothing to substantiate them in the article, and the choice of words is promotional). A few examples:
    "It was the most successful product launch in automotive history, setting off near-pandemonium at Ford dealers across the continent."
    "Looking like a car that cost hundreds of dollars more ..."
    "An enormous list of options ..."
    "it could be ordered from "mild to wild", ..."
    "The Boss Is Back" as a section header
  • Also, is there no other POV than a promotional one (is there no history of factory recalls, for example)? - Bevo 15:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Per my e-mail response to Bevo, all of the points mentioned are based in fact and can easily be further substantiated. Stories abound of the "near-pandemonium" mentioned in the first paragraph, and the option list was among the most comprehensive of all time. I'd be glad to expand on any of the objections raised, but I respectfully submit that listing factory recalls would be answering a question that no one is asking. I think there's an Internet site that lists recall history on virtually any car ever made, so a link is certainly an option. Regarding the POV objection, very little negative press was written about the early car, but increased through the years leading up to the 1979 model. That's not to say early criticism isn't out there. I've seen it and I'd welcome the opportunity to see more. For example, I can say with certainty that most history books I've read have less than glowing reviews of the Boss 429. Out of the box it was slower and more expensive than the 428 Super Cobra Jet. Thanks again, Bevo, and please know your criticism is most appreciated. Lucky 6.9 22:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it. Support. →Raul654 23:09, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein

There is an unfortunate dearth of featured Philosophy articles, and this is one of the best on the pedia. I'm sure everyone will agree that there's no reason that it shouldn't be featured. --Conover 15:10, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)~

  • Support. Articles like this give substance to Wiki project.
  • Neutral. It's a good article, but:
    1. It could say much more about Wittgenstein as a person -- he was a very complicated human being. His association with John Maynard Keynes isn't even mentioned; his gradual falling out with Bertrand Russell is only hinted at; there is nothing on how his family came to have a princely name; there is nothing on the intricate negotiations he and his brother Paul carried on to save his sisters in Austria from the Nazis; etc.
    2. It could give a much clearer view of the development of his thought: what threads run through the Tractatus period and the Phil. Investigations period, and (conversely) where they differ.
    3. There should probably be at more than a paragraph on his views on mathematics (maybe a separate article?).
    4. There should be far more on his influence on later thinkers, which is massive.
None of this adds up to withholding support, but I hope no one will consider the article "finished". -- Jmabel 03:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I hear and agree with your concerns. However, the fact remains that there are very, very few philosophy articles that are featured, and this would be a good start. If nothing else, it's only going to improve in the future. -- Conover 04:26, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not competent to judge its philosophical or biographical quality; but it looks like a good candidate after a bit of cleanup. It can use some copy editing, and there's a weird non-paragaph in the middle of the Tractatus section that needs to have something done with it, probably by someone who has read the book. Dandrake 04:44, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Trench warfare

I've done no work on this except adding three bits of punctuation, but it's an extremely well-organized, informative article on a fascinating topic. Meelar 04:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Amazingly comprehensive and detailed. The article itself could use a few more pictures. How about some World War I trench photos? Ex1le 18:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Meticulous! jengod 19:34, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. BTW, I wonder if I'm unique in having relatives (okay, one is the uncle of my step-mother) who experienced trench warfare on both sides? -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good use of pictures and links. -Litefantastic 18:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Plus, this should go on the main page ASAP. -Conover 00:49, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not long enough. Nah only kidding, support. LUDRAMAN | T 14:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • wow. Exploding Boy 15:44, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Greek art

Excellent article, illustrated with a number of relevant images. Ambivalenthysteria 12:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Fredrik 15:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great looking article, but needs to be wikified before it is granted featured article status. Ex1le 21:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I was immediately struck by two things: the title (should it be Ancient Greek art?) and the links and references (there are none, not even to related Wikipedia topics). Oppose for now. Exploding Boy 15:59, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Chinatown

Good stuff, this. I'm putting it under self [when self-nominations and others were still separate - —Eloquence] because I've copy edited it a bit, but it's a very well-done piece. jengod 06:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Resolved Objections

  • Object. Next to nothing on European ones. -- Kaihsu 20:30, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)
    • Support. Content on the European Chinatowns has since been added. --Jiang 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • While it's a good article and fairly complete, there are still some omissions, for example there's nothing on Chinatowns in Asia, and some of the information (on Vancouver's Chinatown) is a little out of date. I think it's an incredible start, but could use a little more fleshing out. Exploding Boy 02:55, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tentatively support; thorough and context-ful. Can someone break up the first long unbroken section a bit? (the first 10 pars of section 2) too long/detailed/lacking in overview compared with the tone/pace of the rest of the article. +sj+ 00:43, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
    • moved up to encourage people to verify that objections have been responded to.
    • I subhed'd the heck out of the top parts, and refined some of the others. whaddya think now? jengod 02:08, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow, a massive amount of work done over the past day. Excellent. I love descent into h4 territory... makes the TOC worth reading. Dear successive supporter, please propel this beauty into Featured land. +sj+ 06:51, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Remove previous objections, but add one (and I know it's nitpicky) about the lack of info on Yokohama's Chinatown: it's one of the largest and best known in Japan, but there's no info on it (this is a very minor objection however. Otherwise I support). Exploding Boy 16:05, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Current votes

  • Great article. Definitely support. Darkcore 09:40, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I think it'd be better if the content for the foreign Chinatowns was as detailed as those for North America. Ambivalenthysteria 12:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nominations with unresolved objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.


Joseph Haydn

Group work has produced a long, deep and outstanding musical article on a major figure. (I haven't contributed anything there myself.) Wetman 21:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • My immediate reactions are that the intro ideally should paint a slightly more comprehensive picture and that "Life" should have a few subsections. No opinion on content yet. Fredrik 22:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Paideia

User:WHEELER might be a bit odd, but when he writes well, you wouldn't believe. An interesting and very well researched article.

Kim Bruning 14:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't support right now. There is some very well-researched information there, but some very confusing style issues, and a few errors. The article, which is already brief, distracts itself for a fair amount of time with the concept of "arete" -- related partially to paideia, I admit, but it really shouldn't be the major tangent it is. Mistakes in areas I do know something about (for instance, he says "paideia" is a root for "pedagogy", which it is not) make me suspicious of areas I don't know as well. I think there is the core of a future featured article here, but it needs a lot of work to fix the style, expand it, and check some dubious assertions. In time and with work, I think WHEELER has indeed put together an article that will be featured. But not yet. Jwrosenzweig 20:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Confusing and in need of proof reading. Exploding Boy 16:09, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Good Times

I think it might be a good idea to have a pop-cultural article as a featured article (in this case, a groundbreaking TV show). Full disclosure: I wrote nearly all of this article. Moncrief 07:13, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Some things that need work: needs more information on the characters (which are only lightly touched on) and maybe more on the plot. Breaking this apart into headers would be nice (if/when that extra info is added). A picture of some sort (like a fair use title card or DVD cover scan) would benefit the article greatly. Otherwise, I agree that we need a few more pop culture articles featured, though. :) RADICALBENDER★ 00:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Writing system

I think this is an excellent article, with a full account of the often-confusing writing systems of the world. It answered a lot of questions for me, and I'll bet it will for lots of others. Mjklin 02:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • It's a well written article, but it seems a little short yet, and could really use some images of the different writing systems. Exploding Boy 09:19, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Lassa fever

  • this ancient article, I have started, lost its history so I can get away with nominating it here. Kpjas 08:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kinda short for a featured article, don't you think? --mav 10:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, working on it. Kpjas

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

  • Wow. I think this is terrific. Kingturtle 07:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • It's about to get a lot better, so I think better to wait a couple of weeks and check again... --Woggly 11:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong objection. See the talk page. Wally 02:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cajun cuisine

This is for the most part a self-nomination.

After the corrections made by others I'm inclined to believe that it's well-written in addition to being fairly comprehensive, and the subject is of broad enough interest, at least here in the States. --Bkalafut 10:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose. It will only make people very hungry. Just kidding! Support. LUDRAMAN | T 21:06, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-rounded and informative. ⇒ whkoh [talk] 06:58, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Desperately needs images. —Steven G. Johnson 07:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • I would have to agree with Steven. All FAC's really need atleast two good images before they can be taken seriously. ChicXulub 09:35, Apr 2, 2004 (GMT)
      • Does anybody have any suggestions on how or where to find public-domain images of food? Bkalafut 10:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)~
    • Support: with the addition of pics. I'll try to find some outside of popeye's. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:45, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. jengod 19:40, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) I'm uncomfortable that it's more list than narrative, I'd like to see more history, and more detail on preparation of individual items, and why they are part of the Cajun menu. Also, parts of this are mildly POV:
      • "Sometimes the label is applied to any abomination involving inferior meat coated with stale cayenne pepper or merely as a slogan, as in McDonalds's "Spicy Cajun McChicken"."
      • "Cajun spice" blends such as Tony Chachere's are sometimes used in Acadian kitchens, but they tend to be avoided because they are inferior, too salty, and because Cajun-style seasoning is simply achieved from scratch, even by taste."
      • "what unscrupulous restauranteurs try pass off as Cajun."
      • Points well-taken, perhaps the nomination ought to be withdrawn until more history is added. Preparation of individual items is inappropriate if by that is meant "recipes," but if you mean "explain the examples" then it's all well and good. I do take exception to the POV claim. That things like the Cajun McChicken are not Cajun is not a subject of debate. That and the bit about "unscrupulous restauranteurs" may be a bit too...colorful...but no serious argument is made or can be made for anything a restaurant calls "cajun" to actually be cajun cuisine. The bit about Tony Chachere's and other spice blends is pure fact. The blends tend to be avoided, because they are inferior (usually stale) and too salty, and because they fix a nonexistent problem. I'll flesh the article out sometime to include a bit of history. The roots of jambalaya, for example, are quite interesting...--Bkalafut 08:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Mons Badonicus

I am nominating this as an act of unabashed vanity -- & I'm amazed, not having read it for several months, that it still fairly close to what I strive for. I admit it needs some pictures. (I have the photos somewhere, & will scan them when I find them.) -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for now. The content seems good, but the article needs to be broken up into 3 or 4 sections. Gentgeen 17:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mountain Jews

This is an interesting article. Anyone disagree? Dagestan

  • Oppose. It is indeed an interesting article, but it has far too little original content in the first few sections. With some expansion, I think it'd be perfect. --Conover 15:06, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

11 M

I just read in a comment, that there are several wikipedians from Madrid and we really don't know the fate of at least one of the regulars since the day before these events. Another admin wrote that he usually takes the train to go to the university but he didn't yesterday because of a strike. As this tragedy has touched the wikipedia community deeply and closely, I suggest that we make the March 11, 2004 Madrid attacks the featured article and use the Spanish flag with the black ribbon (es:Imagen:Madrid_pesame.png), de:Benutzer:Triebtäter

  • [Originally opposed due to stability fabiform | talk]
    • As far as I get news from Madrid, the attacks shattered thewhole country. Coloured ribbons recently have become an international symbol for solidarity. So I think it is a good idea to have the same memorial feature as the Spanish Wikipedia has. | 217.231.218.28 22:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • For everyone's info, the image in question has been uploaded to En as Flag spain black ribbon.png (not by me). Garrett Albright 09:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article seems to have stabilized. --Ruhrjung 08:43, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fine example of a quick-turnaround art by many collaborators. A model for future arts. (fabi: pls confirm it has stabilised) +sj+ 01:42, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Definitely support. IMHO a good featured article should have interest in it and should be being edited regularly. LUDRAMAN | T 19:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've noted several things on the talk page about the article's focus that need to be fixed. I just glanced through its sister article (Aftermath...) and I get the impression there's duplication, and that there's outdated material on this article (especially with regards to the responsibility section). fabiform | talk 19:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alanis Morissette

This is for the most part a self-nomination.

After the corrections made by others I'm inclined to believe that it's well-written in addition to being fairly comprehensive. --User:Stoic squrimer 10:41, 2 April 2004 (-6:00)

  • Sure, BUT ONLY IF the top photo can be returned to the way it used to be so it doesn't take up the entire width of the page. --Lowellian 00:58, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking at it again, it's rather NPOV, so for now, I oppose this nomination until the page is made better. The page would be improved by less speculation about which lyrics correspond to what parts of her life, or backing up those speculations with citations from interviews or biographies. --Lowellian 16:05, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the comprehensive nature of the article, but in places it is a little too comprehensive... we can't talk about planned future events as if they have already happened! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's fantastic prose, and at a first glance, I almost nominated myself. But the anon user who commented on the talk page was exactly right. "Additionally, the writer pre-supposes to know which lyrics correspond with which part of Morissette's life, something which would really need to be backed up with references to Morissette sayingso herself. In all it's just extremely not-encyclopedic." Ambivalenthysteria 12:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Asperger's syndrome

This is a very well written and informative article. Perl 15:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Fredrik 15:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, I enjoyed reading this, it flowed very naturally. fabiform | talk 23:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Acegikmo1 07:16, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Schnee 09:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for now. Most of the article seems excellent, but the list of "possible people with Aspergers" is unsourced (is it just by random Wikipedians?) and it's hard to evaluate its basis and reliability. Some people on the list (or their descendants) may furthermore be offended by their thinly-justified inclusion on it. Steven G. Johnson 19:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you would support if we removed the list? I agree with yu about the list being unsourced and I think it should probably be shortened or removed. Perl 20:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I would support if the list were removed, or shortened to those people for whom an explicit citation to a reputable source could be given. Steven G. Johnson
        • I changed the section and added a little context. See if it looks right now. Perl 01:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I've edited the article a little further to make it clear that such "biographical" diagnoses remain controversial, and added a reference. I withdraw my objection, and am now neutral. Steven G. Johnson 03:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dpbsmith 02:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) Best-written article I've seen recently, one of the few that might IMHO actually qualify as "brilliant prose," not just a good encyclopedia article. Maybe not quite up to John McPhee but "not quite as good as John McPhee" is pretty high praise. Dpbsmith 02:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm just curious: Do you mean the writings of John McPhee or the article John McPhee (or am I just missing something)? Acegikmo1
      • Oh, I meant the writings of John McPhee who is in my arrogant opinion one of the best nonfiction writers. In the world. Ever. Never even thought that someone might think that I was referring to the stubby and mediocre Wikipedia article. on him. McPhee is delightful; I can pick up a John McPhee book on some subject that doesn't interest you at all and within one page I get hooked and read it nonstop to the end. The Curve of Binding Energy is really good, BTW... Dpbsmith 13:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised... the prose puts me off, and is one of my main reasons for holding off on supporting featured status. +sj+ 22:13, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Support with one caveat. Is there a way to break up the characteristics section into two sections? I find myself swimming in it a bit, though the writing itself is good. If there's no way to break it up, I support anyway, but I would love it if the section could be partitioned somehow. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 18:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gandalf61 10:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, for its interest and quality of writing. Pfortuny 08:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. Personally, I have a very strong interest in this issue; although I've never been officially diagnosed, I've become convinced that I'm an "Asperger" myself. But even if I didn't have a personal interest in the content, I'd still support. Dale Arnett 15:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. There's a fantastic article waiting to be made out of autism and Asperger's syndrome, but neither one is quite there yet. Arguing against featured art status: inconstant (and incomplete) wikification, colloquial non-encyclopedic language, and lacking historical context (how has the meaning of these notions/terms/syndromes changed over the past 100 years?). The article could be much improved by someone with a high-level view of the entire field of related mental states and conditions (and with a clinical detachment from AS itself). +sj+ 22:05, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
    • Also, more detail is needed before this should be featured; among other things, AS should be distinguished from other types of 'high-functioning' autism, and definitional issues (which older classifications/diagnoses can be classified as AS, now that [for the past 20 years] it exists as a separate classification?).

Deus Ex

I think that Deus Ex is an excellent Wikipedia article. There are many things I know well and love, but rarely have I ever seen such a good synopsis of something. It is not long-winded but does not abbreviate too much either, clear and concise, and it has many handy links that I found useful, even ones, like UNATCO, created purely for the page itself. I would like to nominate this for a featured article- however, it does have spoilers, so probably isn't good to read for someone planning to play it. Does this present a problem? Aerothorn 03:22, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Quite well-written, but lacks the content needed for a feature article. That it contains spoilers shouldn't pose a problem, however. ⇒ whkoh [talk][[]] 09:14, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Very strongly support. The article was a fantastic summing-up of a very philosophically-intriguing game with links to relevant philosophy and sociology pages. A model of what Wikipedia entries on famous games should read. Wally 02:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


DOOM

Fredrik and I have put a lot of work into revamping this article lately, and though we're not quite finished yet, I think it's pretty damn good as it is right now. Any feedback on it would definitely be appreciated. Sarge Baldy 09:38, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Meh. Support probably - its a fairly good article but couldn't it be longer? Ludraman | Talk 10:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hrm, well, I think this nomination should wait a few days so the remaining work can be done first ;) Fredrik 18:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As Fredrik explained, this article is not yet ready. Kingturtle 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I have read the edits so far...and the article still needs streamlining and better organization. Kingturtle 18:52, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be a good idea to wait until the release of Doom 3? jacoplane
No, the article has nothing whatsoever to do with doom 3, that has its own page elsewhere. DOOM is about Doom and its immediate sequels. Sarge Baldy 01:10, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
Support. -- Schnee 17:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. -- Quoth 04:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Now that is a danged fine article. Detailed information, clear and well organized sections, reads fluidly. Support whole-heartedly. --zandperl 21:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Strikes a nice balance between discussing the game and discussing the effects it had. I think this should be a feature article now, but that we should reserve making it the mainpage feature until the release of (the very eagerly awaited) DOOM3. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Definitely support. Well-written, compelling, comprehensive. +sj+ 00:46, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

Rainbow flag

Or does it need more work? -- Kimiko 22:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Lots of info, but some of the sentences are awkward and could be tweaked for legibility. Example: "The flag, composed of the major colors of the rainbow, which is used to symbolize the cause of gay pride and gay rights, originated in the United States and is now seen around the world." could be "The flag is composed of the major colors of the rainbow; these colors symbolize gay pride and gay rights. It originated in the United States, but is now seen around the world." Garrett Albright 00:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Longer history, more focus on its development over time, migration to non-flag objects and designs, &c. The specific history of how use of the flag migrated from peace and other movements to the pride movement -- from more than one perspective -- extremely interesting; if you can track that down, it would be the makings of a great feature article. +sj+ 11:47, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • Okay, I added some more about the peace flag and reorganized the article. I couldn't find any indication that this flag was used before the 60s, only that it was inspired by multi-colored flags that some pacifists used (presumably in the late 50s/early 60s). The history of the gay pride flag is already quite complete. I also added a little more on variations of the pride flag. Comments? -- Kimiko 12:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I like the changes a lot. Now it just needs a narrative arc... another angle you can pursue throughout the article might help. As it is, the collection of information and (v. nice) images doesn't hold together the way the brilliant articles do; hard to put a finger on it. +sj+ 01:10, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)

Congo Free State

Superb work on a topic that strikingly overlooked and difficult to research in scholarship, especially by User:Tannin, who must've expended quite a deal of effort, given the attention to detail and sources. This article provides excellent background for anyone trying to understand the civil war in the Congo since August '98. Mobutu's post-independence "kleptocracy" is the heir to the plunder of the Congo Free State. More recently, before the July 2003 power-sharing agreement, the DRC saw much of the same, with warring parties intentionally prolonging the conflict to plunder diamonds, gold, coltan, and timber. Although refugee agencies often attribute 2.5- 3.3 million deaths - directly or indirectly - to the civil war, reliable news from Congo is still so hard to find. It's to Wiki's credit that such an easy-to-overlook topic wasn't left to languish as a stub. 172 18:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Not ready for Feature. Needs more editing, more wikifying...needs to be adjusted for the everyday reader to understand. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I made some changes for the sake of accessibity and presentaion. (Nothing substantial - so this isn't a "self-nomination" by any means) Are the changes enough for you to withdraw the objection? 172 23:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I spent an hour or so wikifying and performing small edits. I also listed some comments and questions on the talk page of the article. We need to get some other opinions and editors involved. I still don't think it is ready. Kingturtle 10:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • User:Markalexander100 went through Kingturtle's list of questions and comments and gave the article a final round of copyediting. I'll put this on the main page once Kingturtle's ready to withdraw the objections. 172 11:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • No one has worked on this since my Feb 21 comments. Please see my comments and questions on the talk page of the article. Kingturtle 05:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This is indeed a superb article. On my short list of "what to show potential WP converts". Support. +sj+ 02:09, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • I just "discovered" this article today through hitting the random page button and I have to say that I think it is a really great article. I came here to nominate it and I find that it's already here. I fully support this becomming as a featured article. Mintguy (T)

Socialism

Jmabel's version is the most neutral and accurate article I've read on any controversial subject at Wikipedia in the last 2 years! He should get a barnstar, too!! --Uncle Ed 15:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • The language of the article, particularly the informal tone, the passive voice, and the many generalizations ("Marxists would...") is getting in the way of me understanding the content of the article. DanKeshet 20:32, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Content: If I think it's reasonable and Uncle Ed doesn't think it's left-wing POV, it must be well done. Style: If it could use improvement, it's not something I'll put on List of articles that dandrake slammed for not being in good enough English. It has some things we've been warned against as weasel-words, but I think the references to other articles cover the ground. Another reason for support: unlike other pages with sub-standard style, it has a lively Talk page, and it appears that any questions about its language will be seen and addressed if raised there. Dandrake 19:16, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why don't we leave it here for a little while (say until the end of the month). Give me a chance to edit the language I find inappropriate or confusing. You can see the starts of my edits on its history now. DanKeshet 23:42, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, it's past the end of the month... what do you think now? I'm neutral on this article, but certainly have no objections to featuring it. +sj+ 02:10, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Support. A very informative article. Ex1le 02:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Moncrief 07:18, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not remotely close to featured article status, it would need a few rewrites, new editors, etc... Sam Spade 07:25, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Withdrawn nominations

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=3137028"