Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Denni (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 9 August 2004 (→[[2004 Democratic National Convention]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
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: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. 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.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. 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

Shortcut
  • 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.


Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Nominations

Richard Feynman

Found this. Looks good. 81.168.80.170 20:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Writings fine, though I can't speak to the material. Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:19, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  • No photo, also I'd like to see a bit more on the lectures, these books have to be the most popular series of undergraduate physics books ever written. Everyone who is even remotely serious about physics owns the three volume set. Book three in particluar is very important as it presents quantum mechanics in a back to front sort of way. (I'll work on the article myself tomorrow)theresa knott 22:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. "Good" does not equal "one of Wikipedia's best articles." The article as is, is simply too short. A photo would also be nice. --mav 00:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Succession to the British Throne

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 15:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kakapo

I have done a lot of work to rewrite this page, so I guess that would make it a self-nomination. I think the topic is interesting and highlights a critically endangered species. --Eudyptes 00:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. 81.168.80.170 09:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting piece. Angmering 10:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:55, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Norse mythology

I have extensively rewritten the page, and its looking pretty good. I suppose this is a self nomination, but I didn't create the page or write most of the content. Sam [Spade] 04:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I like the article, but I have several objections. 1) I would like to see an early interlinked list of all Gods and smaller entities (like Fenrir, etc.) with a short decription on who is who. ATM, the first mention to Heimdall is in the ending 'The story of the Worlds and the end' section, while Odin is at the very begining ('Centres of faith'). This makes it difficult if one wants to see the complete pantheon and the relations between them, not to mention looking for the (not always) first interlink of a given name. 2) There is a inlink to 'Norse mythological influences on later literature' in the header, but not a mention of it in the latter section 'Modern influence', which I think should go to the end, not in the beginning of the article, and be divided into sections for art&literature and non-art influence.. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

American Pie (song)

It's a topic many people have wondered about; the article is comprehensive, informative, and well-organized in separating the mainstream theory on the song's meaning from the list of more creative theories. I don't think I contributed more than 1 sentence. Fishal 00:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Strong support. Can we get an album cover and/or a picture of Dylan (and or Dean) in the red windbreaker, and other iconic imagery? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:17, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
  • Support. 81.168.80.170 20:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support if those long paragraphs are broken up. Lukobe 21:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object; needs proper lead section and some subheadings under 'The "Standard Interpretation"'. Fredrik | talk 21:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Rather rambling, and a large portion of it seems to be clutching at vague straws in order to make a longer article. IMO, it's not in the same league as Yesterday (song), which recently failed to gain FA status. In addition, if the massive analysis section wasn't there, it wouldn't be much more than a stub. Ambi 04:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - No lead section which is a basic requirement for FA. --mav 06:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Japanese name

Originally written by me but went under heavily copyedit. -- Taku 00:14, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object: please follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Japanese) and use the ō and ū characters for long vowels. Currently many of the long vowels are not marked at all; this is confusing. When this is fixed, Support. --Shibboleth 03:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I think all featured articles should have at least one tiny illustration. Can't we get some calligraphy of a Japanese name? — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How about a hanko or an impression of one?

Fg2 12:49, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Or a photo of a nameplate on a house. Fg2 12:54, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sorting algorithm

I have contributed a bit. -- Taku 00:14, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I would really like to see diagrams for this topic; sorting is so much easier to understand visually than verbally. --Shibboleth 03:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - needs basic expansion all around and longer lead section. --mav 03:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a bit of filling-out, and proper dashes. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:15, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. - No mention of the limitations. See Kernighan and Ritchie's dissection of the algorithms; they just don't work for some cases, and cannot be applied blindly. Ancheta Wis 20:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2004 Democratic National Convention

Self-Nomination. I started the speakers list back when it was just a wee stub, but how it's grown! A true testament to the massively-parallel power of Wikipedia that just a week after the convention ended, we have an excellent article comprehensively covering the event in a much more complete and balanced way than any of the traditional news sources. It also seems to have slipped out of the news cycle, so it has pretty much stabilized. Would love to get this accepted and featured around the time of the RNC, to inspire creating a great article for that too. Gregb 23:06, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Neutrality 00:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic article. This is what Wikipedia does best. Ambi 01:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a wealth of information and details we didn't get in the mainstream media. It's well packaged. --Gerald Farinas 17:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good mix of raw fact-reporting and analysis. 81.168.80.170 20:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 67.162.52.102 02:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Good article, great lead section but TOC is overwhelming. I suggest moving the timeline/quotes section to a separate page. That should make this article more manageable. --mav
    • I have proposed a possible alternate solution in a software feature request. Thoughts? Fredrik | talk 00:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • The timeline/quotes should still be moved. --mav
        • I just tried my bestest to move the schedule of speakers to another document. I would appreciate peer review, as this is the first time I've tried to do something like this before, and mainly went off perceived norms of other articles. Full schedule at Speakers of 2004 Democratic National Convention. Do we have a 2004 US presidential campaign template/footer that we can place at the bottom of all these great articles we're making? --Gregb 17:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Good work, but the article could use a broader, historical perspective, looking back to when party conventions actually decided the nominations. Nominating conventions weren't always coronations, of course. 172 05:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)Support 172 19:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wasn't all that kind of hashed out in the link to the separate Democratic National Convention article provided in the introductory paragraph? --Gerald Farinas 17:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What? This is about a specific convention 172. That type of info should be at Democratic National Convention. --mav 06:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Very well, I'll support. Though links to backgrounding articles could be more prominent. 172 19:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Much better! Full support. --mav 00:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Of utter irrelevance to most of the civilized world, regardless of its compositional quality. Denni☯ 00:35, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick

I contributed a bit to it, but it's not really a self-nomination. Covers a great deal of ground; I learned some interesting stuff from it. grendel|khan 15:25, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

  • The lead says that he was hailed by Stanislaw Lem, but the Lem article itself seems to say the opposite (I think). Could this be clarified? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:31, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
  • Are there no pictures that could be used? At the very least, if there is no photo of him in the public domain, you could add some book cover scans under fair use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:25, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I actually emailed the academic department of a deceased writer whose book on PKD contained the only picture of him I could find... but it's been more than a week, and the department hasn't mailed me back. Anyone who finds any other pictures of him is welcome to ask for permission to include them in wikipedia... grendel|khan 02:52, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
      • Using Google Image Search yelded several images. I am pretty sure we could get a permission to use from one of those sites - not that most of them have any permission notes of their own. What is the Wiki policy when an image exists on the web and there is no copyright info anywhere? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Privy Council

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 13:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I read this article a few months ago to find out what exactly the privy council is, and found this article detailed and interesting. Dmn 14:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I also read this one a while back, also to find out exactly what the privy council was. Makes you wonder why I didn't nominate it myself, really... Angmering 21:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 00:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mumbai

I have contributed to it but can hardly be called a self-nomination. Covers most topics you'd expect it to cover. --Hemanshu 01:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. One liner sections such as Mumbai#Demographics, Mumbai#Early_history, and Mumbai#Religion should not exist. Either expand them to be at least couple paragraphs long or remove the heading. "Also see" and "See Also" do not adhere to the MoS - the proper form is "See also". The table on the top is hideous. I'm not sure what the "Significance" entry is doing there - that's already explained in the lead section - and what differentiates this listing from the trivia section. Is this part of some template? Otherwise, it is imo uncessary. --Jiang 01:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Table is 1980s-esqe. Religion section is incomplete and POV.--Neutrality 05:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Numerous hyphens used as dashes. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 11:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

DNA repair

Self-nomination. Need to build awareness on this fundamental biological process which is pivotal to aging and disease.

  • Support. Wow nice article good pictures too. Chubtoad 01:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object on two counts:
  1. Poorly written. Redundant and over-verbose phrasing. Sentences are long and clumsy, and should be cut into more easily comprehensible pieces. Full of technical jargon that is never explained in layman's terms (and often not even hyperlinked to the relevant article) and nearly impenetrable to a non-biologist like me. Even a few grammatical errors. Sorry, the information looks good but as far as clarity goes this needs a complete rewrite IMHO. Edit after discussion with User:Prometheus1: this text resembles the writing in many scientific journals and would probably be adequately comprehensible for expert biologists, but my objection is that I feel the article is not clear for laymen. The quality of the information is not in question.
  2. Dubious copyright situation with the images. Although they were submitted by their creator, they have a copyright tag on them. --Shibboleth 01:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection challenged. "Poorly written"? You will have to be more specific than that. Point to the relevant section associated with your claims, otherwise your criticism is deemed as non-constructive. Also explain what you mean by "dubious" in respect to copyright when I created the images and own the copyright. prometheus1 03:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I didn't point to a specific section because I feel the problem affects the entire article. Take e.g. "The common functional motif across most lifespan influencing genes is in their downstream effect of altering the rate of DNA damage." This sentence expresses a simple idea, but I had to reread it 3 times to grasp what it meant. "functional motif", "downstream effect"? Why use such big words? I would propose instead something like: "Most genes which influence lifespan have been found to affect the rate of DNA damage." Or this: "The rate of DNA damage must be counterbalanced by the rate DNA repair lest an accumulation of errors overwhelm the cell and result in senescence, apoptosis or cancer.". Why not: "The rate of DNA repair should be as fast as the rate of damage, otherwise an accumulation of errors may overwhelm the cell." (and move the "senescence, apoptosis or cancer" bit to the "DNA damage" section, where it is more relevant). Or this: "It is apparent that the mechanism of mutation that allows a genome to retain its ability to adapt is also responsible for destabilizing it and rendering it vulnerable to disease and aging." This says nothing that is not said elsewhere, and should be cut IMHO. Someone else needs to look at this article and rewrite it for clarity, but I'm not a biologist so I don't feel I'd be the best one to do it. As for the images, I suppose it's okay for you to retain the copyright but it would be nice for the terms of use to be spelled out on the image page. Generally GFDL or public-domain images are preferred. --Shibboleth 05:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection challenged. You have claimed that the sentences are long and clumsy yet you have provided no specific example of that. You are criticizing a literary style which obviously in not meant for 6th graders, but then neither is the topic of DNA repair! It goes without saying that to someone who does not have sufficient biological grounding, terms such as DNA, genes, proteins, enzymes, mutagens, mutation, evolution, etc will make no sense.

"There is absolutely nothing grammatically wrong or otherwise ambiguous with this statement: "The common functional motif across most lifespan influencing genes is in their downstream effect of altering the rate of DNA damage." How can you possibly refer to "functional" and "motif" as big words? (and since when are certain words prohibited from being used?) Is it their arrangement in a phrase that makes them difficult to comprehend? How can "functional motif" be so difficult to comprehend? It is an elegant and concise phrase designed to illustrate the concept of physiological modularity. Again I repeat that these concepts require a certain grounding in science in order for them to be properly understood and contextualized. Otherwise one must include an entire tome on the necessary background with every specialist article. Presumably the reader is in the possession of the requisite competence to cognitively assemble the various new informational layers of a pre-existing knowledge framework. "This is now potentially controversial as it demarcates the quality of information to be provided as well as the competence of the readership. Remember, that a mathematical treatise on quantum physics can never be so deconstructed that one with no mathematical competence will ever be able to fully comprehend it. If however, it is the policy of Wikipedia that you are representing, and this policy is to exclude topics of a certain density or requirement of prerequisite background then it should be noted that such articles are not welcome. prometheus1 10:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    • Hypocrisy of Objector. Note the following sentence from one of the objectors articles Legitimacy (political science) 'This form of legitimacy is related to democracy in that the justification of those constitutional procedures are agreed to be popular consent, but it may result in different results, in that constitutional procedure often require supermajorities or are intended to protect minority groups.' Now one can employ similar deconstructionist techniques that the objector applied on the statements in the article DNA repair that result in similar issues of "over-verbosity", "long and clumsy" sentences, etc.
  • Prometheus, I apologize for the over-harsh tone of my criticisms. I don't want to bloat WP:FAC with this discussion so I've responded on your talk page. --Shibboleth 18:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • An apology for "over-harsh tones" offers no remedy. Your unfounded critique could cast an aspersion on the quality of the article and undermine its message. Considering it is probably the only such broad based introductory review on the topic existent on the searchable internet then you are also implicated in undermining the educational needs of potential readers! Your retraction of derogatory statements such as "poorly written", "Redundant and over-verbose phrasing", would be a good starting point towards reconciling this situation. prometheus1 07:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. An article which requires a "Some background in biology and genetics may be useful for the remainder of the article" warning" clearly needs work before making featured status. Until it's more readable by the ordinary person, I'll have to object. Ambi 04:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Question to Objector: if an article becomes automatically excluded from the featured list on the basis that it is by nature technical, how is it that Wikipedia can demonstrate that it carries material for the more academically sophisticated user? Just how important is it to lobotomize this article? Would my 10 year old daughter have to be able to understand every single word? (she understands most of it ;) ) I think it may be time to incorporate a featured articles subsection for the reader who may be needing a more technical view. Or else you may find that due to the present process of peer review the inevitable side effect of lobotomizing good articles and discouraging more sophisticated authorship will manifest! prometheus1 08:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Object: The technical content is good, but its writing does not allow it to be marked as "one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work." (Sorry to digress, but it can't be avoided: You know, the form of argumentation that's being used in defense of the article does no good, or less than none. The purpose of this process is to reach a consensus; and that's unlikely to be advanced by, for instance, claiming that an objection should be ignored because the objector has in the past contributed prose that doesn't deserve to be featured. That sort of thing serves mainly to annoy other people; they ought to be smart enough to ignore that and proceed only on the merits, but why make it harder by setting a bad example?) It's true that (for instance) "functional motif" is not long words; it's just in this context pretentions jargon. Nothing would be lost by having a sentence assert that genes that affect lifespan show a common pattern, that all (or nearly all, or whatever) act by altering the rate of DNA damage. We've heard enough by now about 6th-graders; just what is the intended audence? Apparently, people who regularly read scientific journals. And yet, if you look at the front matter in Science or Nature, you find stuff that's not written in that style. Its audience is readers of those journals, looking at matter outside their specialties, and yet some (not all) is really clear writing for non-specialists, which would be quite understandable to a person who had never contributed to a refereed journal. The essential point, though, is that most of the material in the DNA repair article can be made accssible to people without a serious background in the latest biological work. If it doesn't try to do that, it's not among our best work. If it does, and it also goes beyond that level, wonderful. Dandrake 21:04, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Governor-General of India

Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 13:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. James F. (talk) 14:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Demn fine article, my good man. Jolly good shew, what! — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I would support this if the picture of Lord Mountbatten had source and copyright information. Jeronimo 11:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I could not find any information, so I have removed the picture. -- Emsworth 22:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I think this article illustrates one of the best points of Wikipedia. There's no way Brittanica, or even probably Encarta, would have an article on Obama at this point in time. It's pretty well developed and been through peer-review. Self-nom. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:10, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

  • Neutral at this time. I think the main reason people outside of Illinois know of him is because of his speech at the Democrats' convention; but the article doesn't have much information on what he said or why his speech was so well received. (I didn't watch it myself, and was wondering.) Smerdis of Tlön 19:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've split off the address into its own subheading and expanded it, along with including a quote and a link to the transcript. Better? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:54, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
      • Much. (I suppose it's too much to ask of a political speech that it be about anything in particular.) Support. Smerdis of Tlön 13:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Part of this problem is that I'm worried about being too POV in the section. Really, the best thing is to read/listen to the speech. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:30, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
  • I don't think his marriage and children are lead section material. The sentence should be integrated into the relevant time period of his life. --Jiang 01:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Merged. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:11, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
  • I'll support once Jiang's objections are fixed. Johnleemk | Talk 05:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. I'd like to know *when* they got married, though, but that's not a major problem. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 01:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's fabulous that Wikipedia can be as thorough and as unbiased talking about current events as it is talking about ancient civilizations or subatomic particles. Fishal 04:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A good example of current events and Wiki being a leg up on dead tree encyclopedias. Andre 06:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Immortality

Partial self-nomination. A fine article on immortality from a variety of perspectives. It is comprehensive and includes several pictures and links. Chubtoad 06:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Broad and well written overview of a very challenging topic. Encompasses a variety of aspects including historical, religious, cultural and scientific. prometheus1 11:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. No mention of the rhizomal plants (some are forests) that are 1 huge organism, obviously immortal (but they can be killed). No mention of the Internet or the corporation either. Ancheta Wis 20:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, huge POV issues. Sam [Spade] 20:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. What Sam said. Ambi 04:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bloodletting

Self-nomination. Was previously a good article and a good subsection of bleeding; with the latter merged into the former, I feel that this is now worthy of featured status. -Sean Curtin 06:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Object - Its a good article but the writing is a little anaemic ;-) Sorry, a more serious objection is that some section headings would be a good idea (most obviously for the bit on modern usage, but an earlier section would be a good idea too). Also I would have thought there was a connection to trepanning to be made. -- Solipsist 13:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's a bit turgid. Couldn't it be broken up a bit with sections, images, etc.? — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 23:52, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've split the article into sections and added another image, as well as external links and a little more info. Any specific objections on the style, or other objections? -Sean Curtin 07:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Great! -Sean Curtin 23:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Common scold

Self-nomination. We don't have very many law related articles featured. I think this one is intriguing, as complete as I know how to make it, and even contains a surely public domain picture. Smerdis of Tlön 22:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Would it be too much to ask to have an example of an actual conviction from earlier, though? Perhaps the last one to actually be dunked? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:28, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
    • I've added some data that I've found about earlier British prosecutions; but apparently the offence was prosecuted in lower courts and seldom came to the attention of courts that publish records, so that may be hard to figure. Smerdis of Tlön 02:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, quite well written for such an obscure topic. Sam [Spade] 04:20, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 04:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

History of Greenland

Self-nomination (though I've had some help), and my first at that. Now that I've added some pictures, I thought it might be worthy of nomination – if nothing else, to see what additions people think it needs. -- Jao 13:45, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Great job! Needs only a few things before it's featured-quality. 1) The air base, and a nuclear accident, are mentioned as causing friction between Greenland and Denmark. Why would the air base cause friction, and please mention more details on this nuclear thing. 2) Why was Greenland so dissatisfied with the European union? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:38, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your suggestions. I have tried to address these issues. -- Jao 06:27, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Support. A fine effort. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:19, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
  • Support. I would like to see some references to books (or other media) about the topic. This is especially necessary for the part where there is no consensus about what really happened (such as when the Vikings left, why, etc.). Jeronimo 21:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added another external link about that, so there are now three in total discussing the subject. Do you think this is sufficient, or do we need to attribute each theory to a certain source? (Unfortunately, my primary printed source is written in Swedish, so that's probably not very useful to mention.) -- Jao 06:27, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is necessary to attribute every theory, unless they are very famous or controversial. I think the Swedish book is useful to list, especially if there are no equivalent English works on the subject. Jeronimo 06:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I should note that I wrote a lot of the Viking and Inuit material. I would like to see more added on the details of home rule powers - have they expanded over time? Also I know there is a controversy over pollution at U.S. radar bases in Northern Canada, is it also an issue at Thule? Rmhermen 16:26, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 12:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CSS Hunley

Not a very long article, but an interesting one, combining naval warfare and a new section on forensic anthropology, bringing the story of the Hunley up to date, 140 years after it first made history as the first submarine to sink a ship. Nice illustrations to complement the article too. Danny 11:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Object for now. The writing and images are fine, but if the thing sank in 1863, killing its creator and 7 crew, how could it attack a Union ship in 1864? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:33, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
    • It killed more than one crew and was raised at least once to re-enter service, IIRC. --mav 04:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • It sank 3 seperate times and killed 3 seperate crews (Knowitall ->) →Raul654 04:21, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection challenged. The below is quoted from the article.
Three of the Hunley's night missions failed against the Union ironclads blockading the harbor. On August 29, 1863 five of a crew of nine were killed during an attempted attack when the skipper accidentally dived with the hatches still open. On October 15, 1863 the Hunley failed to surface during a trial dive, killing its inventor Horace Lawson Hunley and seven other crewmen. In both cases, the Confederate Navy salvaged the vessel and returned it to service.
--John Moser 05:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Brain fart. Objection withdrawn. Support, good writing. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:06, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
  • Support. And an interesting story too. There is a colour version of the illustration here. But I wonder about the scale suggested by the painting. It doesn't look credible that those sailors could fit inside and drive a crank. -- Solipsist 14:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • There are two questions on the talk page -what are its dimensions? and What is the name of the fifth body identifed by DNA? Also I wonder why the above section says "Three of Hunley's night mission against the Union ironclads" but then describes the second sinking as a "test dive". Was it a test or a attack mission? Rmhermen 13:49, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - the article is tiny. There must be more info on this topic (such as more info on construction, crews, and battles fought). In short I don't think this represents one of Wikipedia's best articles. --mav 04:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Holy Prepuce

This article shows in my opinion the best quality of wikipedia: her unusual articles. Its nicely written in a rather detached style. No, it does not have a picture, although i think importing the image of Jesus could be an idea. I think it would look wonderful in the front page. Muriel G 07:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article looks wonderful, thanks to all the ones who time and effort to polish it. I'm also glad to see so many people supporting my view of a wikipedia featured article. Now i shall translate it asap to wiki.pt. Cheers, Muriel G 17:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice to see you still around, Muriel. :-) I do like this article -- I wonder, though, if it could be extended at all? Perhaps the addition of a section on, for example, theology (have authors rejected the thought that Jesus was circumcised? should it have gone to him when he resurrected? If not, would amputees lack their limbs at resurrection?)? Or more explanation of miracles associated with it? I know length is important to many people. Otherwise, though, the article is good -- needs sectioning and a little grammar check, I imagine, but once that's done I'd support. I'd prefer more length, though. Jwrosenzweig 18:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • In light of sectioning and Ihcoyc's excellent addition, support wholeheartedly. :-) And really, Smerdis.....Saturn? I didn't know what you meant till I re-read the article -- thanks for the good laugh. Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I nominated it months ago. (Why was it removed, I wonder?) -- Infrogmation 19:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like it to be longer, with sections. It reads like there's more to be said. That's a suggestion, not an objection. Support - David Gerard 19:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I have worked on this article myself, and recently added some thoughts and references as to whether Jesus got a fresh foreskin at the resurrection, so my vote for support would be something of a self-nomination. Perhaps a picture of the planet Saturn could be added also? I'd like to know how the rite of circumcision changed after Jesus' life; and whether it has ever been common for foreskins to be kept as keepsakes. That said, support. Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Just because--well, nevermind, I'll get in trouble. But, support. jengod 21:18, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, good article, although it could use a little more info and I question the usefulness of the "Cloning" section at the end. Everyking 21:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with everyking. Support, with the possible exception of the cloning bit, which seems a little too irreverent/speculative. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:54, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
  • Genius. Fully support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Fantastic. Support (love the picture of Saturn and accompanying caption). --ALargeElk | Talk 13:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but... I'm not sure the picture of Saturn helps. And for the lead picture, I would suggest using a picture of one of the abbeys claiming possession (if one can be found) or a general picture of a reliquary. The cloning section is clearly problematic. The point seems worth making, but currently isn't sufficient for a section of its own. I would suggest merging it with the Allegorical section and giving the combined section a better name. There is also the practical problem that, given the unkowns of immaculate conception, it is not clear that you would expect conventional DNA amenable to current cloning techniques. -- Solipsist 13:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, and btw Muriel a rather detached style. is a priceless description of both this article and subject. - DropDeadGorgias (talk)
  • Support. And the picture of Saturn should stay. The dry, encyclopedic humor is perfect for Wikipedia. --Shibboleth 22:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • ! A very readable article. Just in case, though, could there be some references / sources cited? Because it's only just this side of believability... I support if they're added. — Matt 00:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Now has some references. Atheism.about.com has a good article on this, but I haven't included it as it's quite similar to this article, so much so that I'm guessing one of them was largely based on the other. --ALargeElk | Talk 10:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. 195.167.169.36 11:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambi 01:20, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Data Encryption Standard (DES)

Self nomination. I think this is a reasonably comprehensive article, and (hopefully) reasonably comprehensible; it's structured so that the more technical and mathematical aspects appear later in the article, so (fingers crossed) it's useful to both specialist and non-specialist. — Matt 05:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. A remarkably good article. Perhaps too technical for the main page, but that's not for this page to decide. As an article, I thought (having read it through once) it was very well structured, and not overwhelmingly technical. Our authors on codes and cryptanalysis have done a remarkable job here, and more of their work needs recognition. Jwrosenzweig 18:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A simply fantastic, detailed, well researched and cited article. The one question I had, was isn't triple-DES just as vulnerable to brute force attacks? I thought specialized hardware was able to break that within 24 hrs too. That would negate the "The algorithm is believed to be secure..." sentence. - Taxman 19:06, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments :) Regarding Triple DES, the scheme uses a key of 112 or 168 bits (depending on whether you use the 2 or 3 key version), and that takes it out of the reach of brute force attacks for a while (we can currently attack 64–72 bits, if distributed.net is anything to go by). There are theoretical attacks on Triple DES that reduce the security to 108 bits (for the three key version), but the algorithm is safe enough in practice. I've tweaked the "secure" sentence to note this. (Triple DES needs fixing, as well). — Matt 12:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Matt's right on this. With an effectively longer key, Triple DES is much less vulnerable than plain DES -- certainly as to brute force attack anyway. But note that Triple DES is a particular use of DES thrice. Not just any such use is adequate. Some are trivially breakable. See the FIPS definition. ww 15:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow - great article. --mav 04:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Cute page, very complete. Love the diagrams. --John Moser 05:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 14:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An fine representative of what Wikipedia is at its best. prometheus1 08:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PaX

Returning after WP:PR, greets to you all. Self-nomination. I've got pictures, structure, proper spelling, NPOV, and lots of contributed effort from other wikipedians; my thanks to you all. I believe this time, it's ready; but please, don't hold back :) --John Moser 03:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - It had issues before, but I think it's definitely up to FA quality now. →Raul654 04:03, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Protection against malware execution is an important, if obscure and technical, issue. This article discusses one way to address it and does so in an intellible fashion. Not of general interest (except perhaps those, even the non technical, who have been victims of malware), but that shouldn't be a barrier to featured status. A good job overall. ww 18:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Transhumanism

An interesting and comprehensive article (not a self nom). Chubtoad 06:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I would appreciate if someone went over it for NPOV--probably someone who's not sympathetic to the claims. I spent some time looking for a picture (on robot, cyborg, Lobot, The Terminator, etc.), but wasn't able to find any. This needs something science-fictiony. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:37, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
  • Object, overall quality low, attempts to NPOV met w reverts. Sam [Spade] 04:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Compromise reached, I am now neutral. Needs an image. Sam [Spade] 00:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Edit war in progress. Should wait for that to settle. VV 04:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Erich von Manstein

Partial self-nomination, but it really is probably one the best articles about a World War II personality. GeneralPatton 12:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support. Well-written and highly informative article. Angmering 13:24, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Some objections. His military honors and his war crimes conviction could stand to be noted in the introduction. Also I have fixed many grammatical errors, so many that I am worried there are more I am missing. Mostly things like definite articles missing. A few additional specific things:
  • Is the "General Staff" a proper noun, or just a group of generals? If just a group of generals, it should not be capitalized. Similar for the "War Academy", does that academy have a name?
  • A quick notation for what the OKW is would help when it is first used, along with a "The" to set it off as an entity. I leave it to you whether you want to use something like "the Armed Forces High Command" since this is an article in English
  • While the pictures are fantastic, I am worried if fair use is good enough for using them. Fair use can only be claimed if they are a small portion of a larger work, and they are one of the few pictures used in Wikipedia from that work. Even then there are the problems with using fair use images at all.
  • Great material though overall. - Taxman 23:28, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

History of post-Soviet Russia

Self-nom. Listed on peer review earlier, but no one seems to be pay attention to it there. [1] 172 06:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • "This page is 49 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB." Until then, I object. --mav 06:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This is naturally going to be a large article (like Russian language, a recently featured article reaching 81 K—as well it should) if it is going to be sufficiently developed. Please find a real objection. 172 06:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Example: First Chechen War is a stub, yet that section in this article is large even thoughFirst Chechen War is the "Main article" of the section. The main article should have a detailed treatment while the survey article should have a summary. I do like the summary length vs main article length for the ==The 1993 constitutional crisis== section / Russian constitutional crisis of 1993. A similar set-up for other sections would be nice - not everybody is interested in so much detail. ==The 1996 presidential election== seems to take a lot of space and really should have its own article and more of a summary in this article. As for languages - I've given up on evaluating those since I have have no idea how to logically split them up. --mav 06:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • You seem to be objecting to the poor state of the other articles on post-Soviet Russia. First Chechen War needs to be expanded, of course, but I can only do so much. The articles on post-Soviet Russia are very underdeveloped overall; that's why I've been working on this article-- to give editors a survey so that others can eventually touch on all the subtopics. 172 06:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • People will see the longer summary and add to that and let the stub languish. An infusion of content along with creating a more concise summary at the survey article will be more useful all around.--mav
            • That's not a problem. First Chechen War, along with some of these other stubs, is already linked to more articles than History of post-Soviet Russia. Since the HOPSR is already structured according to summary style, it is designed to eventually deal with the problem of the summary length versus main article length. The solution to this problem is bringing First Chechen War, e.g., up to the length of RCCO1993. (Indeed, the reason I'm nominating this article is to bring the poor overall state of the articles on postcommunist Russia to light.) 172 07:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Nice job on fleshing out that stub! Now if the longish summaries under ==The 1996 presidential election== and ==The crises of 1998== can be condensed down to several good-sized paragraphs each and the current text moved to Russian presidential election, 1996 and 1998 Russian financial crisis, then that would be wonderful. --mav 08:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • A comment: Russian language had a lengthy session on Russian grammar, but Russian grammar is a stub. Also, I question the validity of the 30-40K limit. 1911 Britannica has some articles hundreds of K long. Long, coherent, logically ordered overviews of big topics are extremely helpful, often (though not always) much more so than the same information split up among several articles. Dan Gardner 13:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Needless to say that EB 1911 was not a hyperlinked encyclopedia. It is trivially easy here to skip from a summary at a survey article to an article devoted to the sub-topic covered in the summary. The same is not true for a dead tree encyclopedia. From your comments, you seem to be the type of reader that likes detail while other types of readers want the most important facts in a condensed format. Since Wikipedia is not divided into a megapedia and a micropedia like EB is, we must serve both user types in the same encyclopedia. Thus the reason why summary style is useful. The example you mention in the Russian language article is also a flaw that needs to be fixed. --mav 08:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • I understand that hyperlinks change things, but maintain that high level articles are very important as more than summaries of more specialized articles. A good high level article is not merely a concatenation of summaries of more specialized articles. It can explain relationships between different facts and ideas in a way that is impossible in more specialized articles. To do so successfully it needs to contain substantial content on the more specialized topics in order to explain them to someone who does not know about them, so that the comparisons the article makes will make sense. One of the great weaknesses of our coverage of mathematics, where I have mostly worked, is the lack of good high level articles, and the preponderence of articles (some of them started by me) that are little more than definitions. Good overviews are very difficult to write, as they require knowledge of the details of many different subfields. Forcing a linear order on a large body of knowledge is very helpful to someone learning the subject, although of course doing so excessively is harmful and leads not to understanding of the subject but only to familiarity with one particular guided tour through it. On the macropedia/micropedia split, see what was done with Isaac Newton and Isaac Newton (in depth) Dan Gardner 20:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • An explanation of the the relationships can and should be in a section. Anything more than several paragraphs or a few small subsections should be covered in a separate article and a summary left at the survey level. Not everybody has the time to read through such long articles. But some do. Thus we need to have both summaries and more detailed treatments. The Newton example is not a good one. Isaac Newton should in fact be expanded with a bio in subsections; each subsection would have a 'Main article' link to a real article that covers that section (the 1, 2, 3 series are not real articles but just one article divided into parts). --mav 09:26, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • I agree that we should not have distinct long and short articles such as "Isaac Newton" and "Isaac Newton (in depth)". Nonetheless, the 30KB limit is absolutely artificial. As I have indicated in previous discussions, I do not feel that the objection is appropriate. An article could be shorter than 30KB, yet too long for the topic, or longer than 30KB, yet just right. I say that we should ignore the message about page length. If one feels that an article is too long—regarldess of the message—one should point to specific sections, and suggest that they may be too long-winded. But to say "This page is XKB long. I object until it is brought down to YKB" does not seem reasonable. -- Emsworth 14:04, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The whole length issue is entirely personal preference - that is, if the article is coherent and orderly despite its length - and warrants the length. In this specific instance, I feel that the article would be helped by shortening some sections - but as a general policy "the article is too long" is not valid. Zoney 23:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Anything more than 15 printed pages is simply too much material to go through for a micropedia (the attention span of people on the net is actually shorter than that). Yes Wikipedia is also a macropedia but it should do that through having summaries which have links to stand-alone articles that treat the subtopic in more detail. Having that set-up also gives us more options with print versions. --mav 04:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - the article is very interesting and comprehensive. I think perhaps some sections could be shortened a bit - but even so - the structure is good. Zoney 23:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection/Qualified support. (a) The article describes political/economic history in considerable detail (good!), but omits cultural history altogether, in which real changes have also taken place. (b) Recent history is in fact a collection of conflicting points of view: the article should mention as many of them as possible. In particular, the attitude of Russians to the breakup seems somewhat simplified: can one quote from Putin be proof of what "the Russian people" think? A. Shetsen 23:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Thanks for the advice. I added a section on culture toward the end of the article. Feedback on the new section will be helpful. 172 20:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Although I have no objections whatever to the rest of the sections (economic/poli. hist. quite well done, and others have pointed out the quibbles), I'm afraid I have strong objections to the cultural section. I've not made any edits, but instead will put extensive comments in the discussion page. If post-soviet culture is ironed out, I'll change objection to support. A. Shetsen 02:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • After discussion with User:172 and some input into the article, any objections I had are replaced by full support. A. Shetsen 04:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A very good and detailed article. The sections on Putin era need some expansion: Second Chechen War, Putin's power consolidation, etc.. (I can try to help with that in a few days.) Andris 11:06, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I just expanded First Chechen War, but Second Chechen War still needs a lot of work. I'll also try to help expand the content on Putin and add a section on social history, which A. Shetsen is recommending. 172 11:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I have some minor objections: (1) source info is needed for the images; (2) I have some questions about the use of the word "technocrat" throughout the article, but this may be standard terminology; (3) the caption on the picture in "Economic depression and social decay" strikes me as POV, particularly in the use of the word "ordinary"; (4) in the fourth paragraph of "Shock therapy" it is mentioned that liberalization created winners and losers, and the losers are identified. The winners should also be identified. (5) in the fifth paragraph in "Shock therapy," perhaps the term "austerity regime" should be explained, or an article created for it, although its general meaning is easy to pick up from the context; (6) in the fourth paragraph of "Obstacles to capitalist development in Russia", the first sentance should be reworded. Perhaps "partially related" should become "partially because of". (7) in the fifth paragraph of "Obstacles to capitalist development in Russia", the "former USSR" is mentioned, but Russia would not have inherited anything from the former USSR, but from the USSR. (8) in the sixth paragraph of "Obstacles to capitalist development in Russia", a citation for educational attainment in the USSR would be nice. (9) In the fifth paragraph of "The 1993 constitutional crisis", "other estimates" were higher. Who made those estimates? (10) in the sixth paragraph of The "loans for shares" scheme and the rise of the "oligarchs", prices were sometimes as low as 1% of values. What was a more typical figure? (11) in the sixth paragraph of "Campaigns", it is stated that the six leading Russian financiers and media barons were all oligarchs. What determines if one is an oligarch? Are there leading Russian financiers and media barons who are not oligarchs? (12) in the third paragraph of "Elections", could the decree that cancelled "almost all these promises" be mentioned by name, or its text linked to or cited (ideally in English translation, but in Russian if that is unavailable). (13) in the fourth paragraph of "Elections", is the use of the word "cabal" NPOV? Perhaps the group of advisors could be described without resorting to such terminology. (14) in the fifth paragraph of "The Putin administration" it is stated that "Most Russians today have come to regret the dissolution of the Soviet Union". Can a study or other source be cited to support this? (also, I would be interested to know how demographics relate to this sentiment.) (15) in the fifth paragraph of "Economic depression and social decay" it is mentioned that average income has risen to more than $100. Is this per month? It should be clarified. Dan Gardner 19:54, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Excellent list! I went through the article and made the needed corrections. I didn't make any changes regarding 11 and 12. I think that they're already addressed by the link to the Oligarchs article and the external links embedded in the text, respectively. I'm still working on #1. 172 13:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Clarification of (9): I meant to ask who made the other estimates. Media sources, human rights groups, participants in the protests... Dan Gardner 04:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Images now have source info. The problems regarding points 9 and 14 have been circumvented by changes in the text. Thanks again. 172 04:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Great. Support; excellent work. Dan Gardner 14:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, poor prose, awkward integration of links, etc... Sam [Spade] 18:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Still oppose. This article was good to begin with and has improved a great deal since it was first listed, but it has only grown since I mentioned the size issue. As is, this is just too much material to go through for what is supposed to be a survey article in a micropedia. More consensing and spinning off of daughter articles is needed to make this article accessible to readers who want a more consensed treatment. Until then I don't think this article represents one of Wikipedia's best articles. Specifically, the ==Dismantling socialism== section could be an entire article in itself and a more condensed treatment left at History of post-Soviet Russia. The current "Main article" link in that section is also confusing since it links to a section in a 66KB article. That material (which concentrates on economic issues) and the material in this article could be used to create a third article about the dismantling of socialism in the former USSR. That way the summary at History of post-Soviet Russia could concentrate on the socio/political aspects while the summary at Economy of Russia could concentrate on economic aspects and the new third article could expand on all those topics. This will be much more useful to readers (who will have a choice between the summary at the survey article and the more detailed treatment at the new third article). --mav 00:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Warsaw uprising

The 60th anniversary is this Sunday (1 Aug); it would be a good article to feature given the immense historical significance of the event. I've rewritten it so that it reads better, so I guess this should count as a self-nomination... -- ChrisO 19:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Especially as we are working round the clock to improve this improved version on User:Halibutt/Warsaw_Uprising. ChrisO, if you add new stuff before 1 Aug plz do it on the project page (otherwise it may get lost), we will move it to offical Warsaw Uprising article in 24h or so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:30, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - needs expansion all around. The dev version looks better, but even that is not good enough yet. Re-submit after the dev version goes live. --mav 03:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Mav. It does need expansion all around. If I can find the time, I'll try to expand it. 172 06:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I do agree with your objections, we are expanding it. ATM most of the information research work is done, just a few more sections to do, but we could definetly use an English-speaker to check for language consistency and grammar mistakes. Hopefully we will make it for 1 August deadline. Keep your fingers crossed! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Significantly expanded, with lots of pictures and stuff. Halibutt 19:22, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good enough. --81.219.66.98 20:01, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks fine. --24.175.90.218 20:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm voting 'pro' too. Just read this and ... wow. Everybody in Europe ought to read this.
  • support. After expansion, it's now a good article, and the last major anniversary when the survivors are still around. Also it has some photos by me :-) Mozzerati 23:20, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)
  • support. Much better than what it used to be and it's a very important topic, more people should read about it. roo72
  • Object. Good article, but I still have many remarks. 1) The infotable doesn't explain what the abbreviations (KIA etc.) mean. Also, the numbers are different from what is discussed later in the text. I would also like to see sources for the estimates, since these tend to vary wildly. Statements like "German MIA were never declared dead in order to lessen the total casualties rate." are quite bold and should be attributed, even if they are true. 2) There's still "editing notes" in the article, such as "I don't think we need that part here? It is repeated in above paragraph anyway." 3) I'm not quite sure we need the huge table of military formations in this article, especially since only the Polish formation are discussed in such details, while the German troops are listed briefly with "various support and backup units". This should be made into a separate list article. 4) Just yesterday I read an article about the Warsaw Uprising, and it mentions several things not discussed here. There is now a musem about the uprising, and the uprising wasn't remembered until after the fall of communism. Also, several Poles taking part in the uprising say that the uprising was doomed to fail from the beginning because of the differences in strength, and insufficient ammunition is also quoted as a major problem. The article only lists the lack of Soviet assistence as the only reason for failure. 5) I personally find the interchangable use of "Nazi" for "German" inaccurate. Poland was occupied by Germany, so I propose to use that term. 6) There's no mention of World War II in the lead section. 7) I don't think "General" (as in officer) needs to be abbreviated; if it is, it should be either Gen. or gen., but not both. 8) The writing is something confusing. E.g. I don't see what the sentence "Even after the war soldiers of Armia Krajowa who took part in the Warsaw Uprising were usually captured by the NKVD, interrogated and imprisoned, awaiting trials on various charges." has to do with the section ""Liberation" of the ruins". 9) Sectioning is non-standard. Double = should be used for main sections. 10) There are two separate sections dedicated to the Wola massacre; they should be combined. 11) What does the "W" in W hour stand for? Jeronimo 09:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I have fixed most of that and given the details on Talk:Warsaw_Uprising#Featured_article_objections - I hope you are satisfied. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Aggree with ProKonsul: Germany before and during WWII was NAZI. The most of German command had to be nazi (forced) or were devoted nazis. The same is known about the soldiers, troops, privates etc. So the interchangable use of "Nazi" and "German" is at most acceptable. --217.99.240.131 11:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • self - correcting: all german command had to be nazi, whether forced or not. To be honest: there were several that only 'played' this. But in Warsaw Uprising and after, there were no one like that in Warsaw. --217.99.240.131 11:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I replied to your reactions at the talk page. For now, my objection still stands. Jeronimo 13:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • So did I. If more ppl agree with the few points I have decided not to change so far, they will be changed, but atm I think most of them are rather irrelevant (3,5,11). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I withdraw all but one of my objections, the others have been resolved nicely. I still think the list should be moved to a separate article, and summarized briefly. I could move the list myself, but I don't feel qualified to summarize it accurately. Also, I would recommend a copyedit by a native English speaker (unlike me). I spotted several errors this weekend, and there may be many more I missed. Jeronimo 06:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Ok, I have moved it into a separate article. This has also shortened the total lenghts of the main article by several kb, not a bad thing as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:13, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, one more objection: the "surrender picture" (which is quite well-known) hasn't got any source information, and may in fact be copyrighted. Jeronimo 06:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The surrender picture comes from a Nazi German war chronicle. It is published in almost all Polish books on the Uprising without any copyright or author information. I think we can assume that since the Nazi Party has no successors, the image could be used on a fair use basis. I don't think any neo-nazi party will ever sue us. Halibutt 12:39, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - I agree with Jeronimo and add that the TOC is overwhelming and the article is a bit of a long read. I therefore suggest that some of the longer sections get summarized and the longer text put into one or more daughter articles. This will allow for further expansion of the sub-topic on the daughter article and it leaves a summary of the most important aspects of that subtopic in the survey article. The lead section is also very inadequate for an article this size (at least three good-sized paragraphs needed for anything longer that 30KB). --mav 07:50, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Please note that the battlebox is there and it won't be shorter so the lenght of the TOC seems irrelevant. If you really don't like it you can always hide it, but the battlebox will be long anyway, so there's not much sense in it. Also, IMO the longer the TOC is, the better, especially in long articles. We could of course divide the article onto three sections only, but that way the navigation would be much harder. Halibutt 12:31, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • A long TOC is an indication that too many subtopics are covered in the same article. Thus it should be split up and summaries left. See Wikipedia:summary style. --mav 09:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not the size of TOC, it's the overall size of the article that should be reduced. The article you mention says it all: some readers need just a quick summary (lead section), more people need a moderate amount of info (a set of multi-paragraph sections), and yet others need a lot of detail (links to full-sized separate articles). If so then even after copyediting parts of the article to their own articles the lenghth of TOC will not be shortened significantly. Personally, I find the long TOCs great since they allow the reader who usually reads only the header to jump exactly to where he or she wants to go. Of course we could merge all sections into two or three, but that would be a major mistake IMO. And I believe that this is a conflict between my view and your view, not between the current version of the article and the Featured article rules. Anyway, I will shorten the article a little bit. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:22, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • Condensing would eliminate the need for many of the subsections and thus reduce the size of the TOC. --mav 04:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • So what is the final verdict? We have 8 supports and 2 objections (two long by Mav, and pic copyright/section to be moved by Jeronimo, the latter have been answered/fixed already). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The TOC, lead section and image data issues are paramount due to being specifically mentioned in Wikipedia:What is a featured article. --mav 06:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the objections are valid, and I'm inclined to leave this here until more effort has been made to resolve them (especially considering I *did* shorten the TOC and was reverted shortly thereafter). --Your humble featured article director 17:54, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

The first list is featured articles that do not have a picture and hence would be problematic to put on the main page. Please add pictures and then move to the second list. GFDL or PD preferred — avoid fair use images where possible (they may not be fair use on the main page).

Tangentially connected pictures may also be suitable for the main page, even if they wouldn't sit well with the article itself. Use your common sense.

Articles missing pictures

These now have pictures

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=5090122"