Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

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

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

Nominations

Portugal

Self-nomination. --Pedro 09:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hawaii

Excellent article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:39, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Inconsistent spelling of Hawaii throughout the article. →Raul654 05:56, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It sets an example of frankness and clarity. Wetman 06:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sesame Street

• My pet, I think it's pretty good. -- user:zanimum 02:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Coronation Street

A very well researched and detailed article. Very interesting as the detail about the soap's production also gives an insight into British television over the years. Certainly think it has featured article potential! --Dan Huby 20:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I like it, and want to be able to support it - I like the tone, certain plots have been clearly been recounted from fond memories. But I would like to see something in controversial storylines (earliest 1986) and/or other storylines (earliest 1991, everything else 2001 to 2004) about the earlier years - it started in 1960. Also, wasn't it going to be called something else (Florizel Street?) before settling on Coronation Street. Is this worth a mention? Jongarrettuk 21:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have now rectified all of that. Mike H 22:01, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know where you got all that info from so quickly, but lots of interesting stuff - and a good go at redressing the balance between current storylines and old ones. (I know more recent storylines will always win in the end as that's what people will update for.) I hadn't heard the Florizel/disinfectant story before (I'd love to know the source), but that's exactly the sort of humorous and interesting stuff I like to read! In summary: Good work! Jongarrettuk 22:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Tony Warren was quoted as telling the whole Florizel story, both in a filmed documentary and in book form. Mike H 01:10, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

• This is already a featured article. This is at least the third instance of people re-nominating the things that have been featured already. I will rectify the controversial storylines bit, do the Florizel Street part, and add a "see more" book list, which will double as "cite your sources," something that was dropped but not altogether resolved from the successful nomination before. Mike H 21:07, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Aer Lingus

I think both this and Ryanair (below) are very good articles - I learned a lot! JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 18:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Mpolo 19:20, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, although its missing info on todays revelations (Casual uniforms and non-Irish callcentres to save money) Kiand 20:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I don't like the long list of destinations. Is it needed, or could it just be reduced to the countries served? Also, I would like to see more about financing. Hasn't Aer Lingus (controversially) received large government grants in the past, without which it may have gone under? (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). Also, how large is it (eg in comparison to its competitors)? We have fleet numbers, but what about employee numbers or turnover? Jongarrettuk 20:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. Two articles on airlines nominated by JOHN NEAR-MISS — is this a coincidence? ;-) -- Solipsist 21:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Dsmdgold 02:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Needs a References section and the lead could be expanded. Otherwise a good article and I'll support when my objections are met. Filiocht 11:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ryanair

This is a pretty good article. Slightly shorter than the norm, but I think it is quite to-the-point. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 18:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. While heavy on criticism already, it doesn't mention the scandal they had about wheelchair access in Sansted last year. I don't know the details, unfortunately -- I know they claimed it was all the airport's fault. Also, maybe we could make some sort of graphs of the "growth" figures at the end to make it easier to take in. (There's plenty of blank space there to put them in...) -- Mpolo 19:15, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Object, way too short, there are 1000's of better articles onj wikipedia. GeneralPatton 19:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Too much criticism. The article needs much more of the positives (eg: cheaper flights, opening up new routes) to achive balance. I think the addition of the positives should be done by restructuring so the positives and negatives sit side by side in sections on each sub topic, rather than just adding a positives section. Would also add more on the role on the role of Michael O'Leary, how he came to the airline and his role in transforming it. MarkS 19:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  (Goes to look up Ryanair: How a small Irish airline conquered Europe by Siobhan something-or-other) :) JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Soap bubble

Liked this one. Covers the subject from meny different angles. And the pictures to explain the interference leading to the colours of soap bubbles are very well done. Simon A. 09:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. I think the lead section needs to be expanded a bit as a summary of the article, the photos need captions, there are some problems with the writing: for example. 'Something to reduce the water's surface tension: Dish washing soap, liquid soap or baby shampoo.' is not a sentence, and we've just been told that dish washing soap may not cut it. There needs to be a References section, the Mathematics section should be with the Physics, I think. Despite all this, the article has definite FA potential. Filiocht 09:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This already is a featured article. Fredrik | talk 10:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• (No vote, since already featured) Doesn't render correctly in my Firefox 0.9.3 for Linux (bullets and numbers overlap the photos). Perhaps a bit of tweaking is in order? -- Mpolo 10:53, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Apologies for overlooking that it is already featured. Now I feel a bit stupid. ;-) Simon A. 11:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't. I didn't realise that split infinitive was already featured and resubmitted it - low and behold, to my surprise there it is on the front page! Even with many objections!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Which leaves us with a little problem, because Filiocht's comments are all good, plus there is no references section. It doesn't really warrant de-featuring though, so perhaps these are items for a to-do list. -- Solipsist 11:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • And now I'm puzzled: the Additives and Procedures subsections should appear as bulleted lists but don't. If they did, the 'not a sentence' objection would be fixed. Can anybody else see the bullets? I'm on IE6, by the way. Filiocht 11:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've fixed what I can, some funny syntax around the images. Still a problem with the lead section, though. Filiocht 12:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Image:Soapbubble.merging.250px.png has no source attribution and no image tags. Where does this come from?! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Fun article, but hasn't this already been featured? Still like it though :) Zerbey 15:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David Irving

Partial self-nomination. Irving is to the far right what Noam Chomsky is to the far left. GeneralPatton 02:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. No lead section, no references. Markalexander100 02:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Reference is "Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial by Richard J. Evans." and the lead section is there, it's just short and to the point. GeneralPatton 03:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • If all the information in the article came from one source, then more research needs to be done. The lead is inadequate. Markalexander100 03:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, if you've noticed there is also an extensive section named "External links" that provides quite a number of sources and views on Irving. I'll work on the lead section. GeneralPatton 03:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The lead section has now been expanded and more references added. GeneralPatton 15:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Not bad, but needs some work 1) No picture 2) Lead section too short. Should present a broader summary/overview of the article. 3) The term "Holocaust revisionism" is loaded and disputed, and many view revisionists as deniers (not always correctly, I think). This should be explained in some detail. 4) The latter part of the story contains some gaps, and the last sentences of the "libel suit" section seem more appropriate as the last sentences of the article. 5) The NZ ban gets detailed attention, but previous refusals of entry are only mentioned briefly (in the same section). Why the unproportially big attention for this specific (and recent) ban? This should be sorted out. 6) What is the general public opinion of Irving after the lawsuit? The article mentions this for earlier periods of his life (esp after the Dresden book), but not later in his life. 7) The part about Keegan supporting Irving is weird, as he does not actually seem to support Irving's views (based on what is written here). 8) The article fails to mention the book by Lipstadt which led to the lawsuit (Denying the Holocaust). I think this book would also qualify as further reading. Jeronimo 07:47, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestions, I’ve already worked some of them out, and I’ll try to address the remaining ones in the next few days.GeneralPatton 15:32, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• weak Object.Only because of the following phrases that i think transgress onto POV (or at least can be be rewritten less objectionably):

enabling Irving to claim he was a serious historian

Historians viewed the book as revisionist nonsense

Da Vinci Code

Detailed and solid. Nice simple (but not too simple) sentence structure throughout. JDG 15:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) I would expect a picute of the book (fair use) 2) Lead section should give a (very) brief summary of the book as well, and should be written more fluently (not stating facts only). The film adaptation mentioned is not discussed further in the article. 3) I think the first section (the title "Description" would be better as "Synopsis" or so) should not be in the "Spoiled" section of the article, it's suitable to read and doesn't really spoil anything. 4) Instead of the "Summary of Spoilers", which deals with many details, I would expect and extensive summary of the book's story, also giving away many of these spoilers. This bullet list makes it look like these are the only thing interesting in the story. 5) The "Criticisms" section is dedicated to finding (sometimes minor) factual errors in the book. There's nothing about the reception by (literature) critics, or by the reception of the public. How many books were sold, actually? And if there's so many critique on the factual contents of the book, what are the author's replies to this? 6) The "Facts & Mythology Behind The Book" section is completely unnecessary. These articles are already linked (more than once sometimes) from within the article. Jeronimo 19:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I would also expect the "criticism" part to offer actual literary criticism of the book, and not just debunk the issues presented in the storyline of the book. The captions of the photos should make it clearer that the "facts" presented in the captions are part of the plot of the book, and not accepted by religious historians. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:59, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Poorly constructed article on what is probably not that important a book. Filiocht 14:14, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you be more specific? As for the importance of the book - that's your POV. Many people would disagree. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Some specifics:
      • Lead section is weak; needs to summarise plot.
      • The title of the novel refers, among other things What other things?
      • Too many bulleted lists to interrupt the continuity of the prose
      • were removed to France by the Priory of Sion only several years ago: does this mean 'a few years previously'?
      • There is no discussion of the book's merit as a piece of writing.
      • the criticisms are referred to as what critics perceive as Brown's many errors and from historians dismayed by the way Dan Brown has in their view distorted?and in some cases fabricated?history but some of them are just plain errors (e.g. the original Olympics were held in honour of Aphrodite) and need no weasel words.
      • Overall, there is far too much detail about the book and the body of pseudoscience that lies behind it and nothing about sales figures, etc.
      • There is no References section.
    • I could go on. As for the importance of the book, lets come back in 50 years time and we might begin to have an evidence-based view on that. My gut feeling is that it will be entirely forgotten, but I could be wrong. Filiocht 07:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, but as you don't know if it's important or not, then you can hardly use that as an objection, can you? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. In my opinion, articles with spoilers and similar can never be featured article candidates. Gerritholl
  • Policy is that you're supposed to use one ("Because of this, and because not everyone coming to the site immediately recognizes Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, please attach a warning text and link after the definition paragraph of an article that contains spoilers. -- Wikipedia:Spoiler warning). The requirements for a featured article are that it "Comply with the standards set by any relevant WikiProjects, as well as those in the style manual". This objection is complete bull, and should be ignored. →Raul654 17:14, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not that I need to, but I put my full support behund Raul654. Parent poster has no idea what he's talking about. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It's mostly list, with hardly any solid analysis (except for pinpointing historical errors). Zaha 19:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I'm a Chrisian and curious about this book, and I found the criticisms section useful - but not useful enough.
  • The claim that prior to AD 325, Christ was considered no more than a "mortal prophet" by his followers, and that it was only as a consequence of Emperor Constantine's politicking and a close vote at the First Council of Nicaea that Christianity came to view him as divine: This has been debunked with extensive reference to the Bible and Church Fathers by various authors. (Example http://www.envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Review-DaVinci-part2-Full.htm#Full.) At the Council, the central question was if Christ and God were one, or whether instead Christ was a created being, inferior to the Father (see Arianism).
    • Good point, can we have more information?
  • The assertion that "the sacred feminine" has been suppressed by Christianity: In Roman Catholicism, for example, Mary (of Nazareth), the mother of Jesus, is specially venerated as the "Mother of God," the "Queen of Heaven," the spiritual mother of all mankind, and is believed to be free of sin. (It is hypothesized that Mary's Virginal nature does not accord with Brown's ideals.)
    • Can we have more info on other sects? Author might also want to add something to Christian views of women.
  • The allegation that five million women were burned by the Church as witches: the most reliable estimates?including those not executed at the Church's recommendation, not killed by burning, and not female?range from 30,000 to 50,000.
    • Please state where those "most reliable estimates" are from.
  • The depiction of the Templars as builders, guild-founders and secret-bearers: Templar historians point to abundant evidence that Templars did not themselves engage in building projects or found guilds for masons, and that they were largely illiterate men unlikely to know "sacred geometry," purportedly handed down from the pyramids' builders.
    • Which Templar historians?
  • The suggestion that all churches used by the Templars were built round, and that roundness was considered an insult by the Church: Some churches used by the Templars were not round, and those that were round were so in tribute to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
    • Example of churches that weren't round might be nice.

My other objection is that the article is mainly a gigantic list. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting quite discouraged by this FA process. People here are just so wrong so often (by my lights, of course, but what other lights can one have?). The article is a bit listy, but that's more of a plus than a minus when dealing with this sort of thriller fiction. Some of the list items are in fact pretty meaty paragraphs, and the writing quality throughout is far above the WiP norm. Oh well. JDG 04:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, this is your opinion. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a list. Thirdly (and most importantly!) don't get discouaged. My nomination of Windows XP got rejected for the same reason. I never worked out a decent way of fixing this without annoying a whole lot of people... I live in hope! Coalesce the points in paragraphs and this should become featured article standard. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Note regarding the above discussion: I think there's too much already in the article about debunking - or verifying - specific "facts" in the book. The article should certainly discuss the controversy over some of the facts in the book, but it doesn't have dig out every single bit. I personally don't think that is necessary in Wikipedia, and if you really think it is necessary, please make a summary in Da Vinci Code and move the details and unimportant ones to Alleged factual errors in the Da Vinci Code (or so). Jeronimo 07:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • That title is terribly POV. Either there are factual errors, or there aren't. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's entirely appropriate for the article to include these factual criticisms, since this is a major gripe that many historians of art and of religion, and theologians, have with the novel. Remarkably, author Brown insists that the items in question are true, even though experts in those fields say he is just plain wrong. And many of his readers uncritically accept what he says and propagate it as if it's great, newfound knowledge. As it is, the list is far from comprehensive. It's just a compilation of the most serious criticisms. Short-changing the "Criticisms" section would be a disservice to the reader. Inaccuracies and falsehoods, intentional or not, are often among the more interesting aspects of subjects, and are typically given full mention in Wikipedia articles.--Johnstone 23:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The seventh word in the intro defines the book as a novel, and the word novelappears on 12 other occasions in the article. It is not Wikipedia's fault that "many of his readers uncritically accept what he says and propagate it as if it's great, newfound knowledge" I'm not sure the article deserves featuring, but I would vote FOR it any day rather than try to educate anyone who won't understand what the word novel means. Moriori 00:11, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Why not have Wikipedia itself? --Gamingboy 14:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose (barely). There was a recent report about subtle vandalism that evades detection (it was linked at /. a few days ago) that would have to be addressed. It might be better to mark this as a "no front page" article once it makes feature status. Mpolo 19:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
• The history and sister projects, for example, have to be expanded. ✏ Sverdrup 20:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It still reads like a self descriptive page for project users and promotes Wikipedia. Instead it should be descriptive to someone unaware of the subject and be NPOV encyclopedic. 1.) More needs to be done to discuss recent criticisms of wikipedia in general and specifically the subtle vandalism experiments that were done with unfavorable results. For example all of the external links are positive regarding wikipedia. 2.) Too many one sentence paragraphs. History is a one sentence section even. 3.) Downloading the database section is entirely unecessary to the importance of wikipedia to outsiders. 4.) Very little coverage of wikipedia's impact and growing popularity other than the awards section. 5.) Awards section is just a list, it needs some prose.

Taxman 13:26, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

• • Are you suggesting we merge History of Wikipedia back in? -- user:zanimum

Six Flags Over Texas

This is a self-nomination that I recently wrote from the ground up about the theme park Six Flags over Texas. Essentially, the park's importance was that it was the first park of the Six Flags theme park chain, which is now the largest regional theme park chain in the world. The park also has a interesting past. If anyone has any suggestions on how to change the article or make it better to possibly get a featured article status, please let me know. -- BrandonR 04:06, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for all the criticisms so far, I'll work on expanding the article and making it look like less of a list. -- BrandonR 16:57, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Object - 50% list. Also, who owns the copyright on those pictures (IE, who took them)? →Raul654 19:23, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • All the photos were taken by myself. What do you suggest to improve the article? -- BrandonR 20:20, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It's essentially a list. All of the sections need to be fleshed out more. The article will also benefit from a copyedit, I noticed a few errors (I'll fix them for you). It's a great article, that could easily achieve featured status with a little bit of work :) Zerbey 01:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The list format does not work here, in my opinion. Maybe you should describe a walk through the park? It might work. The lists here make the park seem like it has no trees, no pop corn wagons, no clowns, no magic shoppes, no ponds of water. If you described it well enough, you could leave out half of the rides. ---Rednblu 06:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Lead section says "despite its history of ever-changing owners and expansions" yet no details are given in the article about changing owners or major expansions. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Columbia University

I do understand that an article on a University may not be what we all dream of as an ideal encyclopedia article, but I see things, like the rather stable structure of a University as something to be documented, because the main units of it are well organized, and stable over time. Over the past 75 years, the ivory towers of science, history, social science, math, government, law, health, economics, business, engineering, art, and music have started to make attempts are true interdisciplinary learning, beyond the very focused, everything has 4 walls, a ceiling, and a floor, and doesn't exist in the real world, type learning. Because of this, I would like to nominate Columbia University page, but I also have other reasons. I belive it is well put together, and well thought through. There could have been twenty times the information there (check out Timelines), and I will try to argue its case. The main point is to understand that the institutions of learning are as an important part of our history as the knowledge they produce. There are little bits and pieces of information, that get lost as the universities continue to grow, in Columbia's case, one of the first cyclotrons to split the atom burried under the basement of Pupin phyics Labs of Columbia University, or the abandoned University Hall, that would have hailed many of the limitations and also many of the postiives of the "megastructures" that would come years afterward. This is only just one school, any univerisity has just as storied a history, but I belive this article about Columbia Univesity can make the case as well as any other. -- Ctrl_build 00:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I oppose. The article’s very one-sided—it’s written like it could be straight out of a university brochure, and parts like “one of the world's most prestigious universities ... placing just after Harvard (10.3%) and Yale (9.9%)” sound so self-congratulatory you can’t help but roll your eyes. The “Notable Columbians” stub section makes me cringe, as does “In film, television and the arts,” which might work better if it were broken into a separate article. Besides which, there is almost no discussion of the (often negative) neighborhood attitudes towards the university and its behavior in local politics, business and real estate. I also think some sections could use some expansion, such as the post-1968 history of the university and the description of the Morningside campus’s award-winning architecture. Finally, there’s almost no sources given for any of the information presented. There’s definitely potential here, but in its present state, there’s just no way it could be a featured article. Having said that, I might work on it a little right now... T-bomb 01:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Your points are well taken, thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into creating separate pages, that has been suggested before. Looking at it that way, I would suggest a separate section for 309 Havermayer itself, it has a lot of history in it (issolation of deterium, setting for many movies, wonderful architecture). -- Ctrl_build 01:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, that sounds good. If you start breaking it up, mind if I chip in? T-bomb 01:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Go ahead, I have quite a bit of non wikipedia real world work to do, so go do it if you want. I already have done considerable work on the engineering school article and the Columbia College of Columbia University article in previous days. I think it would be prudent to take a model from the timeline linked to in in my first post. Its totally open, its information from the trustees of columbia university (the schools corporate name is Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, via a court order) If you have questions, ask, I am right at the University. By the way, its the 250th aniversary, and they are making a big deal out of it. I know this isn't the best place to give suggestions. I am happy someone else is willing to look into this. By the way, I like your small Duane Reade article. If you walk down broadway from 116th to 80th, you can count about 14 of them. That's probably triple the number of starbucks you can encounter.-- Ctrl_build 02:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This page is almost there. I like the list of Columbia people on the linked page--very classy. Here are my objections and how to fix them. Put a note on User:Rednblu so that I look back again.
  1. In my opinion, it does not make sense to begin the "Student life" section bragging about Columbia rejecting 90% of its applicants--third only to Harvard and Yale--the more it rejects the better. Does that mean that student life is better at Harvard which is first in rejection rate? Why isn't Columbia at the top of something? Or why doesn't the author claim first what Columbia is best at--better than Harvard or Yale? In my opinion, rejecting a large percentage of applicants has nothing to do with the quality of "student life."
     • So, I suggest you begin the "Student life" section with something that is notable about Columbia student life; for example, Columbia is a subway ride from the Metropolitan Museum of Art or Greenwich Village. Great dates! Or something like that.
     • Alternatively, you might make the whole first section about "Competition." In that case, I suggest you move the "Student life" section later. Within a section on "Competition," the high rate of rejecting applicants could be one race among many, including endowment and number of Nobel Prize winners on the faculty.
  2. I thought the first paragraph of the History section was a little weak. Surely, there is some endearing story you can tell about the founding, the beginning, the early buildings, the early New York. There must be an endearing one paragraph story that would capture the spirit of the beginning.
     • So, I suggest you take out that whole paragraph that ends with the fatal "It remains one of the world's most prestigious centers of higher education." Replace that paragraph with some endearing early story that captures the unique spirit of Columbia. Or something like that. The rest of the history section I thought was great.
  3. A list of movies shot on the Columbia campus is rather boring. It clutters the Columbia page. But if you mention the movies, I want more detail; I want to know what scenes.
     • So, I suggest moving that list to another page and link it, a stub for now, where you describe in a brief sentence the predominant Columbia scene from each movie. For people acquainted with Columbia, it would be nostalgia, pure Hollywood to think of it, to think of the camera angle all over again. For people acquainted with the movie, they might say, "Now that was the Columbia library. And watch the monster come out of the basement to the men's gym."
  4. That whole list of "Schools and Enrollment" seems to me to be unnecessary and clutters the Columbia page. What is deadly for me is all those numbers; you are about two steps away from throwing the Columbia fiscal budget at the reader.
     • So, I suggest that you cut the "Schools and Enrollment" section. If you feel there should be something to replace that section, you might describe more detail of the organizations you summarized in "Organizations and athletics" earlier; tell stories about those organizations; you might describe some of the unique traditions of those Columbia organizations, such as the drama society, the band, the student paper. ---Rednblu 03:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too repetitively laudatory. Plus I would like to see some balanced material about Columbia's early history. A while ago, while researching for the Five Points article, I came upon a number of partial statements from primary sources that tend to show the early financing of King's College (later Columbia U.) in a very poor light. In short, the trustees of Trinity Church on Broadway were intimately involved in some of the most egregious rent farming in early America, gouging the Irish poor of Five Points and others and using the proceeds for projects (like King's College) that almost wholly benefitted the well-to-do. The article badly needs material of this kind. JDG 15:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object - those pictures need copyright information. →Raul654 19:28, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not know where they come from, I was not the one that put them in there. Ctrl_build 20:31, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have contacted a local photography student who may want to put up his pictures. Ctrl_build 20:51, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal

This is a self-nom that I spent considerable time editing, reformating and linking. I did not originally create the article, but rather totally reconfigured it from its original layout. The article contains a ton of information about the canal history and I would like to submit is as a featured-article. Tell me what you think. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 17:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. My main objection is that this is mostly a rewrite of the article's only reference [1]. I'm not sure what to do with this, since the source is a US Military page, but it's a bit suspicious at least. Other than that: 1) I'd like to see a map of the canal. It's hard to get a good picture of its location and course without one. 2) It's recommended by the Manual of Style to add metric equivalents in parentheses when use imperial units (so: 1 mile (1.6 km)), and to link the first occurrence of a unit (so 10 miles). 3) The lead section should give a little more information, I think. Also, it mentions the project office and museum, which are not discussed in the remainder of the article. 4) The reference and external links sections are messy. The same link is listed twice (unnecessary), once with detailed information (but not according to MoS), once without. If possible, I'd like to see more references or recommended reading, preferably a book or article. Jeronimo 07:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign)
  • Thanks for the suggestions whoever you are. Please post your signature information in the future when leaving comments. I took your advise and added a map of the canal, which you were interested in. I also fixed up the reference section by ading several books and several other webpage references. Hopefully that takes care of your concerns. Any other ideas? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, all my specific issues were resolved, but the main objection remains. I'm not sure what to do with this - anybody else knows what policy is (or should be) in such cases? Jeronimo 12:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely constructed article on a topic I knew nothing about and I learned something. Not sure I understand the objection. It's a rewrite so no copyvio and the reference that is used is a good one. I always like to see print references myself, but this is not policy. At least this article gives a reference. Filiocht 11:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It may not be a copyright violation, but I think it is still plagiarism. But if that is fine on Wikipedia, well, who am I to object. Jeronimo 12:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • To Jeronimo: It is not a copyright violation, nor is it plagerism. The article orignially posted on the Army Corps of Engineers website, where I got most of the information, is a public domain website. That is why it is not copyrighted nor is it plagarism. See article of Public domain for more information on this topic. Can you please specify what other objections you have? The reason I listed this for discussion is because regardless of where it orignially came from, it is very informative, and I did spend a lot of time tweaking it and finding other references.--ScottyBoy900Q∞ 13:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I personally still think it's plagiarism, but if that's fine with Wikipedia, then my objection is void and my vote neutral. Jeronimo 10:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Can you give any backup for why you think it is plagarism? Look at the definition of public domain. It literally can't be plagarism. Check out the countless hundreds of articles that incorporate public domain information. Are they all plagarized as well? I would just like to see this article featured, I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 12:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of Buddhism

Self-nom. Thanks for your comments.PHG 08:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• object. lead section needs expansion. one paragraph sections such as History_of_Buddhism#1st_Buddhist_council_.285th_c._BCE.29 should not exist. --Jiang 08:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Intro expansion + 1st Council details. Done.PHG 12:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• see also formating should be in italics, not bold --Jiang 02:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks. Done. PHG 02:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Object for now. I've left questions about some puzzling parts on the talk page; also, [Image:TheravadaMap.gif] labels Malaysia as Thailand. Markalexander100 05:47, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Corrections made. PHG 12:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 01:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ASCII art

The art of creating pictures from text-based characters has been around for hundreds of years (literally) but the most recent manifestation, "ASCII art" has proven to be a very interesting subject. I'd like to nominate it as a Wikipedia-featured article. (nominated by 192.25.140.133 →Raul654 23:05, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC))

• Object. Consists mostly of some examples and a very long external links list. No detailed information about its popularity, how to make ASCII art, or a history of the practice and the term. Jeronimo 08:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not especially long on examples, and almost lacking in history. Not ready for Prime Time. Denni☯ 23:36, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
• Object. It's interesting, but it's basically just a list. For starters: needs more information on history; the bird picture is offset; needs to go into more details on the ASCII art generation tools; lead section far too short. Could also use a picture, not sure what of, though :-) Maybe this should go to Peer Review first? Zerbey 15:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Smile (album)

This recently ran a course on Peer Review and came out mostly intact, with a few good copyedits and word changes. It still needs a picture; the cover of the new album is now on commercial sites but I don't know the rules for usage. Other than that I think it's ready. A partial self-nom, I suppose. The album and film are coming out early next week; dare I suggest this would be a good Main Page feature for that timeframe? Jgm 17:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. A real story. Denni☯ 23:50, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Fuck

This is pretty impressive, although it might not be wise to put it on the front page ;) --Tothebarricades.tk 02:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• This nomination has failed twice before, if my memory serves. →Raul654 02:36, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I can find one reference here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/June_2004#Fuck - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If Holy Prepuce got onto the front page, nothing would keep me from supporting this article. (sorry forgot to sign -- ugen64 03:44, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC))
• Um... not voting. I think the image of the finger may be problematic. It provides very little information to the article's topic, while running the risk of causing much offense to the more sensitive reader. func(talk) 03:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You mean that sensitive user would have moved from a state of agitation about the article "fuck" to apoplexy when they see the image of someone's middle finger? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Strange as it may sound, yes. I think images bother people far more than words. There are several editors who have been trying to remove various body part pictures from articles like Penis. These images are important, and entirely appropriate to the articles in question, but an image of the middle finger, pointed directedly at the reader... I don't know. A picture that is likely to offend a significant number of people should only be included when it is really going to add something to the article, when it is really worth fighting for. You know, I've used the middle finger without saying "fuck", the word and this action aren't even directly tied to each other. func(talk) 04:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I hate to say this, but tough to those people. If the picture is illustrative (and not illegal) then I'd suggest that it be kept. Those people trying to remove pictures of penises from the "Penis" article are pretty stupid really. Let's face it: penises exist, and they aren't going away any time soon (except perhaps in the castration article). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • LOL! I tried to come up with a joke involving Unix, but words failed me. ;-) func(talk) 06:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • So what you're saying is that the hand should be positioned the other way, showing the reader what it would look like if they were giving the finger? That should insult them less, since they aren't the ones that are having it pointed at them. --Aqua 04:06, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The page starts on the right track by stating that the word "fuck" is one of the most powerful verbal expressions in the English language. But there is no explanation for that power. Lots of good scholars have examined why the word has that extraordinary power, but instead of explaining the power, this page proceeds with a juvenile and unexamined display of that power. The current page is equivalent to starting to explain dynamite, and then without explaining that power proceeds to blow up the building like a juvenile playing with the power instead of figuring it out. So, before I would "support" this page, you would have to dig into the scholarly literature to summarize what various psychologists, psychiatrists, and linguists have said to explain the power of the word "fuck." ---Rednblu 06:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't understand. Please give exact sentences to back your case up. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure. Let me give some examples.
    • 1. The first paragraph after the first sentence is a failure, in my opinion; after the tremendous first sentence, the first paragraph just runs through an ungrammatical, juvenile, rambling string of unorganized examples of the uses of the word "fuck." Cute--and funny--but this is not supposed to be a joke book. And then to top off that very poor summary of the various uses of the word "fuck," the paragraph ends in the nonsense juvenile sentence Example: "What the fuck are you doing in my room?" roughly means "What are you doing in my room?" Again, it made me laugh, but this is not supposed to be a joke book, is it? :) As a fix to this lead section flaw, I would suggest that the lead section follow a more traditional format of summarizing in two paragraphs what is in the article that will follow. For example, the first paragraph of the lead section might summarize the psychological, biochemical, magical, or other documented sources of the word's power. And then the second paragraph could explain the "censorship" and "euphemisms" as a reaction to those sources of power--that basically is what the current second paragraph starts to do, but then the second paragraph rambles off into too many unorganized and logically irrelevant examples of "losing the fuck in the translation"--which is a totally different issue, in my opinion.
      • Actually, I beg to disagree. The first paragraph is not a joke (though it may seem that way because comedians use it like this all the time), it's actually a serious explanation of the ways that the word "Fuck" can be used. This is illustrative of the different contexts of the word, and at the same time it further explains " It is, however, rather common in daily use, as well as in popular, or vulgar, late 20th and early 21st century culture." Perhaps you thought it was funny because you think that using the word "Fuck" in an encyclopedia that doesn't usually reference the word is an unusual place to have it? I think this says more about your POV and understanding (and perhaps a large majority of the Western world's perception) of humour! Also, I can't see the words "losing the fuck in the translation" but this could have been editted since you looked at it. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • 2. Furthermore, the sections are not organized logically. For example, to start the sections with "euphemisms" is cute and makes a good joke; but it does not make a good encyclopedia page. That is, in a good encyclopedia article, in my opinion, you would never talk about euphemisms until first you had explained the power that people are fleeing when they use a euphemism. ---Rednblu 07:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • You seem to think the whole article is a joke. It most assuredly is not. I fear you are knit-picking over this point. Can anyone tell me if this particular objection is even actionable?! It doesn't seem valid, or very important to me. I certainly didn't treat it as a joke, that's for sure. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support once gain. It is a great article, I always like to see a very controversial subject dealt with appropriately, as this article has tried to do. Whilst I personally would not take issue with it being on the front page (I'm with Voltaire on that one), we must bear in mind that Wikipedia is read by many people from many different backgrounds who could potentially be offended. Zerbey 16:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. As an example of its power as a vulgarism we could cite Wikipedia's unwillingness to feature the article itself. Cyopardi 12:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is a bad idea. We should not be referencing Wikipedia in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Quite. But providing an example of "its power" does not make a best-example encyclopedic article. A best-example encyclopedic article would minimally explore reasonably the sources, causes, and mechanisms of "its power"--not merely demonstrate examples of "its power." Similarly, providing an example of a bar magnet does not make an encyclopedic article on Magnetism. The current Fuck page is only a sophomoric parody on the Master's Seven dirty words which you can relish in the entirety at this link. ---Rednblu 19:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Rednblu that the article should not be an attempt to use the word as many times as possible, but discuss the reasons for its power and ubiquity, or why the Germans so much prefer their particular expletive, if this one is so powerful. If this gets up to speed, the "finger" should definitely not appear on the main page. The article itself, well, I'd prefer not to see it on the main page, but I wouldn't lodge a formal objection to that. -- Mpolo 19:05, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would offend people and we're not here to do that, there are enough more interesting subjects to be featured. Gerritholl 06:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that this page should go to VfD, because if you aren't then your objection is not valid. Firstly: so what if there are "more interesting subjects to be featured"? We want all our articles to be featured!!!! Secondly, the offensiveness of the article should not be taken into consideration when deciding whether the article should be featured article material. Remember: a featured article does not necessarily mean that it will become a front page article! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons as before. It ill-behooves the 'pedia to have its front page bannered with the word "FUCK". VV 06:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Invalid objection. Perhaps you should read about this page a bit more. A featured article does not necessarily mean that it will become a front page article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article goes way out of its way to layer on its extensive and ultimately mastubatory fascination with its subject. Wikipedia doesn't need to showcase just how juvenile some of our articles are capable of being. Or to put it another way: "If you don't know how the fuck to use fuck, then you fucking shouldn't read the fuck about it either." Maybe if we spent more time doing it we wouldn't be so fascinated with talking about it. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Amen...and on that note, Oppose. Mike H 07:07, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Aren't these invalid objections? It seems to be opposing the topic, not the article content itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object, but not because of the subject. Too many single-sentence paragraphs, Etymology section should be before the Linguistics section, which should be renamed Grammar. And yes, it does tend to be somewhat repetitive. Filiocht 07:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The "History of usage and censorship" has been much improved since the last nomination, but still reads too much like a list of random anecdotes without narrative prose to join them - especially more discussion of when and how it became taboo in the early period, or the social crcumstances or other significance of your anecdotes in the later period. It also contains some contradictions, e.g. the claimed date of first written appearance. The later part of "History" seems to include quite a lot of completely non-notable usages (we all know that folks say "fuck" millions of times per day, we don't need to list such examples unless they somehow changed society or censorship law, or where otherwise significant). The "Linguistics" section is not about linguistics, but grammar, and parts of it are wrong (several uses claiming to illustrate various parts of speech - no doubt following the old joke - are actually just phatics or interjections). The "different languages" section is also rather juvenile ("Look Ma! I can curse in 25 languages!"), is dictionary-like, and inevitably will either omit many of the world's thousands of languages or butcher the article into another horrible list article. Delete the list, however, the footnotes to that section are interesting and should be kept. The "Secondary Meanings" section still seems to me, as it did last time, silly and pointless; I would just delete the whole section, or at least merge it with a much improved grammar section. And just as last time, the current illustrations are pointless and do not contribute anything to the article. If we can find something like a picture of Paul Robert Cohen being arrested, that would be great, otherwise don't worry about pictures. And BTW, the "Etymology" section is excellent. Securiger 12:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism in Spain

Self-nom; previous nomination had 2 supports and 2 neutrals. All issues have been addressed. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose: not NPOV. Specifically, we have sentences like this: Many women, while seeing the necessity for a common struggle against capitalism and the State...; generally, there is very little on the effects of anarchism when it was put into practice (except anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization, without saying how often), and there is no mention of why most Spanish people thought it was rather a bad idea. Markalexander100 01:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's women anarchists, so I don't see how it's POV. Most of the "effects of anarchism when it was put into practice" would be under Spanish Revolution; all future additions (by me anyway) will be put on Spanish Revolution rather than this page. As for "most Spanish people" thinking of anarchism as a "bad idea", I don't know how one could prove such a thing. Maybe most Spaniards weren't anarchists, but that doesn't make them critics, most were probably indifferent. I'm sure your average middle class Spaniard didn't particularly care. Anyways, yeah, this is focusing on anarchists in Spain (hence the title) so I didn't spend too much time talking about Spanish politics, history, etc. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The first example is POV because it says there was a necessity for a common struggle against capitalism. Not everyone would agree with that. The article in general concentrates on how lovely the anarchists were, and how horrible their opponents were: that may or may not be correct, but it would be nice to know why their opponents were so horrible. Markalexander100 02:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Not everyone would agree with that." -- Well, any anarchist would, and that's the context that sentence is in. And there is plenty of stuff about not so lovely stuff anarchists did, in terms of violence, etc. For the ideas of anarchism in general, there's another fairly large page. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"it would be nice to know why their opponents were so horrible" - So, you think there should be a section on how conditions for so many were poor? Their opponents were mainly institutions, not individuals. It's a different story when talking about Socialists, Communists, or Fascists but I noted those throughout. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No; we should have explanations of why both individuals and institutions were in general a) not anarchists and b) in many cases actively opposed to the anarchists. Markalexander100 07:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object, reluctantly. There is some suggestion of sympathy with he anarchist cause evident in the writing. The bit about women referred to above reads as if it were Feminist women, or maybe all women, not anarchist women. Almost as important, there are too many single-sentence paragraphs. Filiocht 07:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strategic management

• This is an "umbrella article" covering many strategic management topics. It is comprehensive giving the 40 year history of the topic and describing current theory and practice. It is very accessible to the average reader, containing little specialized jargon or mathematics. Of all the areas of business, this is interesting enough to have a general appeal. It is well referenced, with over 100 citations to journal articles and books, everyone of which is cited in the body of the article. I know of no better source of information on this topic (but then, I am a little biased). The article has been under peer review at The Business and Economics Forum for a month, but there have been no substantive changes for a week so I feel it is time to list it here. mydogategodshat 20:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Good work. Did you seriously read and consult all of those sources? If not, even if they are relevant, perhaps they should be moved into another article such as 'references and works about...'. I know you agonized over who to include, but Ed Deming is listed as a reference, but not discussed and was arguably more important than some of the others that were included in the article. Needs some kind of overal diagram or picture too. - Taxman 20:51, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have most but not all of these references on my bookshelves. Some of the articles are hard to find, but I included them because they are the primary reference or originator of the theory. Deming was infact mentioned in the article but I did not go into great detail. The reason is that his work more properly belongs in an article on production management. He was included because production management techniques (of which he was a leading authority) can have a bearing on strategic management, that is, some companies use product quality as a source of strategic competitive advantage. But many aspects of business can be used as a source of competitive advantage (eg: distribution, personnel, IT systems, ect.) My intention was not to list all of these. If I had, the article would be twice as long as it is now. But if you want to add to the part on Deming and product quality, you may certainly do so. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by putting the references into a separate article as you suggest. The whole purpose of citing references is to allow readers to go to the originator of the idea to verify the claim or find out more about it. To break this connection defeats the purpose of having the references there. I know that the extensive use of references is not very common on Wikipedia and there will be some people that react against them, but I see it as the inevitable next step in Wikipedia's growth and maturity. The common Wikipedia practice of attributing a statement or theory to nebulous phantoms such as "Many people feel..." or "It is sometimes claimed..." or "One critic said..." is why so much of Wikipedia consists of half truths, mere opinion, and outright rants. Until we start to give clear references for every major point in the article, we will not be taken seriously. As long as we retain the "junior high school" essay writing style of vague allegations and insinuations, we will be preventing the project from being what it could become. As for the picture, I included one that I thought gave a good representation of current strategic management theory. If you can think of a better picture, please add it. mydogategodshat 16:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was certainly not asking you to move out references that have been used to support actual facts stated. I was thinking the ones that had not been used or cited in the article could be moved to an 'additional sources in...' or something like that. Being in a separate list does not invalidate them, it just keep the references listed to those used in the article. As for Deming, I was thinking more of his general work, not just production management. His last book, The New Economics, focused on much broader topics and especially on systems thinking and how competition can fail to reach the goals of the organization by ignoring how the system works. Though he may not be as influential on others I don't know that intimately. The professor and businessman I learned about Deming and studied that book with was a friend of Deming's, so he was hardly unbiased now that I think of it. Only add his work if there is some information that he influenced this topic significantly. I didn't see any mention of him in the text, btw, but I'll check again. Support by the way. - Taxman 02:36, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

But every one of the references are cited in the text. I didn't add references to just fill up space. :) You will find Deming mentioned in the competitive advantage section, but only in passing. By all means add some more on Deming if you wish. I am not familiar with his lasted work. I am familiar with his early groundbreaking work in quality management, statistical process techniques, variances, run charts, and quality circles, but this is definitetly in the domain of production management. mydogategodshat 15:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anne of Great Britain

-- Emsworth 19:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 16:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ---Rednblu 17:07, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object on only one grounds. I thought the beginning of "Early life" was unnecessarily dense. I worked out a suggestion that I put on Talk:Anne of Great Britain; I am sure you can devise some fix that is even better. It seems to me that the key for clarity in this "Early life" section is to pull key features of the "succession problem" into one paragraph. ---Rednblu 21:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed. -- Emsworth 12:30, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support Mpolo 19:12, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

William III of England

-- Emsworth 19:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object, I'm afraid. While well-written as usual, I find there's not that much information about William's political career in the Netherlands. Also, parts related to the Netherlands are sometimes slightly inaccurate. For example, De Witt was not assassinated in a revolution, although he and his brother were killed by a mob. Most of the info is in the Dutch article on William, but I understand this may be difficult for you to read. Let me know if you need some help. Jeronimo 21:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added that which I could find in the Dutch article relating to William's rule in the Netherlands (especially the intricacies relating to the post of Stadtholder). (Incidentally, the Dutch article is itself somewhat inaccurate—it states that William III became Stadtholder of Gelderland in 1672, when this occurrence did not come to pass until 1675.) Everything else in the Dutch article seems to concern the wars with Louis XIV; this information is already explored in the above nominated piece. -- Emsworth 16:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll take a look at it later this week. Jeronimo 10:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but agree with Jeronimo - it would benefit from the Netherlands information being added. Unfortunately, I don't speak Dutch either so can't check it. Zerbey 16:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sewage treatment

This is a well-written and thorough article which has avoided a dry, clinical tone. It appears to cover everything one might want to know about the subject. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 04:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, surprisingly thorough, though it could use a picture. Maybe a diagram of how waste is typically processed, or a simple photo of a sewer or a treatment plant. ~ FriedMilk 04:22, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. "Historical sewage treatment" is too simple and it is a complete misunderstanding that such a method was the only way to treat waste water or gather waste water at all. It also just touches on cities as an example. More objections on the discussion page. Revth 09:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Added image of a sewage treatment plant -- Chris 73 Talk 09:38, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No references. 2) Many one-sentence paragraphs. This looks awful, and generally reads awfully too; the text is not flowing, but jumps from here to there. Use bullet lists or tables for such text if a flowing text is impossible. 3) The history section is very brief, and fails to mention specific methods after the Minoans. 4) US (and Canada)-centered (" This is far too polluting for most locations in the U.S."). What about Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa? 5) Needs copyedit to remove things like (" at this time (2002)"). 6) Lead section should give an overview of the article. Jeronimo 11:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Too many one-sentence paragraphs. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anti-intellectualism

This is an excellent article about a fascinating subject. It's not beyond all POV problems, I'm afraid. Still, this has surely become one of the best articles I've ever read on here. Weasel

• Object. This needs a history of anti-intellectualism from at least as far back as classical Greece. It does not need to begin with a section on America. What on earth does being a politically homogenous society got to do with the subject? Do you imagine that there is no anti-intellectualism in Europe or Asia? And an article with a section called Anti-intellectualism in other countries that reads:

There are, no doubt, many instances of anti-intellectualism and anti-intellectual subcultures in many other countries. People knowledgeable about these may want to add them to this article.

is nowhere near ready. Send to WP:PR Filiocht 14:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. For exactly the same reason as Filiocht wrote. Revth 15:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Certainly Henri Bergson and Friedrich Nietzsche belong here. Ejrrjs 17:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Not close enough for FAC to be useful. +sj+ 20:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• it does not need to begin with a section on America... This was surely done because there exists quite a strong correlation. I didn't contribute to the article, I just thought it was very clear prose with a sound and rather fascinating line of thought. The state philosophies of all Communist countries are mentioned as European anti-intellectualism (the GDR leadership was proud to be "plain folks in a country of plain folks"), which (boldly stated) in most of Western Europe doesn't exist on such a scale as in the US (I don't have anything against the hands-on approach!). The article contains all that. I don't know about most of Asia, but the article does mention Cambodia etc.

What on earth does being a politically homogenous society got to do with the subject? Aaah, don't be nitpicking! :-) Fair enough, I didn't see that. But it's just one sentence.

Weasel (quarter past five UTC, frivolous, but I forgot how to do the timestamp)

• Object. The lead is okay, but the whole article is poorly organized. Specifics on anti-intellectualism in different regions of the world should follow the more in-depth points on the causes of anti-intellectualism. Fairly substantial editing still needs to be done, even after the reorganization; for instance, it's a sprawling article with a lot of hypothetical wordings like "it would be said" or "the pro-Israel side would probably respond." I would probably say, if I were asked, that this sounds like a high school essay. - Karl Ward 22:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I was considering (self)-nominating this one myself. (Even found some pictures). Then the interesting sections about Russia and Cambodia were added, and I tend to agree now that more could be done. OTOH, prominently featuring the USA makes sense here, if only because American anti-intellectualism has international political consequences. Smerdis of Tlön 19:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So did anti-intellectualism in, for instance, the British Empire and Nazi Germany. It didn't do Socrates much good either. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper and needs to look beyond the here and now. Filiocht 13:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mega Man

Seems pretty good. Interesting subject, seems pretty well written, has been broken into smaller articles after being on cleanup AFAICS. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. It still needs rewrite as one cannot read without skipping spoiler warnings that litter the article. Also, it needs to mention that in classic series, enemy boss robots were chosen from ideas by kids (and adults) who sent their ideas to Capcom. Revth 14:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I've removed all the spoiler warnings and put one right at the start (should be enough). Could you provide a source of info on the info on enemy boss robots? I'd like to add this in. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks better and support. Here [2] is an example of special prizes given to a person whose idea became "Ring Man" in Rockman 4(or Mega Man 4?). In 2 to 8 of classic series, all enemy boss characters were selected from ideas sent few months in advance. Revth 08:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object, for now at least. It is close, and I like the article but I second Revth' comments. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 14:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Some of the external links are unnecessary. There are lot of Mega Man fan sites on the Internet. Just doing a Google search would bring up a lot of them. Only the Capcom site should be there. Kuwanger 19:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• With the link objection resolved, I don't see anything else to object to about the article. I Support. Kuwanger 03:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, a few refs is okay. +sj+
    • Including fan sites encourages other people to add their own fan site links as well, which isn't desirable. It reads predominantly as advertising. Kuwanger 22:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I hope to have resolved this particular issue by listing directory entries for Yahoo!, Google directories and dmoz.org. These sites are better repositories for fan-site links. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • That sounds good. That way the choice of fan sites to list doesn't look like advertising. Post a message on my talk page when the issue has been resolved and I'll remove my objection. Kuwanger 02:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I like the changes that have been made. I think it's fine now. BrokenSegue 00:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• The bit on the history of the X series needs work. I grew up on the NES and SNES, and I didn't consider the original Mega Man "too kiddy" or the X series "mature". Sounds like current fanboy arguments over Nintendo being too childish, frankly. Someone needs to dig around for why Capcom REALLY decided on the change. ~ FriedMilk 03:18, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. After that, support. –Andre (talk) 20:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support after the changes. {Heliophile} 07:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Tried to NPOV that... I don't think I did a very good however. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Create a Category:Mega Man and put all those categories and articles in that one, that is the biggest category bloat i've ever seen. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:27, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I think that's a terrible idea. There is only one article about Mega Man and he relates to all those categories referenced in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tibet

I think this article does a good job and is a good example of Wikipedia at work. Gerritholl 10:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Far from featured status. 1) Lead section goes into too much detail, this is better discussed in a separate section. 2) The map image has no source info, and may be copyrighted. The accompanying caption is not very informative. 3) Several sections have little content. The geography section needs to be rewritten. 4) I miss information about Free Tibet and similar movements. 5)

• Object. The article goes from confusingly full (especially for those unfamiliar with the Chinese language (like my humble self) to very very empty (Economics, Demographics). It also lacks some originality. There's more to add (economical status within China, handling of tourism etc.). Weasel
• Object. See other featured country-related articles for better examples. +sj+ 20:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object, poorly developed from all perspectives. Fred Bauder 12:05, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Gibraltar

An impressive amount of information for such a small territory. The subarticles are also comprehensive. Deus Ex 22:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object'Not a vote anymore - it still needs a bit of tidying up - too much space is devoted to the arcane subject of territorial waters and info on dispute with Spain should have its own page. Nearly there, but not quite there yet I decided to be bold, so I've now removed the bits I think are extraneous - of course, now the article seems short for a featured article! I'll wait for reaction to my changes before considering removing my objection. Jongarrettuk 06:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've now made quite a few changes to address my concerns, though not all of Jeronimo's. It still needs up to date economic data.Jongarrettuk 21:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The holiday pictures need to get rid of the "watermark", and should become separate picture, and without captions. 2) The story about the origin of the name is told twice, though slightly different both times. 3) The lead section doesn't give a good overview of the article. 4) I miss a section on the culture of Gibraltar (there's a lengthy article about it) 5) There are only web references/recommended reading 6) The article needs a copy-edit 7) The politics section tells more about issues than how the politics are organised. Jeronimo 10:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a vote. Objection 5 intrigues me. If this became policy and were retroactively applied to the current 380 FAs, how many would be left? Filiocht 11:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Not many, but that's beside the point. We need to work with new material and hold it to a high standard. Forget the previous FAs, lets just focus on the stuff we have nominated now! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Ahhh, Ta bu Shi, we've brought you to the dark side. - Taxman 04:24, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a vote: What's the difference between a "reference" and an "external link"? The article has several external links with reference-like information (CIA factbook, etc.). -- Creidieki 22:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • An external link is just a link to interesting information. A reference is a reference to material that you used for the story. links within the story should go into references and external links to sites not referenced in the story should go into external links. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • To answer Filiocht's question: perhaps not many, but as Ta bu shi da yu points out, this shouldn't be a reason to exclude this particular reason from my objection. I think it should be possible for most article to give at least one book (or other printed work) as reference or further reading. Websites tend to change or disappear, and there veracity is not always verifiable, since basically anyone can make one. Not all books may be true, but at least it's rather easy to find who wrote them. Jeronimo 06:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong. I agree and use books a lot myself. But is this objection based on any formal requirement or just your (and my ) opinion? Should it be made a formal requirement? If the editors involved used no books, is it an actionable objection? I think not, sadly. Filiocht 07:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Sure, you can't add references you didn't use. However, it should be easy to find a book or article to mention under "further reading". I agree though that this is not currently required by any Wikipedia standards. Then again, if this were my only objection to an, I would vote neutral. Jeronimo 11:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Attila the Hun

Self-nomination; I and others have done a great deal of work to bring this article out of its previous stubbiness. —No-One Jones ^(m) 15:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. [[User:Norm|Nor^{m]] 15:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)}
• I like it, but it needs more of a lead section that summarizes the important points about him and the image needs a better caption and source info. Also, as noted on the talk page, the manner of his death is too authoritatively written given the age and reliability of the sources, especially given a footnote describes a different method that is not explained in the text. Anyway it's great to have a former collaboration of the week nomination be nearly featured quality. - Taxman 16:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  See the talk page for the latter objection. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  All it needs is the information you wrote on the talk page about who made the claims and which is more reliable. A great article should cite every important fact by source, not state them as fact. - Taxman 19:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  Done. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Ok, but now I just don't understand your citation. The text says Priscus is the source for the conventional account, but the footnote says Marcellinus. Which is it? And now there is no mention of the conflicting account that had been in the footnote before, which even if not true may be worth noting if it was a widely accepted rumor. - Taxman 22:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  My mistake; I forgot to remove the initial footnote reference when moving the alternate explanation up into a body paragraph, where it is now (at the end of #Invasion of Italy and death). —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Looks good, now the image caption as source info are the biggest issues. - Taxman 13:32, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

• object. lead section too short. image needs to be framed, not thumbed --Jiang 18:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Check again. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  good job. --Jiang

  The lead section makes the claim that it was Europe's largest empire. Is that generally accepted as true? For all history? Also the link to saga is to the disambig page so it is not clear what meaning you have in mind, and it should be explained a bit in the sentence anyway. Finally, the link to a section is problematic. If someone changes that section name, the link breaks. It is better to create an article, even if it is a stub at 'Migrations Period', or whatever is the correct article title. - Taxman 22:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  Fixed; disambiguated saga, noted that his the largest empire at the time (which it was), and took out the problematic link, which wasn't entirely necessary anyway. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support Object. The description of Attila's European history is very well done, but the article lacks historical context: the Huns were not just "a group of nomads living to the east of the Volga River in separate tribes". 1) How about a sections on origins: migrations of Asian population to the West, Xiong Nu connections, place of Attila in the Hun dynastic line. 2) Isn't the depiction of Attila as a Caucasian (photo) very debatable? Even the contemporary description by Priscus seems to be in contradiction. PHG 21:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  This is an article about the life of Attila; the history of the Huns belongs in their article (which I'll get to eventually. . .), though a short summary of it would be useful, yes, and I'll add one.
  All that is known about his place in the dynastic line is in there: he was Rua's nephew, and beyond that sayeth no source that I know of.
  The depiction is indeed debatable, however, as far as I know there are no first-hand portraits of him, so one guess is as good as another; some depictions even include horns.
  —No-One Jones ^(m) 22:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, this is good stuff. Two things: his birthyear is estimated as 406. What is this estimate based on? Also, it is mentioned that "names "Attila" and "Ildikó" remain popular to this day". It is not very clear that Ildikó (Hungarian for Hilda, IIRC) is the name of his last wife, and not the Hungarian or Turkish form of Attila. Jeronimo 07:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  I actually don't know where the estimate comes from, so I took it out. The inclarity has also been corrected. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. +sj+ 20:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, new images are great. Nice work. - Taxman 04:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic article! Zerbey 16:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great work! Securiger 12:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Though I did add a couple of small quotes. Wetman 01:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Simon A. 09:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Formula One

Kind of a self-nom as I have done a lot of work on this article. It has been studiously ignored at Wikipedia:Peer Review for a long time. It was rejected here a while back but the criticisms - inconsistent British/American spelling, data in tabular form which should not be, colloquial diction - have been largely repaired, and as an F1 fan I think it covers the various aspects of the sport quite completely. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I have done a lot of work on this article,too. I'm also a Fan of F1 and the article is complete and important for the featured articles,indeed.--ThomasK 04:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good article! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) This article is very much biased towards the present. We have a list of current riders which is not really necessary for the article, while Prost and Lauda are not even mentioned in the article! The history deals only with the technical rules, not at all with drivers and only briefly with teams. Even a brief summary (there's a separate history article) should do better than this. 2) There are several sections that only contain a link to a list. This is ridiculous. Something should be said about the topic; just like with the other sections, it is very well possible to discuss some part whithout listing the entire list. The "People" list is an exception to this, even though it is the least important. And why are the managers from Renault (Briatore!), Jaguar and Toyota missing, while "Ferrari gets its own bullet"? 3) The related topics sections repeats many links already listed (including all the "subarticles"), which is very unnecessary - especially since they're also in the template at the top of the article. Also, templates and categories shouldn't be here. 4) There are no book references, although there must be 1,000s of books written on the subject. 5) The external links section should be cleaned out. Either it should contain less of the same, or there should be more than just "News, humor and commentary" in the description. 6) The Fangio/Moss picture (the only mention of Moss!) is probably copyrighted, and has no source information. 7) The lead section speaks of huge budgets and international attention, but this is not addressed any further. Especially the fanbase should get a bit more in the article. Jeronimo 06:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding your second objection, I don't understand what you have in mind when you suggest summarising the list articles. For example, how would one summarise the list of World Champions? SamH 13:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • There are several ways, I think. One would be to simply include the list. Especially the world champions list might be important enough to include entirely. An alternative is to discuss some of the more important or remarkable items in the list, for example those with the most world titles and Rindt because he is the only posthumous champion. For world champions, such a sectin may also fit in the history section, and then you can just add a reference to the list of champions there, and remove the entire section. Jeronimo 14:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • A previous discussion ruled out including the entire list, and favored moving it to a separate page since it was so large. I have attempted a summary of the various lists as you have suggested, and cleaned the "See also" and "External links" sections. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Object. Too much stuff packed into the "lists" section. "Lists" is as far as I know not a topic in Formula One, and less so a parent topic for the things currently listed there. Instead of just listing a bunch of topics and pointing to lists, write a little about them in the article (and provide links to lists in addition), and put them under more logical headings. The "See also" section also needs to be improved:

1. Remove the Template: links. The template system is internal magic whose inner workings should not be exposed in articles. "Template" makes sense to an editor, but little sense to a reader.
2. Remove the Category: links. Listing related categories in the article is non-standard; sub-categories go on the related category page.
3. "Formula One subpages" should be named something else, because the linked articles are not actually subpages. Fredrik | talk 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • This has all been taken care of: the templates and categories have been moved to the talk page and the See Also section has been improved. Also, the Lists heading has been removed and the structure revised a bit. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Change my stance to neutral (I'll have to read it in full before I support). Fredrik | talk 22:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would strongly disagree with the remark about categories. Articles SHOULD link to categories when relevant. An article should not have to be PART of a category to refer to it. —Morven 22:37, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • And I maintain that it is a bad idea since those categories are already covered in Category:Formula One. If we link to related categories in this article, then we should do so in every other article. What would the point of the separate category system be then? Fredrik | talk 22:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The article has changed for the better, but I continue to object. I've just reworked the circuits section to something better (IMO), and will work on the rest as well. Until then, I'll object. Jeronimo 06:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Presuppositional apologetics

• I stumbled on this article by chance, and was struck by its excellent style, its care with words, and how well-referenced it was. I know the topic is probably so specific and unfamiliar that many will find it unsuitable for a main page featuring, but honestly I don't know how the article could be much improved from its current state. I knew very little about this topic prior to reading the article, so I hope there aren't glaring errors that I am unaware of -- the article certainly does not give the impression of being poorly constructed. On the contrary, it seems solid, neutral, and cogent, to me at least. Jwrosenzweig 23:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object, reluctantly. I think there's a featured article here. However, the article as it stands seems overly academic. At a certain point, the subject matter is inherently academic, but much of the material is fundamentally about issues relevant to many or most people: if I believe I am rational, is it okay to also be religious? or, is believe in God rational?

My criticisms: (1) the article has a very complicated sentence structure; the writing could be crisper, (2) the article seems aimed at people in theology who are very interested in the precise details of who said exactly what; the article should start off with text at a general audience, while later having some of the more involved details, (3) I'm not sure which of the previous two points this fits into, but things like the phrase "noetic effects of sin" need to be introduced more gently.

Zashaw 04:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My reply -- (1) Can you point to a few specific sentences? I'm happy to make some alterations, but since I'm happy with the style, I'll need your help to see my way to corrections. (2) Some changes have been made by others to the introduction since I nominated. Is this sufficient, or would you like more? One important consideration -- should I assume that someone who reads the introduction knows what apologetics is, or does that need introducing? I don't want to dumb it down too far, but I think it should be accessible. (3) The "noetic effects of sin" is a phrase (new to me -- had to look it up) that describes sin's alleged ability to distort the mind: the idea is that, in effect, sinfulness helps blind humans to the very presence of sin, and also limits human abilities to perceive sin's effects on the soul. Does that deserve an article, does it deserve to be better explained, or should the phrase be cut? It's a delightfully compact phrase that I'd like to preserve, but I'm open to comment. Jwrosenzweig 21:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(2) The introduction is vastly improved in the direction I was hoping. I think the intro's okay now. It no longer assumes that the reader has a pretty good grasp on apologetics, and the sentences are much simpler. (1) I'll have to get back to this; a quick skim today shows nothing obvious. On the whole, I think some things could be simpler, and less assumptions on the reader (the "noetic" being the most obvious). Also I did notice an affection on the writer's part for the subject, which leads to some unexplained things: "noetic", the comment beginning "Van Til illustrated this concept..." sounds clever, but I don't understand how the analogy relates to the topic, and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of the quote of Frame at the end of the section. Taxman, below, seems to have some ideas too. (3) if you had to look noetic up, obviously we can't assume the reader will know it. It'd be a shame to not mention the concept, but we need to make sure that readers aren't tripped up on this highly obscure term -- if you really want to use "noetic", maybe a parenthetical "(i.e., the so-called 'noetic effects of sin')"? Zashaw 02:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object temporarily: I think it is almost there, but I agree that 'noetic effects of sin' requires explanation (or its own article) and I'd like to be told who Clark is/was in the absence of an article on him. I have no problems with the overall writing style, as it seems suited to the topic. Filiocht 09:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See above for 'noetic effects of sin'. I've written a brief article on Gordon Clark -- is that sufficient? Or does more need to be said? Jwrosenzweig 22:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Clark article is fine, but I still feel that "noetics" needs clarification or maybe the parenthetical suggestion above should be used? Filiocht 07:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. The kind of article I think is brilliant work, but shouldn't necessarily be featured on the main page (as jwr notes).
• Object. The subject is not that hard that it should never go on the main page. Good articles on non mainstream topics are what wikipedia excels at. In any case being a featured article is a different animal from deciding if an article goes on the main page. As to the article, the intro still needs some more work. That is the one section that needs to be entirely approachable to the un-initiated reader, easing them into the topic. So for that section at least, the article could still use simpler sentence construction. Also after the intro, very little is covered other than the types of presuppositionalism, and the presuppositionalists views of the circularity argument. More needs to be covered on opposing views and whether the school has had any impact or importance, and if so, what. Also, needs at least some sort of representative image or diagram. - Taxman 16:22, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you -- excellent suggestions. I'll do some more on the introduction. The circularity section is in fact a section detailing the most common set of objections to presuppositional apologetics -- does that need to be more clear? Would simply renaming the section "Opposing views" be precise enough? As to impact and importance, I'll have to work on that -- being unfamiliar with this school prior to reading the article (in spite of a personal interest in theology) makes me assume the impact is relatively minor, but then I'm only an amateur in theology. I'll find what I can. Image or diagram has me thrown -- should all featured articles have one? I can't envision one for this -- it's not a topic like "the transmission of grace" or something where a diagram between God and humanity is easy to envision. Any suggestions are more than welcome....I'll see if I can find a picture of either Clark or Van Til, in the meantime. Jwrosenzweig 19:40, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The circularity section does cover the most common objection, but primarily focuses on all the reasons proponents disagree with the objection. Thats not NPOV even if all the reasons proponents posit are cited. Especially if there are more reasons the critics would have that are not discussed which seems likely given the general lack of coverage of other criticisms. In other words one criticism with 14 refutations that are researched and cited to their source is not NPOV. The section does not need to be renamed, circularity is fine as long as the section is more balanced. There are also a number of terms used in the article that could stand for an inline, quick summary explanation. The most obvious being 'cosmological argument'. Also the phrase 'begged the question' is used in its archaic, mis-translated sense without explanation of the fact that that usage is not common anymore and is, in essence, another way to say circularity anyway. Finally the students of Clark and Van Til should either have stubs created, or not even be wiki links at all if they do not merit full articles in their own right. As to the image, it just needs something to represent the topic once it is featured in case it is picked for the main page. So I must continue to object. Please drop me a line on my talk page if you feel you have addressed these. - Taxman 02:52, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • A very reasonable position -- I'll do what I can to work on the circularity section. Given the difficulty of working on an article one knows little about, and the amount of time I have for editing, I suggest that this nomination be removed (perhaps placed in a subspace of the article's talk?), since it will take me some time to alter the article so that it will meet the objections that have been voiced. I have confidence it will be featurable soon, but I don't think it should hang around here in the meantime. Sorry for not being bold and removing it, but I haven't removed anything at FAC since it was overhauled early this year, and I don't want to accidentally violate policy if I can avoid it. Thanks for your suggestions, all of you -- Jwrosenzweig 13:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It strikes me as more of an argument for Presuppositional apologetics than an article about it. When some of the POV language is toned down I'll withdraw my objection. Cyopardi 12:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Cyopardi, I'm afraid I will really need examples of this. I was surprised by your objection -- in reviewing the article again, I find that all opinions are carefully attributed (the articles never says anything like "athiests are wrong", for example, but always something along the lines of "Van Til's supporters contend that atheists are wrong" -- unless I'm missing something), and that several objections to the theory are raised, along with the counterarguments of presuppositional apologists. What more would you like to see? Without a clearer statement, I don't see this as actionable. Jwrosenzweig 19:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • After reading the article again I realize I was a bit hasty in my objection. It is withdrawn. The Circularity paragraph struck me as being POV (as it carefully refutes all the criticisms) when it was really just well researched. Cyopardi 00:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Split infinitive

This article is already a featured article, but was accidentally listed here. Please move discussion to Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates#Split Infinitive. -- Creidieki 00:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Interesting, seems to be a well researched topic. It's one that most people have heard about, but never really understood. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating. Isn't the English language great? Zerbey 16:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (I am so sick of people who are certain that split infinitives are incorrect. They need to boldly go and read this article.) func(talk) 18:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Not enough background information. The article seems to focus almost entirely on various arguments about whether splitting infinitives is allowable/correct; it has only a few sentences at the beginning explaining what a split infinite is. The example is good, and notable, but I really think there should be a section at the beginning with a longer explanation, suitable for people who might not know what an "adverbial phrase" is offhand. I also think that there should be information on split infinitives in other languages, but I wouldn't hold an object vote over that part. -- Creidieki 18:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too short for a feature article. I also found the writing somewhat pedantic. Denni☯ 21:47, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
    • Let me get this straight... you found the writing pedantic for the article split infinitive? Alrighty then! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • ??? Just because it's about language (or maybe because it's about language) doesn't mean it can't be interesting and stimulating writing. Throwing the passive voice around is just, in my estimation, a writer's way of saying "I know more than you." Denni☯ 23:45, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
        • Joking. Think about people who care about split infinitives... - Ta bu shi da yu 05:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If I may be allowed to pedantically object on other grounds, namely that several sentences are unnecessarily written to passively express a thought when they could be changed so as to actively formulate the same idea. In particular, I would suggest for someone to editorially rephrase a number of sentences containing phrases such as "there is/was/were..." as this structure can almost always be tightened up for better effect. Passive voice may be appropriate at times, but to overly lapse into it is to possibly render the article less interesting and less worthy of featuring. --Michael Snow 22:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Note: this article has already been listed as a featured article for a (very) long time. See WP:FA. Jeronimo 07:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Yow! I didn't see that... considering the amount of objections we have, should this still be counted as a featured article? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) (note: somehow this was removed accidently by an editor!)

• I liked it. Oooo, .,-;"";-,. ,oooO 03:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Me to. Passive voice seems very appropriate to a grammar article, actually. Filiocht 07:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.", a quote from Winston Churchill Ctrl_build 02:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hawaiian architecture

Very well-written article; both consise and factual. Sources are cited. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:29, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Neutral. Could use a little more meat in the sections, but it already has a substantial amount of information for readers to digest so I think I'm satisfied enough for it to be a featured article. And yes, it is well written!  ;) On second thought, it needs to be refined more. Gerald Farinas 06:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it is interesting to note that Gerald Farinas is in fact the main author of this article. Jeronimo 19:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Hence the little winky face at the end of my comment. Gerald Farinas 20:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object, I'm afraid. This is a good article, but the majority of the photos in the article are copyrighted. A minor thing is the use of bold in each paragraph. This is not only unnecessary, but also discouraged by the WP:MOS. Jeronimo 19:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a majority are. But Image:Moanahotel.jpg is a PD photo suitable for the main page. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:57, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

That's great, but all of the pictures need to be free of copyright, or demonstrated to be fair use. At present, they are not. Jeronimo 22:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Agree with jero; object for now. They certainly need to be tagged! Lovely art, tho. +sj+ 20:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

World War III

Really good article, I think. Self-nom, I guess, as I've done quite a bit of work to it, over time. — OwenBlacker 23:42, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Read, but speculation is speculation, regardless of possible precursor incidents. An interesting article, but object. Denni☯ 01:12, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

• Object. This is a tremendously important concept in recent history, politics, and military technology, which is fast fading from common knowledge. (I recently went to a party where a 22 year old refused to believe that all us thirty somethings had once believed the world was in imminent danger of nuclear annihilation!)
  1. A featured article on World War III needs to give adequate coverage to the political, historical and technical/theoretical aspects. Aspects it should cover the SALT treaties, the START treaties, the ABM treaties, the peace movement, domestic fallout shelters in various countries, "Drop, Duck, and cover", the impact (if any) of SDI, actual capabilities, the nuclear winter controversy, and much, much more. As it stands, this article is completely dominated by references to popular culture, including even apocalyptic science fiction scenarios which are unrelated to World War III per se.
  2. Two of the "near miss" scenarios are somewhat exaggerated in comparison to their supporting references, and one isn't in the free references at all. It is also undesirable to use subscriber-only references. On the other hand, the Cuban missile crisis gets just one sentence.
  3. Some sections show the "editing by committee" problem, e.g. the bit on US highways as expedient runways first says there is no evidence for it, then states it as fact. Securiger 02:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It's 50% list. →Raul654 05:10, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Object (this has nothing to do with my VfD of a similar entry a while ago). Too many lists! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Too many lists, needs to be fleshed out more. Good work so far :) Zerbey 16:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a great deal of thought, not only excellent writing, and references to 10x as many thinktanks/orgs, national bodies, philosophers, politicians, authors...

Infinite monkey theorem

This article has a little bit of everything: Popular depiction, formal math, pop culture references, anecdotes and trivia. It exhausts the topic's possibilities without descending into inanities. Pretty humourous too. -- Deepak 23:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• That a great percentage of the 'infinite number' of monkeys chose to defecate on the keyboard rather than type anything is reason enough for this self-effacing article to find feature status. This myth is long overdue puncturing. Denni☯ 01:23, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:30, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose: great story, off the wall, fantastic topic, obviously people have done a lot of good work in research and attempts to copyedit, but the prose doesn't flow that well. For instance:

Subsequent restatements by other people have replaced the National Library not only with the British Museum but also with the Library of Congress; a popular retelling says that the monkeys would eventually type Shakespeare's plays.

<newline>

There need not be infinitely many monkeys; a single monkey who executes infinitely many keystrokes suffices.

This seems disconnected. In fact, there are many sentences that seem that way!

There are also no references. The monkey simulator was reported by various newspapers and has online references at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3013959.stm and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/12/national/main553500.shtml. I'll be more than happy to support once these issues have been resolved, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done --Deepak 14:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• OpposeNeutral: there is still room for improvement pedantic, well beyond the Pedantic usage note junk. Ejrrjs 14:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• What stuff in the article is pedantic? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've added to the pedantic stuff I've identified some suggestions to improve the article

# The Pedantic usage note, by its own confession. Rename it Proper usage of the term infinite or whatever. Instead of to the mathematician use in technical terms or technically since the mathematical fact is certainly known to anyone with a college degree on science or engineering, or aware of the dictionary definition of infinite. On the other hand, a few more words on *why* a single monkey suffices might be interesting

1. The disgression on dactylography. If the word does not belong to proper English usage, just drop it and do not perpetute the translator's mistake.

# The whole paragraph on Huxley's debate. If it is not true, just say it and move forward. Or is it just a space filler?

I think the new format helps

1. Gian-Carlo Rota's quote of Whitehead. It is not one of Whitehead famous remarks [3] [4], its meaning is obscure and adds nothing to the subject matter. Drop that sentence.

Ejrrjs 15:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have now changed the title of the usage-note section to usage note. I think the usage note contains useful information for anyone who wants to learn mathematical terminology. I find some charm in the quote of Rota, who quotes Whitehead, and I think it would be unfortunate if it were deleted. (That text on probability that Rota died without finishing was sold in a draft form by MIT's Copy Technology Center; it was required reading for students in the course on probability that Rota taught every year. Quite possibly it's still sold there in that form; I'll check. Birkhauser Boston has asked another professor to try to put it into a form to be finally published more generally than by the Copy Technology Center, so maybe it will be seen on Amazon.com some day.) Michael Hardy 21:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, what did Whitehead mean? Is that a well known quote in some philosophy or math circles? Ejrrjs 22:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Could someone check the reference to Borel's 1909 book? I've

seen the English translation of the second edition; could someone check the original 1909 French one? (Maybe I'll do this at some point soon if I can.) Michael Hardy 23:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support- but maybe there should be more discussion of the probability of such events occuring. BrokenSegue 01:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, if only for this brilliant, brilliant sentence: "not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, they started by attacking the keyboard with a stone, and continued by urinating and defecating on it." [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • That was taken almost verbatim from the Times newspaper. Pretty funny though! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, interesting and reasonably well written. On a side note, Michael, you don't mess around do you. Not only did you check the english translation, but you want to check the original French too? It does make sense, so maybe we could ask someone on the French wikipedia to look for it? - Taxman 03:02, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Cyopardi 13:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This is a serious theory? I thought it was something DNA invented! Zerbey 19:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The bellman 03:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 12:19, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Phil | Talk 13:36, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Swimming

This is a great article that deals with the different aspects of swimming - health/exercise, competition, resues, techniques etc., it is relatively detailed and well worded. --CGorman 21:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object strongly. There's a lot of good content here, but it is ill organised. Furthermore: 1) some sections read like - or actually are - as summation of facts instead of a story, and not all of the facts are interesting. Surely, it is not necessary to list every possible risk involved with swimming (e.g. hit by lightning), where exactly you can swim in the nude etc.? 2) Some important information is missing: the history section is very brief (while there is a huge article about it), and there's hardly any dicussion of pools. Also, the lead section notes that some animals also swim, but this isn't mentioned in the remainder. I think at least fish deserve a mention... 4) There are no references. Jeronimo 19:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs better sectioning, flow of content. Lots of content, not yet brilliant.

Casablanca (movie)

Self-nom. I think it's fairly complete, but I'll try to correct any problems. Markalexander100 07:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, a quick look shows it rather complete. --Gamingboy 14:52, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Definitely support: a bloody good (and very comprehensive) article about one of my all-time favorite films. — OwenBlacker 23:45, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive article, good layout and a balanced point of view MarkS 13:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive and highly readable. GWO 16:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well written article, covers all bases. Zerbey 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht 11:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Not just another popular subject: a model for Wikipedia movie entries. Wetman 00:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 19:22, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Vivien Thomas

I think he's got a really a great story, one that hasn't been told very much, and this article does a pretty good job of telling it. I found a fair-use picture to use with it as well. --Fastfission 20:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. Interesting story and fairly well told. The article is just about long enough, but I suspect it could be longer.

1. Some section headings would be nice.
2. The mention of his work on 'causes of medical shock' should be moved from the lead parra and discussed in more detail somewhere in the body.
3. The lead section should then be reworked to give a better summary of the article.
4. 'Thomas did not operate on Eileen' - I'm guessing that without actually being qualified as a doctor, it would have been illegal for him to do so. This should be mentioned.

   It's really here nor there, it was really Blalock's work to do anyway (Blalock being the surgeon), and anyway they would not have let him operate on a white patient anyway (and I doubt Thomas would have even tried).

5. There is mention that a 'medical reporter picked up the story' on curing Blue Baby syndrome at the time, but it is not clear that the reporter was aware of Thomas' involvement, or publicised it.

   I'll disambiguate this. The medical reporter picked up the story from JAMA, which as it notes, did not mention Thomas at all, so her publication did not benefit Thomas directly (primarily it benefitted Blalock).

6. On pay disparity and the wearing lab coats - was the issue that Thomas was black, or that he wasn't qualified as a doctor, or a bit of both. Reading between the lines Johns Hopkins University may have used rigid pay scales and could have found it difficult or impossible to pay a technician more.

   It's that he was black -- the idea of a black man in a (technician's) lab coat is what drew stares from strangers; they did not know his qualifications one way or another. There's no evidence that the issue of salary had to do with not being able to pay him more.

7. But my biggest question would be how does this story relate to the wider experience of black doctors or medical professionals. My ignorance, but were there _any_ black doctors in the United States in the 1940s?

   Yes, of course, but they had a lot of difficulties. They of course did not work on white patients, and often were regulated to those black patients who could not afford white doctors.

Hope that helps. -- Solipsist 06:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does, thanks! --Fastfission 14:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

Very important physicist. By the Time magazine choosed as Person of the 20th Century. Actually a idol of the public. --ThomasK 13:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Not a vote, but the table of contents seems like quite a mess. -- Emsworth 14:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, needs more work. GeneralPatton 14:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Sheesh, talk about leaving us in suspense! What sort of work? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support: Looks like a well organized work to me. TOC looks fine - don't see "a mess". Everything in wiki always "needs more work". I like it.--Vsmith 16:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Not a vote. The headings are a bit confused because most of the assesment of his acedemic work is fitted into his personal biography. When the discussion of his theories is given a section seperate to his early/middle/final years I'll support. Neutral for now. Cyopardi 22:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (Actually, I keep thinking that it needs a little more work as well, but I can't put my finger on why.) func(talk) 18:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. More careful discussion of various sources would be v. useful, since so much has been written about the subject. Biographical controversies should be noted. +sj+ 20:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. ---Rednblu 01:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article, highly structured, and very important. Gerritholl 17:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support: Very well done. Simon A. 09:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mary II of England

Yes, it is short, but Mary II was not, in reality, the ruler of the realm; just about everything was done by her husband. -- Emsworth 19:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, but I think a few details should be changed. Her husband was not "the stadtholder", since he formally was only stadtholder of 5 of the 7 provinces of the Netherlands (although these provinces included the most important one, Holland). I would not call him a "Dutch Prince" either, since the Netherlands had no royal lineage at the time, and the principality of Orange is in fact in France. The stadtholdership became inheritable during his reign, though. I'll leave it to you to include these minor points or not. Jeronimo 07:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 16:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Zerbey 17:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 19:56, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Samuel Beckett

Again a partial self-nom, although a lot of people have contributed to this. I suspect there may be a problem with the photo, but otherwise I think it's quite complete. Filiocht 11:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• FWIW, Waiting for Godot has some pictures of the play that could be added. Can we get a portrait from the publisher's website, and use it under fair use? Markalexander100 01:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The Beckett estate are very jealous of their rights and like to charge for everything. I'll use a Godot image for now. Thanks. Filiocht 07:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image changed now. Filiocht 10:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know much about him, or the area, but it looks really comprehensive and well put together. zoney ♣ talk 13:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Markalexander100 08:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Kiand 15:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Djegan 21:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. CGorman 18:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I Want To Hold Your Hand

Renominating, as there were no objections last time, just only one support vote. I'm not sure why this was moved to failed nominations at only one week after nomination, as Jeronimo merely made suggestions, not conditions for his support vote. See also WP:PR listing. Johnleemk | Talk 09:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support., but can you can confirm that the pictures are used with permission? Zerbey 17:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • See fair use for an explanation. Johnleemk | Talk 08:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Same problems with the references cited as "A Day in the Life". Also, several references appear to be identical though they point to different pages. Minor nit not affecting objection status: I would like to see the word "interestingly" banned from Wikipedia as well. That should go without saying, I think. Jgm 18:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • All objections have been resolved. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Why? In some cases it's good. It usually denotes something unusual and tells the reader that the preceding text is out of the ordinary. Interestingly, it can denote several phrases all in one succinct word: curiously enough, funnily enough, interestingly enough, oddly enough and strangely enough. If it's not overused it's quite appropriate. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Interestingly, the word interestingly often either sets off a fact that is interesting in its own right and does not usually need to be noted as interesting, or is not really all that interesting at all, and shouldn't be noted as such. Ok, that sounded more harsh than I meant it, but the word cen be quite overused. - Taxman 13:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • See the "A Day in the Life" nomination below for my response. As for the "identical" references, I'm following official policy: Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 08:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • There's nothing in this official policy preventing you from either 1) combining all these references under a single link to http://www.beatles-discography.com, or 2) listing them as Beatles-Discography.com -- Beatles American Albums. Jeronimo 18:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Ambi 02:58, 14 Sep 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.

Featured articles missing pictures

• Chuck Palahniuk (needs picture of author)
• Computer security
• Donegal fiddle tradition
• Gram Parsons
• Indus Valley Civilization (fair use picture)
• Negligence
• Not the Nine O'Clock News
• Vacuous truth

These now have pictures

• Ackermann function - use pic of equation
• Anno Domini - Smerdis of Tlön 19:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Application programming interface - use UML lollipop symbol for an interface.
• ASCII (a lame one)
• Have I Got News For You (fair use)
• Illegal prime (It now has 2 images.)
• Jazz (still needs free image)
• Jim Henson (still needs free image)
• Korean name - use Image:Hangul_seong.png
• Madonna (singer) (still needs free image)
• Markup language (well, sort-of; suitable for main page? James F.

(talk) 15:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) (don't see why not Lupin 00:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC))

• Peloponnesian War - use image: Corinth_Temple_of_Apollon.jpg for now, until a better one is found. - Taxman 15:32, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)