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.

Nominated articles

Shrine of Remembrance

Excellent new article. Not a self-nom. Ambi 07:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) No references. 2) Needs a slightly expanded lead section. For both, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article. Jeronimo 08:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Coachella Valley

Partial self-nomination. Decumanus started this and added the map. I live in the area, so it seemed a natural for me to expand. So, what sayeth you, fellow wiki warriors? - Lucky 6.9 03:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Territory of Hawaii

By far the best U.S. territory article and actually better than all of the U.S. state articles. jengod 23:42, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1. for a geography topic, it has no map. 2. The feature picture is generic -- a U.S. president photo that has no graphically apparent relation to the topic. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 01:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - the okina spelling is by far less common than no-okina, and as such, we should be using the non-okina spelling, per the manual of style naming conventions. →Raul654 02:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No references. 2) Lead section needs to be expanded. Please see Wikipedia:What is a featured article for these two points. 3) If this is meant to be an article about all aspects of the Territory of Hawaii, we need far more than just the history. If this article is meant to be a "chapter" in the History of Hawaii (it is referred to as such in that article), that should be made clear in this article. Jeronimo 08:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amazon River

Partial self nomination. I think it's full of interesting information and a nice looking article.Worldtraveller 23:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Needs at least one ground level photo, and references (I doubt everything was incorporated from EB). Fredrik | talk 23:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The map: lacks source and copyright information; the colours on the map are horrible and the text hard to read (some of the labels go under the rivers!); the speckly lines for the rivers are horrible; there are artefacts (black specks); there's an unexplained asterisk on the Falkland Islands. Gdr 00:09, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Economy of Africa

A thorough, well-written, all-around excellent article on an interesting and important topic. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Strong support. Fredrik | talk 08:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Absolute support. Best article of the year. Ambi 08:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht 09:05, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Xed 09:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Simon has already implemented my suggested changes. ✏ Sverdrup 10:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Important and excellent. ChrisG 11:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. The information is good, but the article is sorely in need of an editor. I may lend a hand if I have time. Someone correctly pointed out on the talk page that African_gdp_growth.png is almost illegible to anyone with red–green colour blindness. The burgundy and the dark olive green in particular will look almost the same to about 8% of males. I suggest changing either the reds or the greens to blues. Incidentally, the first map on the page, the one done entirely in greens, is very easy to read, irrespective of colour blindness. Shorne 12:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  What kind of editing do you think it needs? —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Just now I edited the introductory paragraph. Check the revision history for my changes. I can also point out the bizarre sentence "Africa's economy is more reliant on agriculture than that of any other continent with a majority of Africans still working the soil", which, for want of a comma, means something rather different from what was intended. I'll support this nomination once the English is cleaned up. Shorne 12:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I've done a fair bit of copyediting and linkage. How does it look now? —No-One Jones ^(m) 13:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I've done some more editing myself. More could be done, but I'll withdraw the objection. I have another one, however, about one of the maps. See above. Shorne 19:28, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Wow... Definite support, this is an excellent piece of work! Zerbey 14:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Great material. I see two issues: 1.) The sentence in the intro "Improving Africa's economy as it emerges from a period of colonialism and struggles with democracy, welfare and quality of life is one of the most important issues facing the modern world.", while many may agree with, is an unnacceptable POV for a wikipedia article. It either needs to be cited to a source that said it, or turned into a factual statement, not a value judgement. 2.) The Geography section needs some work. The second paragraph has redundant sentences in it. I would have fixed that except for the problem is not only geographic it is political. It is the fact that the interior countries are landlocked that cause the problem, not the geography alone. The end of the third paragraph is a POV mess. That is one explanation, but is not neccessarily correct. Wikipedia can't state things like that as fact without citation. That is all the farther I got, but I assume similar issues happen later in the article. So unfortunately object for now. - Taxman 15:47, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong support. Simon A. 20:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This is mostly my article, and seeing as I made it my entry in Danny's contest I am quite pleased with it. Many thanks to everyone who has since edited and improved it. I am aware the article is not perfect. I am concerned that it gives short shrift to many subjects, but I think this is unavoidable with such a massive subject matter. I would also prefer more numbers and statistics, but accurate numbers are very difficult to find. I would also like to have the colour blind be able to read the maps, but I do not know much about how best this can be done. - SimonP 03:25, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, for lack of certain informations. The history section has several problems, no information before tenth century and a very limited informations on slavery. "This region became quite prosperous as Swahili traders exported ivory and slaves to a trade that spanned the entire Indian Ocean region." is the only sentence to mention slavery at all and this make it look like only Swahili was involved or that it had only a small effect in Africa. The agriculture section lacks informations on cattles which is very important in the central Africa. The Disease section has informations on AIDS and malaria but not on any other disease that have been controlled like small pox. Half of the Language issues section is about education and there is no independent section on it. I cannot figure out why the picture "Tamale in linguistically diverse Ghana" is a meaningful one. The only linguistic thing about the picture is a "TOYOTA" on the back of a truck. Something like a picture of a ballot with multiple languages on it, like the one you see in an Indian election, would be better. Revth 03:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Golf

A dang fine article IMO. Comments welcome. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral. Excellent, but where are the references? Zerbey 22:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Lead section too short. 2) Order of the sections is strange. I would expect a discussion of the gameplay and history before we get to golf courses. 3) No references (some external links though). 4) Some sections should be longer or merged. Others, like "golf ball" should have content instead of just referring to some other article. This is especially strange as less vital topics (such as environmental impact) get much more coverage. 5) Some sections only dicuss the US, such as Social aspects of golf. 5) The glossary should be moved to a separate (list)article. 6) The article desperately needs an illustration of a typical golf course, showing the tee, fairway, green, bunkers, etc. 7) I don´t think we need to know that the player in the first image is a US Airforce employee, it is in no way relevant to the article. 8) Measurements such as mm should be linked to the appropriate article (the first occurrence only). 9) Apart from the professional golf section, something more on competitive golf would be good (e.g. Ryder Cup, matchplay championships). Jeronimo 12:56, 22 Oct 2004(UTC)
  • Re 2), the point of that order is that the section about the anatomy of golf courses explains a lot of things that are necessary to understand the rest. It would of course be possible to switch the order of sections, but then you would have to check all of the article for terminology that is not explained earlier. Re 4), the golf ball section has recently been cut out as it was getting too long, and of course a summary should be in its place. Re 5), done. Re 9) , there is some coverage of the Ryder cup and other tournaments, see Category:Golf tournaments, that could be mentioned. Regards, Kosebamse 08:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland

This was a featured article before the current system of voting was adopted. It was de-featured following a short discussion in January and February 2004. It's much improved now, and might deserve featuring again. Note: partial self-nomination (I drew the maps, found the pictures, and wrote much of the lead section and §4, §7, §8). Gdr 21:20, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

• I was looking at this article and was just about to nominate it myself! Full support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:33, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A model battle article. jengod 22:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Me gusta. Troppus. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. (Note, most of the bit I wrote has now been separated out into the Order of battle at Jutland article). -- Arwel 22:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Brilliant! Zerbey 22:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Geoff/Gsl 23:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great stuff. One tiny remark: the sidebar mentions that the "Battle after" was the Brusilov offence, but this is mentioned nowhere else in the article, and seems to only follow this battle chronologically. If there is no direct connection otherwise, I would leave it out; if there is, it should be mentioned in the article. Jeronimo 12:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The "battle before" and "battle after" are purely chronological. This is a consequence of the "battlebox" design agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles. I think the idea is that once all the battles in a war have battleboxes a reader will be able to go through the war chronologically stepping from battle to battle. There's certainly scope to argue about whether this is a good idea. (N.B. It was purely a coincidence that Verdun is mentioned in the text, and I think the statement is dubious, so I removed it; see Talk:Battle of Jutland#German plan prompted by Verdun?). Gdr 20:47, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
• Support. Just out of interest, does the &#x2777 character in the 'battleship action' section meant do anything? It shows up as a blank on my browser (edit this to see what it is).

Noel Gallagher

Largely self nomination. I thinks there's enough here, as much as i love the beatles, wouldn't it be good to get some other british mucisians in there?--Crestville 18:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1. Needs references, 2. Not enough information on his relationship with Oasis or feuding with his brother, 3. Hasn't he been arrested several times as a result of this feuding? It's worth including. I seem to recall at least one incident in Germany, OK maybe I misremembered... 4. Personal life section is too short, 5. Needs an external links/see also section (I don't think this is a requirement for a FAC but it'll benefit IMHO. Good start so far, but he deserves a more complete article. Zerbey 19:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All good points, but it was Liam who got his head kicked in by the Germans, I don't think either have had high profile arrests. Any more suggestions would be apprieciated.--Crestville 19:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Lead section too short. Some poor writing (e.g. Born in, Longsight, Manchester, Noel first began to teach himself to play guitar at the age of 13, imitating his favourite songs., Before the arrival of Oasis in 1994, debate raged over weather British rock had had its day. US grunge and dance music ruled). Desperately needs references -- plenty of prominent people believe(d) Oasis is/was the greatest thing since sliced bread, so quote one. Put songs in quotes and albums in italics. Tuf-Kat 20:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers feller, anything else?--Crestville 21:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Ok, loads of changes, I don't know if it's up to standards yet, but take a look and get back to me.--Crestville 17:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Please do not strike out my comments in future, I am capable of speaking for myself. Zerbey 22:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Baseball

Partial self-nom. This article has been nominated three times before (Apr 2004, May 2004, Sep 2004), and we have addressed all the concerns from all those objections, as well as all the concerns on its talk page. Many others supported it, so I'm hoping it will make it through this time. I think it is excellent, and we got the advice of a non-baseball guy (Nichalp) to make it clearer to those who don't know the game. Plus, it would be good to get this featured soon if possible, due to the relevance, with the World Series starting this Saturday, Oct 23. --Locarno 14:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. You addressed my concerns as well. Now, can you go back in time and fix it so that the Yankees are in the World Series this year? :) Zerbey 15:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support --- though I had no idea there existed such a creature as a Yankee fan. Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - even a British cricket person can understand it ;) Thanks, Nichalp et al. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- Timely? I don't understand. The season ended when the Braves lost. Good article on a significant thing. Geogre 16:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- ObDeclaration. I started this article, a very very long time ago indeed. .. (How long? Clue: it was called BaseBall then, for CamelCase reasons) -- GWO
• Support. caveat: I've done work on the article as well. - jredmond 16:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. But would like some more pics in equipment section. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Added a mitt pic in the equip section. jengod 22:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 22:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, just note that I've done work on this page as well —siroχo 23:58, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's wonderfully comprehensive and well written.Dr Zen 03:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I never understood the game before reading this. Filiocht 10:16, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Mpolo 12:41, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin

Excellent work! Detailed and interesting. What can I say. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. However, the article needs to be expanded to cover the hazards of the Lake (its rather dangerous for recreational boating, and small changes in weather can cause large changes in safety.) Also might want a link to the homicidal hospital demolition explosion. Fifelfoo 05:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no article about the demolition accident on wiki to link to, and I don't think this is the appropriate place to write about it. Martyman 10:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I am unaware of saftey concerns about lake burley griffin, are you possibly confusing it with Lake George? Martyman 10:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object, I'm afraid. There's a lot of small sections, and it just doesn't seem to be organised that well. I'm also not a big fan of having two panoramic pictures right at the bottom. A map would also be good. I just think this needs a bit more work generally, although it has improved a great deal lately. Ambi 05:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) No references, no lead section (see Wikipedia:What is a featured article). 2) As Ambi points out, there are lot of small sections. I think more can be said on most of these topics. 3) Again following Ambi, this really needs a map. Additionally, dimensions of the lake are also necessary (not just the surface area). Jeronimo 06:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Some of these may be better suited to merging rather than expanding. Ambi 07:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Note it currently has a lead section. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• No vote yet. I did some minor work on the article (wikification and section rearrangement). I'd like to see a few things added before I support.

1. a map that details the location of the lake and additional measures of the lake.
   • I am working on a map at the moment and will have it up tonight. Martyman 08:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. a way to incorporate the panoramic pictures into the article (and make sure readers don't have to scroll.
3. some more info on water quality and safety.

[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:11, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Support - I used to live in Canberra and I didn't think much could be written about Lake BG, but this article is very very good. AlbinoMonkey 14:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eric Morecambe

Any chance of getting this up there? I have no real vested interest (next to admiration), I'm just interested to see what happens. Maybe it will spur people on to write more--Crestville 16:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Bit short, I think. Andre (talk) 17:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with Andre, the article's too short. It should at least include section headings, and have more content. Jeronimo 19:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• He's a legend - I'm sure more could be written. violet/riga (t) 22:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the full article is, of course, at Morecambe and Wise. -- Arwel 18:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• He deserves a longer article than this, it's far too short. This would be an excellent candidate for Peer Review. Zerbey 23:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Hardcore Beatles fans in the US are often familiar with Morecambe and, um, the other guy, as the Beatle's appearance on their show is legendary. Perhaps more could be said in the article about Morecambe's humorous interactions with celebrity guests? func(talk) 23:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, mentions the Beatles... I'm happy. :) func(talk) 20:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object - just not up to standards, unfortunately. The "other guy" was Ernie Wise (he of the short fat hairly legs). I have proposed it as a WP:UKCOTW, athough strictly speaking it is about 2.5 times too long. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Made changes. What do you think of it so far??--Crestville 19:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • [Rubbish] No, seriously folks, a remarkable change, but still not there yet. [It is more usual to articles to be somewhere near Featured standard before they are listed, but anyway...] -- ALoan (Talk) 21:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • heh heh, Yeah, i know it needs work, but What man, dear God what?--Crestville 21:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Loved the man's work, but a few problems here: when exactly did they change there names to Morecambe and Wise? Did Gary M really write Eric M's autobiography? Should this section be changed to References? Where are the references? So, object for now. Filiocht 10:23, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Super Mario 64

The first Gaming COTW, and a very good article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:51, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Support; may benefit from a references section, however (the Notes section is a good start :-)). Zerbey 16:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Strong support; regarding references, a good deal of it is direct observation of the game. Andre (talk) 17:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Strong support. I'm impressed! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a longer Wikipedia:Lead section, summarising the article. Other than that, this seems fine. Perhaps adding the instruction manual as a reference is a good idea? Jeronimo 06:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. But please consider, naming the notes. They're only numbers now. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:16, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Gaming Collaboration of the week did a great job on its first article, I think. For anyone who's interested, GCOTW's History page has some more details concerning what the collaboration did to it. pie4all88 20:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. There are places where the writing could be improved, and there are bits of POV which should be eliminated. Also, more of the information in the externally linked interview about the game's development needs to be included. This shouldn't be much work... hopefully I'll be unlazy enough to do it myself. Fredrik | talk 20:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Alex Krupp 04:32, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Goomba

--[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:26, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Have all the previous objections been addressed? →Raul654 00:34, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, pretty much. The old nomination was defeated for being too short; since them, much more information has been added, as well as several high-quality images. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. jengod 02:04, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Never knew there was such an amount of info on these little guys. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. There was one thing unclear to me (as one who only played the orginal Mario Bros....) What is "Bowser" (in the "Goombas in Mario games")? That could do with an explanation or Wikilink, I think. Mpolo 12:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. They have names? :) Once again, can you cite references? Zerbey 16:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Andre (talk) 17:24, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• 1.) Lead section is very short and could stand to be expanded to several sentences instead of three. And it is still a little choppy and repetitive. 2.) Also there are still too many one or two sentence paragraphs. I fixed one, but the others would take someone knowledgeable in the subject. 3.) The two sentences on word origin seems a little innapropriate as an entire section. - Taxman 18:28, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Agree fully with taxman: needs lead section, no single sentence paragraphs. Jeronimo 06:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Definite support. --Golbez 06:50, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Locarno 15:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It would be nice if some of the above issues were addressed, however. pie4all88 20:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with Taxman's objections. Here are some objections I have after reading the article:

1. The word origin section needs more expansion, like what source states that the basis of the character's name came from the Italian-American slang word, rather than just being a coincidence of having the same spelling? The word origin paragraph needs more cohesion. It talks about Italian-American slang then abruptly jumps to a sentence about a Hungarian word.
2. The first paragraph in the "Characteristics" section doesn't flow evenly. It starts out describing the general appearance and transitions into their traitor status. Then, it suddenly goes back describing their appearance.
3. Several paragraphs in the "Goombas in Mario games" need to be expanded with more information about the goombas in those respective games. These include the first paragraph, which talks about the original Super Mario Bros., the paragraph about Super Mario 64, and the paragraph about Paper Mario. Just stating a sentence or two without more detail isn't helpful to someone who isn't familiar with goombas in those games.
4. The "Goombas in non-Mario games" section needs more details about goombas in those games. Like what are the differences in appearance, behavior, etc. between a general goomba from a Mario game compared to a goomba from those particular non-Mario games? Were they integrated in those game plots or just allusions to the Mario games?
5. In the "Goombas in other mediums", more information needs to be provided about the goombas in the movie, like how were they different compared to the video games?
6. Most of the external links are all going to one site. Instead of providing a link to every possible goomba page on that site, only one link needs to be provided with a description of what information can be found on the site. Sixpence 08:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those who object: how's it doing? Andre (talk) 05:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Pope John Paul I

A really nifty article that I loved. I'd never heard of this guy until I read this. -Litefantastic 23:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Heavily POV and not a single reference to back up any of the claims made. This will take some major work to NPOV and cite the facts instead of claims. The POV is as obvious as the caption on the first picture. I suggest removal to peer review. - Taxman 03:03, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No lead section and references. Incidentally, I don't see what's wrong with the first caption. Johnleemk | Talk 06:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I've sorted the lead out at this point.
• Object. No lead and references. I honestly don't see the deep POV problems (unless you consider giving that much space to the conspiracy theories and treating John Cornwell as a serious historian POV. :-) ) that couldn't be solved by a few citations of who said what about him. Mpolo 08:03, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Object until the lead and references are sorted out. Filiocht 08:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Some POV patching has been done. What objections remain? -Litefantastic 14:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Lead section is not a summary and is too short. No references. Filiocht 14:50, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • The POV improvement has been substantial, but much remains. Primarily the problem now is that very strong claims are made without citation. The vatican is claimed in the article to have lied many times, with supporting information for that POV stated to be facts. Without a reference that is an unacceptable POV for a featured article. The caption was POV for the choice of terms. It is a POV that the cross was "cheap" or that his hair was "clumsily brushed back". In any case, I attempted to fix the caption. - Taxman 16:33, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have done the best I can. When I posted this for FAC, I hadn't made any edits to it, and I don't know who wrote the bulk of the article. Solutions are:

1. . Find out from the History list and contact that user (this could take a while).
2. . Revert all edits making such claims. A guaranteeed fix, but could tear out a large and potentially useful chunk of information.
3. . Finally, someone could look up other references and see if they agree with what's here already.

I like the first two options best. Something to consider at this point is that we are possibly also dealing with a copyvio. -Litefantastic 00:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral (for now); The POV patching has helped a lot. Could you expand a little on the Sainthood section, giving more information about who has nominated him, &c? Please cite references as well. Such a shame he died so early on, I think he would have made a good pope. Zerbey 16:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think anything else is to be said. My personal opinion is that, since the poor guy dropped dead after only a month, he didn't have time to do the miricles required. If evidence exists for his canonization, it probably would have surfaced by now. Thus, while campaigns exist for his canonization, they probably don't get very far. -Litefantastic 00:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there is an unwritten rule around her somewhere that says you shouldn't have more than one article on the nom list at a time. I have two just now - Duck and Cover and Pope John Paul I. On behalf of Bert the Turtle and His Holiness the Pope, I'd just like to say that this is less to prevent flooding the system than it is driving the posting user insane. -Litefantastic 00:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The statements "...he is best remembered for his friendliness and humility, qualities at that time not generally associated with popes." and "A man who openly described himself as quiet, unassuming and modest, with a warm sense of humor, he was able to impress the world with his natural friendliness." are so POV they read almost like propaganda. Object until this is fixed. Zh 03:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm actually going to stand up for this one. If this is a self-description, then it's his opinion of himself, and is therefore potentially useful in this article. -Litefantastic 11:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. While I realise he might have been a genuinely great human-being, writing "A man who openly described himself as quiet, unassuming and modest, with a warm sense of humor, he was able, with a few words in his notable Angelus of August 27 (he had been elected on a Saturday, so it was just his first day as a pope), to impress the world with his natural friendliness." is not really wise. Wikipedia does not endorse any particular subject, it just characterises opinions and views of specific people.
  2. "Vatican officials did not mention to him that they were also embarrassed by his rather awkward flat-footed walk, which they felt "unregal" and ungainly" Source for this?
  3. "(He was reported to have told them in the Conclave, "may God forgive you for what you have done on my behalf" with the smile that became his trademark.)" who reported this?
  4. "Through his actions, John Paul emphasized the servant role of the Pope that is expressed in the Latin phrase Servus Servorum Dei - (The Servant of the Servants of God)." - isn't this a point of view?
  5. "Who Albino Luciani wasn't was said to have been as important as who he was" - who said this?
  6. "Had they known just how precarious his health was (his feet were so swollen he could not wear the shoes bought for him for the conclave) they might have looked elsewhere for Paul VI's successor. But they didn't." speculation. Conjecture is not appropriate for Wikipedia, we are not information analyst, we just report facts and views of specific people.
  7. "The following days, Cardinals effectively (despite the prohibition of telling others about the Conclave) would have declared that with general great joy they had elected "God's candidate."" Speculation.
  8. "though he privately had urged Pope Paul in a document, prior to the encyclical's publication, to take a different stand." what document? Please be more clear.
  9. "Some critics of Pope Paul's encyclical Humanæ Vitæ expressed the hope that, in view of his opinions as expressed to Pope Paul, and his in depth discussion of issues relating to the population growth in the Third World, the new pontiff would issue a new encyclical 'adapting' Humanæ Vitæ." Weasel words. Which critics are being referred to here? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. In "Not up to the job?" there is a footnote, yet there is no footnotes section in the article.

Comment: (will not effect debate one way or the other, just putting in my $0.02) "And later, Mother Teresa commented: "He has been the greatest gift of God. A sunray of God's love shining in the darkness of world."" - greatest gift of God? I thought that was Jesus! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Something tells me that she meant "greatest" in the sense of "very great", as it is used in various other languages (I don't know about Albanian, of course...) Mpolo 08:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't know what she meant, but I'm sure the Blessed Theresa was familiar with the christian view of the greatest gift of God. You are taking words spoken out of context and coming to your own conclusions - that's POV, tsk! :-) Zerbey 19:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Parliament of Canada

-- Emsworth 22:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 23:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Taxman 16:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I always like to see a reference/further reading book/article mentioned, though. Jeronimo 06:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Giano 17:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Tale of a Tub

Yes, I know I have one nomination here already, but this is not a self-nom, all I did was to add a picture. A very complete article about a very important book. Filiocht 07:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Support Mpolo 08:41, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article needs copyediting, references, and de-POVing. Some samples: "For us, religious tolerance seems automatically virtuous", "It is too much to hope to provide much historical background", " Although many critics have followed Ehrenpreis in arguing that there is no single, consistent narrator in the work, this position is difficult to maintain.". Such sentences can be found throughout the article, from the lead section to even the discussion of the references. In particular, the "authorship question" section is biased. Instead of trying to convince the reader, it should present the facts, and mention what the generally accepted opinion is. In addition to this, there are some problems with the tense of sentences (facts from the past are represented as in the present). Jeronimo 11:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid we seem to be reading this article through radically different eyes. Filiocht 14:04, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Umm, Jeronimo, I don't what I can say except that there are references, and what you think of as POV is really a report on multiple criticis, i.e. a summary of critical opinion. There aren't very many critical works in English written between 1780 and 1985 on the Tale that I haven't read. As for the references section, there is one. When it says "some have followed Ehrenpreis," you can find Irvin down there at the bottom of the page. I had even toyed with making it an annotated bibliography, where each work was not merely listed, but actually discussed in terms of its point of view. Won't say I'm an expert on much, but Tale of a Tub I am. Geogre 14:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, when I had references with an explanation of what parts of the works (these are all book-length studies) contributed to the article, Jeronimo considered that POV and bad language? Huh? As for the Authorship Debate, these are the facts. The style is in keeping with Swift's other works. Thomas Swift has left only a few sermons and one satire. That's persuasion? That's a report. Finally, the "mix of tense" is literary present. It's necessary in writing about literature to say, "Ahab pursues the whale" rather than "And then the guy chased the whale." When one is discussing the book as an artifact, one uses the past tense ("It was published in 1704"), but when one discusses the action within the fiction, one uses the present ("The putative author misunderstands metaphors, seeing them as literal truths"), unless there is a previous contrastive fictional action ("Although the author admits to being insane, he earlier stated that he was a retired member of Parliament"). More images have been added to the article now -- one woodcut from the original, a title page of the first and fifth editions. Geogre 21:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well there are strong statements, that if not cited, are POV. For ex. "Stylistically and in sentiment, the Tale is undeniably Jonathan's". There is no possibility someone else wrote it? Does not a single researcher still believe it is possible someone else wrote it? If so, that needs to be stated and cited. The claims in the entire 'Authorship debate' section need inline citations. For example (Ehrenpreis, pp 221-223). That type of citation will solve the POV issue. - Taxman 18:17, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Seriously? No, no one currently believes that anyone but J. Swift wrote it. The debate died out in the 19th c., and, as I indicated, the argument is now viewed by scholars as a political one. As I said in the article, we tend now to see people who wanted Thomas Swift to have written it as Whig enemies of J. Swift's Tory views. It was still a politically active text as late as the turn of the 20th c., so people who had a particular point of view wanted to cut it or include it in J. Swift's works. That I even included the authorship debate is just a sign of inclusiveness, because it's a long dead debate; I was trying to be historically accurate by saying that there was one. As for inline references, it would be virtually impossible. How can I say this carefully? Um, the work just is like Swift's other works and not like Thomas Swift's works. Ehrenpreis is too late to even consider the debate. The last person I know of to even bother with it was Sutherland in 1910. The information on the debate cames from Arthur Cash (not cited because he's a lunatic and not someone I'd recommend to a general reader wishing greater information on the Tale in general) and from the Guthkelch and Smith apparatus, which is cited. I had originally even indicated that the Guthkelch and Smith is useful primarily as the authoritative text, but then people thought that was POV, too. I don't know what, besides my Ph.D. with a concentration on Augustan satire and my Master's thesis being on the Tale of a Tub, can possibly convince you guys that my opinion on this matter is not a POV one but, rather, an accurate representation of scholarly consensus. Let me put it this way: I urge objectors to find a single dissenting opinion on anything but the persona point of view taken in the article. Geogre 18:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's not the point. Wikipedia is not original research. Just because you know a lot about it, doesn't mean you can make claims that are not cited to someone else. Wikipedia is a secondary source. Indicating one source as the primary reference is POV, but citing a statement to a particular work is not. Just because people pointed out you cited sources inccorrectly before does not mean the article should not be properly cited. If no one seriously considers it a valid debate, simply state that and cite it. But "the Tale is undeniably Jonathan's" is very simply a POV without citation. By the way, my example citation above was simply that, an example to show how to cite a claim to help avoid POV. - Taxman 18:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

What on earth has Wikipedia is not original research got to do with this article? Filiocht 08:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Read the above and below comments and that link. He is making very strong statements and his justification for them is that he knows the subject very well and that the follow up statements prove the point. The link specifically was for the point "Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources)". But Geogre feels that he does not need to cite sources to specific facts because they are correct. They may be, but that is not the point. The article makes way too many claims without citation to specific sources. - Taxman 16:47, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, I can't see any way that there is original research here. The "Authorship Debate" had a citation before I just changed it. It said, "Anyone seeking more information should look at the Guthkelch and Smith," meaning that there is a lot of nauseating detail there (exactly who thought TS wrote it, which pre-1920 scholars argued this way and that). So it wasn't original research even then. Now, there's no way it is. Secondly, the other "strong statements" had references, too. They didn't have page numbers for their references, because, at this point, it's been too many years for me to go get a note on exactly where. However, the critical trends were fairly represented and evenly portrayed. Since there is a bibliography, and since there are inline references to the sources, whether you think the statements are strong or not, they are referenced. That's why, in exasperation, I asked for any evidence of anyone out there who disagrees with the portrait I gave of the reaction to the work. If anyone reading this is on a university campus, please ask any professor of 18th c. literature to look at the article. There is only one thing in the whole of the long article that is cutting edge research, and that's the material derived from Elias. Only people who specifically study this particular work will have encountered that. I avoided genre arguments, any presentation of what the text argues for or against (except what everyone agrees upon), and only presented one view else that might require up to date reading, and that is McKeon's view that Swift represents a radical skeptical reaction to naive empiricism (it's part of his dialectic of literary history in the 18th c., which is a Marxist view; the deconstructionists and such don't dirty their hands with history), and that's cited both inline and in the bibliography. Geogre 00:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look, it's not original research. It's scholarship. There is a big difference. By the way, if you read the Authorship Debate section again, you'll see that "The work is undeniably Jonathan's" is followed by proof of that. Why is it undeniably his? Well, first because it matches his prose style. Second, because Thomas Swift, the other supposed author, was not a writer (left only a few sermons and one short satire). Third, because the narrative pose is in keeping with all later works by Jonathan. That sentence is a thesis that is then proven by citation to 1. Swift's works, 2. Thomas Swift's works, 3. Swift's style. That's citation! Now, I'd far rather have an annotated bibliography, because scholarship on the Tale is really gnarled. It's a work that people say widely divergent things about. A recent survey of professors of 18th c. literature revealed that a minority teach the work now because "it's too difficult." I.e. it's a very complex work, so critics say the darnedest things about it. Note that I avoided very studiously getting into the contents or what the book "means." I avoided that because saying anything there would have been original research. My views are not minority. There is only one view I hold that is out of fashion (or was, when I was training...don't know how things have gone since), and I very clearly indicated sources there. Geogre 22:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see now that not all of my examples are equally good, and my problem with the tenses must have come from somewhere else; I can't recall seeing that in this article. However, I still stand by my opinion. As an example, the sentence "this position is difficult to maintain" (slightly refactored since my original objection) is not NPOV. If all other critics, or even the majority of critics find this difficult to maintain, write that. It is an opinion, so it should be presented as such. I fully agree with TAxman on the authorship section: if it is the belief of all contemporary historians that Swift wrote it himself, just write that (and adding in a specific reference shouldn't be easy either).

Two notes: 1) I can agree that writing totally NPOV about a work of literature is close to impossible, since everybody has a different opinion about it. Still, I think this article could get close to being NPOV with just a little work. 2) Apart from the NPOV/references, this is good article, and I would support it but for those two issues. Jeronimo 19:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, it's hard to cite, beyond the citation I already did, that no one says that T.S. wrote it because that's establishing a negative. What I did was establish when people did think he wrote it. I can go into more detail there, but it's just not an opinion anyone has anymore. The "position being difficult to maintain" was the same as above: proof offered after the statement. It's difficult to maintain because the author makes statements about himself that reflect a unified personality. Also, the other side of that issue, that each digression is an entirely different narrator, was offered up fairly and fully, with an indication of who said it. The reason why this position is now out of date (it came about in the early 1960's, so a generation of professors was trained with it) was also given, in that A. C. Elias proved pretty well in the 1980's that Ehrenpreis's chummy view of Swift at Moor Park was wrong (and Elias is cited). The persona theory began to weaken in the 1980's independently of Elias, with scholars saying, "I don't know how it can't be a bunch of impersonations that are all alike" (what I say), which is a shade away from what (rejected) scholars used to say, which is "the character of the Hack author." Ehrenpreis requires the Tale to have been written as an oral performance in the Temple household. The biography Ehrenpreis wrote is great, wonderful, and monumental, but on this the information he used was awful. Ehrenpreis's portrait of Swift's public life is still solid, but his picture of Moore Park was dreadful, and Elias has been chipping away since. Swift at Moor Park showed that Swift was not friends with Temple, was treated like a servant, and felt like a servant. (Is it really necessary to go through all of this here to show you the material I was eliding for the article? Would it have been better in a long article to have expanded? Presenting the persona theory as truth is POV. Presenting the Hack as truth is POV. I present both. That's NPOV. I say that the persona theory is difficult to maintain because it has been difficult to maintain: it's losing ground every day because it was based on a biography that used bad sources for the early years, and the text was always at variance with it.) Geogre 22:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New material added to address objection in the "Authorship Debate" section. I have referred to Guthkelch and Smith's dismissal of the authorship debate and tried to explain how it arose in the first place. It is a conclusion to say that it contined through Scott and Thackery to say that it reflected their critical preference, but it isn't a definitive statement about their motives. The matter of the persona theory (each parody being a separate impersonation) has not been substantially altered because I stand by my position that I was reporting the evolution of critical responses and views of the work rather than injecting a POV about what is the truth of the text. Geogre 03:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the amount of attention given to my objection, but apparently I stand alone in my opinion, and it seems like I will be unable to convince anyone else. Seeing that the article already has sufficient support to get featured even with my objection, I suggest to end this debate. Jeronimo 14:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support; a really comprehensive explanation of an historic and important literary work. Giano 11:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I do not understand Jeronimo's objection. Anárion 14:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting read. Zerbey 14:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Could be a little clearer, needs link to Gutenberg text. Dunc|☺ 15:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added a link to PG. Filiocht 15:09, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Neat! jengod 21:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, an article to make Wikipedians proud of their project. Jeronimo's problem with the perfectly standard use of tenses must throw a dubious light on his/her other objections.--Bishonen 21:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Wait. I didn't nominate it. I did write the article. Does this mean I can vote? Support: I think it's the best article I've written on Wikipedia. In fact, it's the factual content of the lectures I used to give on the work. Geogre 01:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support! This is outstanding material, outstanding treatment, the Wikipedia of the future... until we start breaking it into short articles, separating out each subsection, like a fool unravelling a sweater... Wetman 12:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support: definitely informative and well written. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support - not objections, but can the text be copied to wikisource from Gutenburg? And why are there both Category: 18th century and Category: 1700s? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The latter was pure ignorance in using categories on my part. I'll fix it straight off. Don't know about putting it on Wikisource, as I've never done much with Wikisource. It's a pretty substantial, novel-length, work, but it would be great if we did have it about. Anything that gets it more readers is cool by me. Geogre 16:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. — David Remahl 21:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. If only more literature articles were this good. Gdr 21:54, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Smile

Like Sesame Street, I am relisting this. Only one person supported it, no one objected, so I don't know if that means it made it or not. Note that this is an article listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured albums proposal. Tuf-Kat 03:45, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 04:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support with a slightly expanded lead section - Taxman 15:22, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Lead slightly expanded Tuf-Kat 21:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• I listed it the prior time, and support it now. Jgm 11:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --Golbez 06:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: I do hope, though, that we alternate pop culture with stodgy culture somewhat. Good article, but I understood that lots of folks were saying that the 2004 release wasn't the "real" Smile. Could have just be fan grumbling, though. Geogre 20:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sesame Street

I'm relisting this semi-self nomination, which was delisted somewhat prematurely in its first run through. I find the article to be concise and NPOV, and it itself tries to explain the show's importance, rather than specific segments and characters, which while important, are segregated into their own article.

The older nomination is listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/October 2004#Sesame Street, and the appropriate talk page can be visited for further discussion, post nomination period.

Notes on changes since first listing: I made moves and merges of various sections, added references and captions, eliminated lesser human characters, and discussed ratings. The article, despite claims, is as international as it needs to be, as it leads to existing articles on many element of international versions of the show. I even eliminated the term edutainment, much to my personal dismay, to reflect a less term-saavy world. Sesame Street was simultaneously listed on Peer Review, and still is, albeit no suggestions.

-- user:zanimum

• Support, but can you expand the merchandising section a bit? Zerbey 14:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 18:30, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm again objecting to this article after re-reading it since the last nomination. Some of my original objections remain. 1) Many of the characters from the show are very famous, and need more text than just a link. E.g.: Bert & Ernie, Grover, Oscar, Elmo, etc. In addition, a more "typical" sketches could be discussed than the few in Overview. This article is about a tv show, so it should tell what the show shows. 2) The international section may point to several articles about the "regional" versions (an incorrect term, since Canada is not a region of the US), but it is inconsistent (some have years listed, some channels, others don't) and at least needs some more accompanying text than this. You might tell that some of the sketches are copied with voice-overs, while others have completely new characters and are original. Also, there are apparently 23 versions, why only list these? Because these are the longest-running? If so, note this. 3) The trivia section has only one sentence. Merge this section or add more content. Several other sections are also short and shot4) The lead section mentions Jim Henson, and his muppets/puppets play a big role in Sesame Street. Yet he is not at all mentioned in the article. 5) The history section should at least mention the first airing of the show, nor its founders (such as Joan Ganz Cooney). 6) The controversy section is not particularly interesting for the topic in general, and it would seem only interesting as a part of the History of Sesame Street article. I suppose it was added in the time when this topic was in the news, but it's not big enough to be part of the article. Jeronimo 06:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Untidy and less readable than it might be. Sorry. jengod 21:08, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. As well as some of the objections above, this article's first image doesn't seem quite right for an article on Sesame Street. A group shot of the various characters from the show would be much more effective, even if it was just a screen grab. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Note: I'm working on some of the above objections; the above complaint however, I don't know what to do about. On talk:Sesame Street, there's a current cast photo. However, I'd rather not use press shots like this, as I question the extent to which fair use is okay. Comments on this? -- user:zanimum

George Moore (novelist)

Self nomination: another late 19th/early 20th century Irish writer with links to the Celtic Revival. Filiocht 11:13, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

• I rather like it, although Moore was as despised a figure as a lauded one. He seems to have been more influential as a guy who was there than as a novelist. (His memoirs, though, are very much of note.) Geogre 14:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, but I find it a bit short. I miss a more detailed description of (some of) his works and a discussion of his legacy (who did he influence (Joyce is briefly mentioned in the lead section). As a minor point, I would include "Online books" section with the "Works" section. Also, you might want to add dates to the paintings of Moore, so we can be sure they are in the PD. Jeronimo 11:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. Here are some responses/queries 1) Joyce is mentioned again in the Dublin and the Celtic Revival section specifying that Dubliners was influenced by The Untilled Field. Other than Joyce, it is hard to think of anyone who Moore influenced. See Geogre's comment above. 2) Manet died in 1883, so his works are by definition PD. 3) I see no reason for including the online books with the works. For readers not familiar with how wiki linking works, I think the arrangement I use makes it clear that the online works are just that. 4)Which works would you suggest I expand on? I have given limited information about The Untilled Field, Hail and Farewell and The Brook Kerith and the article is currently the best part of 2,000 words long if you include the lists. Filiocht 11:28, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

1) If little people were influenced by him, perhaps you should mention that. Also, it may be interesting to note his popularity among readers (then and now), but that may be difficult. 2) I realise that, but if you mention this on the image page, there's no need to look up Manet's DOD. 3) OK, it was just a suggestion. 4) I usually don't count lists in article length, but there's no requirement for a minimum length anyway. I don't know Moore's work, so I couldn't recommend any particular works. I would just like to know more than just the titles of his works. This could be a work-by-work discussion, more extensive discussion of his most important works, or a classification of his works by category ("many of his poems deal with..." or so). I think you may be able to find the best form for Moore. Let me know if you have more questions. Jeronimo 11:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to address points 1, 2 and 4. Please review. Filiocht 12:33, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Support now. A little more on his works would still be nice, but then again, they should get their own articles anyway if they're important enough. Jeronimo 19:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh

Oustanding collaboration, from two Wikipedian specialists, of a major double career in theater and architecture, even including a couple of illustrations. (It's hard to come by copyleft architectural images.) This is now about the best essay on this major Baroque architect on the internet, deft, accurate, well-written. (I tweaked a minor tweak.) Wetman 08:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Bishonen and I really appreciate this being nominated, but we would like a little more time to finish it, as we are still kicking around a few ideas, and have more information to contribute before we are completely happy with it. Hence, we would like it withdrawn. Giano 13:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose for now -- needs formatting -- why the horrible emboldening? in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue, at the start of every paragraph. yuk! The portrait should go at the top of the page, so we can see immediately what he looked like, and I think there are better ones than the one used http://images.google.com/images?q=John+Vanbrugh&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search Dunc|☺ 10:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Dunc. And it's not just the bolding, it's the fact that so many paragraphs begin 'In (year).... Plus, the lead section is far too short. Plus there are too many single-sentence paragraphs and the clever-clever headings (Act I, etc) should not be used for an encyclopaedia article. Filiocht 10:33, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• It's being improved, and I think it'll be a great FA next week or the week after, when Bishonen and Giano have had some time to smoothe it out. It's going to be a first class article. I just think this nomination is a little premature, as the article is very much in process. Geogre 14:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ROT13

Interesting, well written. Image? -- Fredrik | talk 16:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• 'Support - Interesting. Well written. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 18:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. , just needs a picture. Zerbey 18:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Has an excellent diagram now. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 12:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That'll work :) Zerbey 15:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Why? It doesn't really seem like a picture sort of article. Pcb21| Pete 08:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) There are no references. 2) The article is a bit short. I can't think of a lot to add, but a better description of the cryptanalysis is needed. There is nothing said about frequency analysis which is needed to break the encoding. 3) As for the image: I don't think one is required here, but adding one would be good. Jeronimo 11:33, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • As I said above, now has a diagram. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 12:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • 1) There are inline references, and some of the external links also serve; I've now added a reference to the Jargon file definition. Do you think there's an obvious need for more? 2) I've added a paragraph to show how ROT13 could be easily broken if used as encryption using frequency analysis or pattern words. Does this suffice? — Matt 13:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Good work, Matt! Fredrik | talk 14:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good work indeed - support. Jeronimo 19:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a good article — there's a lot more about the topic there than I even realized existed. A picture would be nice, but not crucial, in my opinion. Factitious 07:19, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support'. A picture is not needed here, imnsho. Anárion 08:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good article, I find it very interesting but it needs references for my support. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 09:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Support. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 15:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support once a couple more good references are added cleaned up. The new diagram is great to represent the topic and explain it. Maybe it should even be moved up though. The references need to be one consistent style. - Taxman 14:56, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose that you could you suggest the type of references that are needed — citing specific sources for certain facts, or general references? — Matt 15:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone add a "reference" to a joke paper about how ROT13 was especially good if applied twice, and at least one user changed their decision to support after this reference (along with a jargon file one) was added. Sometimes it seems like people don't care what the content of an article is, so long as it "ticks all the boxes" like "has an image", "has references", "has a certain length first paragraph". Pcb21| Pete 15:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I added these references. The reference to a joke paper was fine because it was referred to from the text in a section about the use of ROT26 as a joke — literally a reference, as opposed to further reading; it's a useful example of a certain social aspect of the topic. It's true, of course, that the line between "References", "External links", "Sources" and "Further reading" gets pretty blurred sometimes on WP. The Jargon file reference is more of a "Sources", I guess. — Matt 16:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well I didn't qualify it because it could use any references that would verify the facts in the article. Specifically a reference that detailed the frequency analysis info would be helpful. Also the references, external links and citation in general needs to be cleaned up. There are 3 in article external links that appear to be intended as footnotes that get the standard external link numbering [1], etc. Then there is a single superscripted footnote with inconsistent numbering to the external links. The inline external link citations are not listed in the references or external links sections. Were all of the external links in the external links section used as references or are they just there for additional information for the reader? One syle should be chosen for citation, for ex. either inline, consistently numbered external links (also listed in the references/external links section), or more like MLA style with (author, year) inline and the full citation at the end. I can work on some of that, but those familiar with the subject will need to provide the additional quality references. - Taxman 17:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Mpolo 16:59, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• No vote yet. This is a good article, I'd just like a little bit of an explanation on the Unix command. Is there a way for laymen to understand its syntax? The article has improved with the new picture and the formatting of the tables. I'd be happy to support as soon as I can get some information verified. Support[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 20:13, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• V nz pbaprearq gung srnghevat guvf rapelcgvba flfgrz pbhyq pbafgvghgr n oernpu bs angvbany naq vagreangvbany frphevgl. Jrer gur EBG13 frphevgl cebgbpny gb snyy vagb gur jebat unaqf, rnpu naq rirel fvatyr wbxr ba gur Hfrarg jbhyq fhqqrayl orpbzr genafcnerag gb bhe rarzvrf... naq gura jurer jbhyq jr or? Arireguryrff, V ibgr Fhccbeg. shap(gnyx) 19:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you, func, for you support. Now, if anyone else thinks it would be funny to write their comment in ROT13, I swear, things will get very nasty. :) JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Another Fhccbeg, err, 'Support here. *Kicks himself for not thinking of that joke first* Kiand 20:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support, I really like the table and the reversals. --Alex Krupp 04:36, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Renormalization

Self-nom. This is a subject about which much more could be written, but perhaps not within the scope of a single encyclopedia article. Though the material is fairly arcane, I've tried to strike a balance between concreteness and clarification for nonspecialists. - Matt McIrvin 15:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object IMHO, a featured article should be easily understandable by someone who knows a little about a subject, but who has some (but not a lot) of willingness to learn. I hope this article can be rewritten to achieve this. (After all, Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was a popular book explaining a complicated technical idea to laymen willing to put a small amount of work into it.)

More specifically, but not exhaustively:

In the lead section: what are 'field effects'?; The article states 'Renormalization arose in quantum electrodynamics as a means of making sense of the infinite results of various calculations and extracting finite answers to properly posed physical questions.' What infinite results, what calculations, what sort of physical questions?

Can't understand the diagrams.

Prehistory: What are point particles? What's a back reaction? What is a particle's field? Can 'inertial mass' be explained here - there are links to 'inertia' and 'mass' but not 'inertial mass'. What's a singularity? Did the 'Attempts to deal with the back-reaction' predict bizarre behaviour that was not observed, or not explain bizarre behaviour that was observed?

Divergences in quantum electrodynamics: What are 'divergent integrals'? What is the importance of 'calculations involving Feynman diagrams'?

A loop divergence: There's no way a layman can understand this! Einstein was kind with his maths (from memory, I think he put much of the details of Lagrangians in appendices a casual reader didn't have to look at. Perhaps it would be better to describe the effect of the formulae here and provide a link to a technical page for those interested (and capable of understanding it).

I'm lost by now, so I've given up reading the article. Personally, I think articles that deal with complex scientific ideas for the layman are as important as they are difficult to write. I hope it is possible to rewrite it so anyone can understand it, but until that happens, I vote object to it being a featured article. jguk 18:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough; part of the problem is that we need comprehensible articles explaining all of the rest of physics that provides background for this; I'm afraid that doing it in the renormalization article would turn it into a complete tutorial on calculus, quantum mechanics, particle physics, and classical and quantum field theory. Maybe we're simply not ready to turn something at this level of specialization into a featured article. --Matt McIrvin 18:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No so. For example if you start by explaining what field effects are particularly what a field is in the context of QED (QED being a subset of quantum physics - and quantum physics being readily explainable on a rudimentary level. This can be made to be a very interesting article if it is worked on compassionately and with a view of educating someone with a non science degree background. Do not be discouraged and do not discount the added dimension of understanding provided to yourself when you are forced to explain such complexity to a novice. It is a rewarding challenge! prometheus1

I don't think it's impossible to have a featured article out of this subject. I'm sure I've seen elsewhere pages for laymen, with links to more comprehensive pages for those more scientifically minded. Many pages in the non-scientific world, eg cricket are written for everyone, but have lots of links to more specific areas that only cricket-lovers are going to read. I can't see why a scientific subject can't do the same. jguk 19:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Weak oppose for now. Too complex. One thing that might help is if the diags were better labelled: at the moment they are very cryptic. When the text is dense, one tends to skip towards the piccies, in which case they need to be fairly self contained. OTOH the stuff about scale-dependence of forces I found very good, thats the closest I've ever come to understanding it -- William M. Connolley 19:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC).

• Support with better explanation of diagrams. Are they Feynman diagrams? Label them as such if so. —siroχo 05:12, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, I want to remind people that the objection that laymen will not understand it only because the subject is too complex is invalid, because it is not an objection that can be dealt with. Andries 16:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It can be dealt with. See Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and Hawking's A Brief History of Time for two examples of making a complex subject understandable for a layman. jguk 19:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect. Just because an objection is difficult to deal with, does not make it invalid. It is certainly possible to do to some extent. - Taxman 19:24, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The article is certainly better than most tries I've seen so far too explain the subject, but it is too high level and implicitely assumes quite some familiarity of the reader with physics, especially terminology. I'd judge it higher undergraduate physics level. While it is fine to get into detail, for the benefit of specialists, one should cover the key point before in a language accesible to the layman. Material for this is present, but there is quite some work to be done. Simon A. 21:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Xiao Qian

Article about a principled 20th c. Chinese journalist of WWII in Europe. Appears to be an internet collaboration in typical Wikipedia style. Appears to have been written in Chinese first, then translated and then organized, bit by bit. Ancheta Wis 05:10, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object: inadequate lead section; traditional characters alone are not appropriate for a mainland-related topic; we should include pinyin for Chinese terms; frankly, poorly written (as noted, it appears to have been written in Chinese first, and Xiao witnessed and underwent the despairing and disheartening reality from his lowborn and destitute life is not brilliant prose). Markalexander100 06:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object as many informations are still missing. For example, while his second wife's name has both English and Chinese spelling, his first wife does not. It also doesn't say whether he had any children. In many places, same things with Chinese language happen, like "Impression on the way between Beiping and Suiyun" which makes little sense because most people would have no idea where both locations are. The single most important event in his life, being labelled a rightist needs more explanations. There is also nothing on what he did for 21 years from 1978 to 1999. Revth 13:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object, reluctantly. It's about time there were some featured articles on non-Western figures, but this one suffers from poor writing and confusing layout. Also, the long bracketed groups of traditional/simplified characters are distracting. Interesting though. Exploding Boy 18:25, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hip hop music

This is mostly a self-nom. Tuf-Kat 23:32, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Comprehensive referencing and continuous prose is required in the "Further spread to the US and abroad" heading. Certainly well on the way however. - Aaron Hill 03:07, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Lead intro is too long and should have some of the info incorporated into the main story. Haven't read the rest I'm afraid, so can't comment any further. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Lead is shortened. No info was lost, I believe. Tuf-Kat 04:42, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Aaronhill, It's great up until the "Further spread to the US and abroad" section were the article degenerates into a list. The references section probably needs expanding as well, unless this article truly did only use two sites for information :) Zerbey 18:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I don't entirely agree that the bullet points in "further spread" were bad, but I have changed the section into a paragraph form, and in doing so, tweaked the whole "diversification" section in the 1980s. Is this more satisfactory? I used a number of references, but don't have them handy and won't soon, so I will see if I can track down some ISBNs and such on google. Tuf-Kat 22:39, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Some more refs have been added. AFAIK, all concerns have been address, so please re-object if needed. Tuf-Kat 23:30, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I think the section on spread abroad could use some work, but since its such a broad subject, it doesn't actually detract from the article by moving quickly from point to point. —siroχo 00:14, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Far from complete. The article stops at the early 1990s and, as others have indicated, the "international spread" part is horrible. In addition, the article should be written from an international standpoint. Hip-hop certainly originates in the US, but it is more international now. A list of non-existing articles on "national scenes" is also quite useless. Jeronimo 07:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that heavy metal music never leaves the US and UK, punk rock does so only in a brief reference to Poland and jazz has a paragraph on Latin jazz and a few references to European jazzmen. All three are featured in spite of not being remotely internationalized. Tuf-Kat 10:30, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Two things: 1) The fact that other articles "got away with it" doesn't mean all other articles can. 2) I think (but I'm not sure) that the articles you mention are from the "Brilliant prose" period, and have never been reviewed like the current featured articles. Perhaps this is a reason to re-examine them? Jeronimo 11:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but my point was that the reason the poor quality of that section got attention is because it existed. It is far more comprehensive and fair-minded than any other source on the Internet, especially in its international coverage. Tuf-Kat 21:59, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Duck and Cover

• This is my second time trying to get this nominated, and I think that I and the others have written everything there is to be written on the subject at this point :-) After I started this page (yes, it's a self-nom) I put it on the FAC, and was turned down unanimously--although suggestions for improvement were provided. So we worked some more on it. I took it to the Collabartion of the Week, but they said they only worked on stubs and couldn't help me. So I've been adding more ever since. -Litefantastic 16:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I found this article quite informative and entertaining, especially for us youngsters that weren't around during the cold war. pie4all88 17:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1. The discussion of efficacy is POV and, in fact, largely wrong. While it is currently fashionable to ridicule the advice in this film, much of it is actually sound. To avoid clutter and debate here I have made some comments to that effect on Talk:Duck and Cover 2. Also I think Duck and Cover and Duck and cover probably should be merged; while they are arguably not about exactly the same thing, the content of Duck and cover is almost completely duplicated in Duck and Cover. Securiger 12:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) OK, withdraw my objection. Securiger 15:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection to merger proposal. Duck and Cover was a movie; duck and cover was a strategy. Some explanation of duck and cover has been provided in Duck and Cover, but only for clarification purposes. -Litefantastic 19:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't feel strongly about merging, but as it stands, describing them as separate concepts, while true, seems to be hair-splitting to me: one is about the film, the other about the contents of the film. And the material in the big 'C' version for clarification purposes already almost completely duplicates the contents of the small 'c' version. If the small 'c' version is intended to be expanded to detail US nuclear civil defense in the Cold War, then it's under the wrong title, since it's a much broader subject than just the emergency drill. I guess we could put detailed discussion of the physics of the drill in the small 'c' version and call it a subpage or something. Securiger 15:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Perhaps duck and cover should be moved to "cold war training" or something like that. There was, you are right, much more to this than the drill. -Litefantastic 16:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. Questioning its usefulness is POV. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:26, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have removed the paragraph that questioned its usefullness. Better, or worse? -Litefantastic 19:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think removal is necessary; it is quite appropriate to observe (especially in this "Pop culture" section) that people have doubted the efficacy. The problem for me is in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the "History and logic" section. These paragraphs outright dismiss the concept (i.e., are POV), and additionally are riddled with errors of fact. The shortest of several examples: "...its blast and resulting heat." (The heat doesn't result from the blast, but the other way around.) I discuss this further on the Talk page. Securiger 15:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The bits questioning its usefullness have been partially reverted back and moved into a new block called "Controversy". Feel free to edit. -Litefantastic 16:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I have patched in places for NPOV purposes, and the remaining bits questioning its usefullness have been quartered off so that they are expressed as a possibility, not a POV. What else? -Litefantastic 15:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Since it has no analog in any other country, the world's only duck and cover film for children is sometimes regarded as being a red scare political tool, to make children frightened of the Soviet Union and communism. Is the Sovjet Union or communism mentioned anywhere in the film? Seems odd to call it a red scare political tool if the kids it's shown to have absolutely no political knowledge. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 07:50, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Athanasius Kircher

As one of the sources puts it, "just about the coolest guy ever". Self-nom, ignored on Peer review (which I optimistically take as a sign that it's perfect). Markalexander100 08:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Web references should be listed with date of retrieval though (see Wikipedia:Cite your sources). Jeronimo 13:10, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks. Markalexander100 02:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Zerbey 16:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Securiger 12:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (I have edited this article in the past.) Smerdis of Tlön 16:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Suport. (After I made a few tiny changes.) L33tminion 05:34, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. But very. Filiocht 08:37, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fascinating person, and -as far as I can determine- a comprehensive article. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:04, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Two minor objections I would like to see resolved before featuring. 1) The article appears to imply that Kircher joined the Jesuit order in 1618, but then states that he joined the priesthood in 1628. This is either contradictory or else the difference between the two events is inadequately explained. 2) The caption for the "ears" illustration fails to establish for someone casually scanning the article why this picture is relevant to the subject. --Michael Snow 17:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Number 2 is done. As for number 1, I don't understand. The Jesuit Order has never been solely for priests; the article makes this clear by saying that he joined the two institutions at different times (I think it would be overly patronising to say it more explicitly). Markalexander100 02:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is made clear at all, except perhaps to those well-versed in Roman Catholic procedures. I would guess that the average reader here associates Jesuits with the Catholic priesthood, without much thought as to whether the former necessarily implies the latter. In this situation, it is easy to read the article and wonder if we have our facts straight. I note that not even the Society of Jesus article will provide you with the information that Jesuits are not necessarily priests. --Michael Snow 02:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Since, as the article says, Kircher became a Jesuit before he became a priest, you can be a Jesuit without being a priest. I don't know how much clearer it can get. Markalexander100 09:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • The Jesuits do have "lay brothers" (which ought to be mentioned in the Jesuit article...). However the explanation of this case much simpler: when Kircher joined the order, he became a seminarian, studying for the priesthood. What about saying (to the effect) "Kircher joined the Jesuit order in 1618, entering their seminary to prepare for priesthood in the order. He was ordained in 1628." That avoids over-patronizing and clarifies for those who assume that anyone who walks in off the street and says "I want to be a Jesuit" is ordained on the spot. Mpolo 10:19, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
          • I just added the words 'as a seminarian'. Is this OK? Filiocht 10:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
            • Fine for me. ;) Markalexander100 10:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • Certainly an improvement, so I'll withdraw the objection. Personally I would lean toward something like Mpolo's suggestion. --Michael Snow 16:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Opeth

Self-nomination. Extensive article on a notable band in the modern metal/death metal scene. I just expanded it, and I can't think of any more information that could be added to it. Nadavspi 05:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Overly short, IMO. It's not a bad article, but it's not quite up there with, say, Johnny Cash, yet. Ambi 05:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose, too short. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:41, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Mahjong

A self-nomination, but I think the content is largely adequate, and changes made during the nomination process will cement its position among Wikipedia's elite articles. kelvSYC 20:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support, though the navigation could be improved; I'm just not sure how. It's a lot of information, after all. --Golbez 21:15, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. A brief scan reveals several problems, notably a lack of (or just sporadic) information on the Japanese game. I fixed the first section, but don't have time to address the other problems today, or probably for a couple of days. Also, the article is currently 53kb. Exploding Boy 21:48, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • The TOC is also overwhelming and should be cut down. →Raul654 07:17, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have to admit that there is not enough depth in the scoring section (and it may need to be rewritten once again), but can you give us more detail as to what these problems you refer to are? kelvSYC 07:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: If the length of the article is a concern, what can us Wikipedians do to improve upon it? We could split the Mahjong article into something like American Mahjong for stuff specifically relating to American mahjong (eg. quints, Charleston, scoring card, etc.) and do similar things for other major variations. kelvSYC 07:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The typical (and more aesteically pleasing, and less time consuming) method is to take one of the longer sections and fork it off into its own article, and leave a 1-2 paragraph summary in its place. →Raul654 07:20, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've chopped off the scoring section and put that into Scoring in Mahjong. When more details are added, probably each type of scoring can have its own article. However there seems to be an imbalance of information in Mahjong which is currently 27kb. I'm not sure which other section in the main article to chop off. —Goh wz 01:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The article length and TOC are fine now. →Raul654 20:27, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Some day I intend to learn Mahjong and actually understand it... As others have stated, in the future if this article continues to expand (and there's certainly plenty of room for it to do so) it'll need to be split up into different articles. Right now, the length is just fine. Zerbey 13:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I think it could still use a bit of tweaking in some awkward areas, but I withdraw my objection. Exploding Boy 18:31, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This is a decent article, but it needs references. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Consider this as my support when references have been added. Jeronimo 11:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Australian electoral system

Quoting Ta bu shi da yu: "Basically, this is an excellent piece of writing. It was written from a highly accomplished author, Adam Carr, and is quite NPOV". It's also relevant considering the recent Australian election, which is nominated for featured status below. - Aaron Hill 08:34, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. The lead section should summarise in broad terms the content of the article and references need to be made explicit. Filiocht 11:03, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Object 1) Lead section too short, not a summary. 2) No references. 3) The image has no source/usage info. 4) Use tables instead of typewriter parts. 5) While not necessarily bad, there is a lot of explanation of the voting systems themselves (apart from how they are implemented in Australia). Something needs to be explained (for ease of reading), but I feel this much is not really necessary. 6) Voting is compulsory. Is this enforced? How? 7) A map of the electorates (the Australian_electorates is just a stub) would be useful, since it is not very clear what the electorates are. Jeronimo 07:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Compares poorly to Antony Green's history on www.abc.net.au or that on www.aec.gov.au. Littered with nationalist NPOV "It was felt that since 60,000 Australians had died in the first world war defending freedom, Australians had a duty to use the freedoms so dearly bought." Nothing on classwar and the history of the electoral system (ALP for goodness' sake). Nothing on the anti-democratic tendencies in the Australian electoral system (I'm thinking the fight for franchise in the 19th C in the state systems, the development of the party system under ALP pressure.). Littered with Americanisms "Ballot Access". Rework, historicise, remove Americanisms, need more on 19th Century and the party system.Fifelfoo 05:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Australian legislative election, 2004

Basically, this is an excellent piece of writing. It was written from a highly accomplished author, Adam Carr, and is quite NPOV. It also is quite an excellent overview of the 2004 Australian Federal election. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I'd been planning to nominate this myself. It was just about feature-worthy before the election, and has been just about completely rewritten since. Ambi 11:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I'm from Australia and followed the elction fairly closely. It looks good Psychobabble
• Object. Current event status is a serious hinderance to featured article status in my mind. The results won't be final until around 31 October, plus a week or so to resolve lingering POV, pictures, analysis, grammer etc. Excellent candidate for feature article after 7 November. Fifelfoo 23:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • See my response to Aaronhill's comment below. Secondly, if there are problems with lingering POV, pictures, analysis and grammar, where are they? For the objection to be actionable, we need some pointers to where these may indeed be. Ambi 09:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• No vote, but should not the article be intituled "Australian parliamentary election, 2004" ? -- Emsworth 00:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There's been several suggestions. "Australian federal election, 2004" is the most popular alternative, if it was to change -- Chuq 01:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object. lead section much too long--Jiang 00:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Slightly object Conditional support for much the same reason as Fifelfoo. To quote: "Current event status is a serious hinderance to featured article status in my mind". The article is still using the provisional results and the dust has still not yet settled on the election. It, after all, was last Saturday and there are still seats in doubt. Predicting the Senate results for sure is still difficult. I guess this is a "yes, but not just yet". This is not to say that the work is not quality, because it is probably one of the best articles available on the election on the entire internet, but it is just not appropriate for featured status just yet. (I guess this would be a partial self-objection :-D) - Aaron Hill 08:22, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • IMO, this shouldn't be a problem. There's very few undecided seats at the moment - it's down to about four in each house, and those are being updated practically daily with the latest details. Ambi 09:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I do not believe the article is POV or that it has problems with pictures or grammar, I do however think that it is necessary to wait until after the dust has settled on this still current event (the makeup of the senate is still far from certain) for it to be featured on the front page. - Aaron Hill 10:57, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Then don't feature it on the main page for at least two weeks, but don't oppose its nomination either. Ambi 11:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • On that condition, I strongly support the nomination of this article. - Aaron Hill 12:07, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: the lead section is far too long and detailed, and, again, the actual references used need to be stated explicitly. I am also concerned about the provisional nature of the article as it stands. I know no article is never finished, but this is about an event in progress and so is even less finished than the average FA. Probably nominated two weeks too soon. Filiocht 11:14, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

History of rugby league

Self nomination. A good general article coivering the history and development of the soprt of rugby league. This article has been on peer review for two weeks and some changes suggested there now incorporated. Grinner 10:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

• generally support, but it needs a section on union players moving to league (particularly the poaching of the Welsh), perhaps a bit more on geography and demographics. (I'll read it again). Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC).
  • Section addedGrinner 15:36, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Lead section needs to present a summary of the article (see Wikipedia:Lead section). 2) There are no references, no further reading, no external links. 3) Most of the information needed seems to be in the article, but the organisation is messy. The order of section is mostly chronological, but not entirely, and sections are named for geographic regions. This is confusing and difficult to follow. For example, the "France" section appears to discuss the sport in that country, yet doesn't discuss the French "golden age", which comes forward in "Post-war boom". 4) I feel the World Cup gets comparatively little attention, while I would assume it to be the most important event on the (international) calendar. 5) I would expect a section "before the schism" that briefly summarizes the history of the sport up to that point. This establishes context, while the details can still be read in other articles. Jeronimo 21:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Any better? Re. the world cup, sadly I feel it has about the prominence it deserves, unlike other sports the RL version has been sporadic, with a variety of formats, and never really been the pinnacle of international game. Grinner 11:16, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

My issues have been addressed, and I will support, although I have one note: please follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite your sources for the references. Jeronimo 07:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Needs a copyedit (for example, two consecutive sentences which don't make sense: The most succesful was English wing-cum-full back Jason Robinson, and generally considered that the easier transitions are in the backs. Brad Thorne, a New Zealand forward made a cross-code move, was a rare success, because of the technical forward skills required in union. ) Markalexander100 05:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Some errors crept in with the changes made after nomination on this page. I think your copyediting points have now been addressed now. Grinner 09:11, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• There are still lots of small errors: In 1905, as New Zealand's rugby union team, the All Blacks toured Britain; These games were played under rugby union las, as no copies of the rugby leagues laws were available to the teams.; and there are others. I still think the text needs to be read over more carefully before it's feature-worthy. Markalexander100 02:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of North American birds

Along with companion pages List of North American birds: non-passerines and List of North American birds: passerines. OK, like it or not, Wikipedia has LOTS of lists. I guess I want to see if a well formulated, well explained, comprehensive list can be Featured Article. Self-nomination. Dsmdgold 14:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Never supported a list before, but this seems pretty good! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. We need consensus as to if lists can be FAs. Also, the toc is overwhelming and there is no References section. Filiocht 08:00, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)It isn't even a list of North American birds, for Darwin's sake! I think this should become Birds of North America with the links to the lists as a See also section. Then it could be rewritten as a regular article with a lead, toc, references, etc. That could make a really good article. Filiocht 15:15, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
  • I don't see an actionable objection here. You can look in the article histories to see how we arrived at this division. A list of 900+ birds was too long for a single page, and this what we came up with. An article on the Birds of North America would be a very different beast. The text of this page only discusses the list and its rationale, i.e what area is covered by the term, and why the list is in this particular order. None of this would be particularly relevant to a Birds of North America article. I am willing to listen to alternative structures for this list, but I do not see suggestions to write a completely different article instead as actionable. Dsmdgold 16:36, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • That may be, but then I don't think this is a feature worthy item, even if you take them as a set. The birds of North America, if written very well and comprehensive could be. But as this is, as you have noted, is not comprehensive--an article that "only discusses the list and it's rationale" is not feature worthy. And yes that is entirely actionable. We are faced with an article that is not comprehensive and feature worthy and saying that to get to featured worthy, you would need to write featured worthy material and be comprehensive. In addition the writing in this article is simply not compelling, and of course that in the lists is not by definition. In summation, there is nothing wrong with lists like this, they can be valuable metadata, but are not worthy of featuring in their own right (even with a cover article explaining the list). Object. - Taxman 20:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Filiocht is right. It's not a list - it just links to two lists which are therefore different articles. The name is therefore incorrect and, while relevant and a good part of wikipedia, this article isn't feature-worthy imo. Count my objection if someone else can come up with a well-worded reason. violet/riga (t) 21:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Would this meet your objections? Dsmdgold 21:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why do features have to consist of one article? Is there a logical reason? Pcb21| Pete 06:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• agree with Filiocht. This is featured articles, not featured lists. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No its not, its Wikipedia:Brilliant prose. Erm, what, we changed the name? Yep, and we can do it again. I really think it should be Wikipedia:Features in order to allow us showcase examples of our good work that do not fit into the arbitrary framework of a single article. Pcb21| Pete 19:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Lists ARE articles because they are not pictures, the other featured category. Lists make up a sizeable portion of the articles on Wikipedia. (I attempted to count them, but the database gave up after 6000 hits for articles with "List of" in the title.) Lists vary in quality; some are poorly concieved in that they have too many or too few potential members, some are poorly defined, some are incomplete. This list is none of those things. Dsmdgold 21:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
• The lists are close to brilliant. Not quite there yet, however, Object for now:
  • The article nominated is the one which should eventually be featured, not the individual lists; though the truly brilliant content would be the lists themselves. I agree with this aspect of the nomination.
  • The text on the nominated page needs work. It's not detailed enough; only lists a one natively diverging species (wrens) and a few imports; doesn't clarify why the AOU's list is used in one place but not in another; not enough reference links, or links to the books mentioned in the article (I started clarifying the article a little to explain what I mean).
    • One note, the Wrens are a family, not a species. However there are a few other families that are limited to the New World. I willl add these. The ABA follows the AOU in taxonomical matters, which is why we are using two different authorities. I have indicated this in the article. I listed the most common introduced species, there are too many to list all of them. Many are established in a very limited area (eg Himalayan Snowcock and Skylark). However I will see what I can do about making this section somewhat more complete.Dsmdgold 15:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • The text on the list pages is too sparse. Each section needs an introduction, be it a sentence or a paragraph. Don't just list links to other articles; highlight which subarticles are more important and which less, which contested, which of special interest to birders or biologists or farmers, etc. Imagine opening a reference book on birds to the section on Vireos -- there would be a list of specific species, but also an overview.
    • Actually if I turned to a checklist of birds that is actually what I would expect, just a list, perhaps with some indication of frequency, but that would be it, no overview. Since each order and family links to an article discussing that taxon and the article are all at least good (some are very good) I don't see the point in short summary of info that is just a click away.Dsmdgold 15:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Images are not well-chosen. We have many fantastic images of birds; only one of them makes it to any of these pages. The image on the nominated page should be a crisper one; perhaps a symbolic one like the bald eagle, perhaps one of our features. The list pages themselves should have a few thumbnails on them; perhaps one representative image for each of the largest sections. +sj+ 07:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • You have a point here. I will work on it. Dsmdgold 15:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - I don't feel list should be featured, however as a general article on North American birds, linking to the lists, this can vbe "saved".Grinner 10:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Filiocht and violet/riga seem to be concerned that the nominated page is not actually a list. It now is. When working on this list I split the list since it would be over 32KB. However Wikipedia:Page size says that "(pages) >32KB - should be divided unless it is a list". Since this is a list, I have unsplit (if that is a word) it.

Filiocht, Grinner and Taxman seem to think that I have nominated the Birds of North America and have claimed that the article is incomplete on that basis. I have not nominated that article. I have nominated List of North American birds. I have not noted that the article is not comprehensive. It is comprehensive. The introductory text is just that, a text that introduces the list. It is not a general discussion of the birds of North America. I believe that when someone encounters a list like this, they might ask a couple of questions, such as "What birds are included in this list?" and "Why is it organized in this manner?" This text answers those questions. It would be inappropriate to go off on a discussion of migratory patterns or the role in of the Rocky Mountains in dividing bird species, topics that should be covered in the hypothetical Birds of North America article.

I know exactly what you nominated, and I am objecting to it. I quoted you directly, and a consequence of what you wrote is that the article is not comprehensive about the subject. It is mostly just a list. It has few of the qualities of a great article. In addition the title is wrong/misleading since almost half of North America by species count is not covered in the list. - Taxman 03:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I thought no such thing. I suggested that such an article, if well-written, would make a much better candidate. May I respectfully suggest a less aggressive engagement with objections? Filiocht 11:21, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, Dunc_Harris, andGrinner have raised objections based on the fact that this is list. These objections are so fundamental that they cannot be addressed. Dsmdgold 02:36, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sure they can be addressed, it just means the article as just a list and no well written, comprehensive coverage (the hallmarks of a featured article) cannot be a featured article. By definition of what it lacks. Don't rail against that, either write a featured quality article or don't worry about it being featured. Why the fuss to get a list featured? Its just metadata. - Taxman 03:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

(Speaking as featured article director) - I believe Taxman makes a valid point here. Lists are lacking the basic quality of a featured article - that is, prose. →Raul654 22:19, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

My first self-nom. I see "Remember 9/11" stickers all over the place, but very few people know anything about the perpetrators. This is a detailed biography of one of the more interesting of the hijackers. Info culled from the 9/11 report, Congressional testimony, and several conspiracy sites for good measure. I listed this on Peer Review several weeks ago, and no one had any improvements to suggest. What do you think? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 12:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Some of the spacing looks funny on Mozilla Firefox (notably at the second image, where there's a giant gap between two paragraphs). No references, either. 219.93.174.110 13:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Can anonymous users vote? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There are three external links, which are basically references. Is this good enough? (I'll fix the spacing problem presently.)
    • Sorry, that was my vote. Seems I got logged out by accident. The problem with spacing seems to be fixed; as for the references, I will support once they are converted to conform with Wikipedia:Cite sources (a task which shouldn't be too hard). For now, neutral. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:16, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as long as the spacing problem is fixed. (and references) Ambi 13:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support Neutral. I guess that he came from a Muslim family though he went to a Catholic school. This should be stated explicitly, I think. It confused me. Andries 16:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're right. I'll make that more clear. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 22:06, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. The lead section needs expansion. It should present an overview/summary of the article, but currently misses parts of the article (such as the identity issue). Also, a little more context would be good. See Wikipedia:Lead section. Other than this, support. Jeronimo 18:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, this is done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:09, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Surprisingly NPOV for such a controversial figure, excellent work. Zerbey 00:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:22, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I expected to see POV ranting, but this is a good NPOV article! Anárion 13:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Get Back

Self-nomination. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*Comment: Is the idea to feature as many Beatles articles as possible? Mike H 02:00, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

• • Not really. It's just that I believe most of my best work has been on Beatles song articles. Johnleemk | Talk 06:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • He does good work on Beatles articles. You do good work on soapie articles. What's the problem? Ambi 06:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I wasn't acting angry so there is no need to get defensive. Mike H 07:55, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Contribute what you know or are willing to learn about is our strongest driving policy. ✏ Sverdrup 08:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, cripes, forget I said anything. It's so being taken out of context. Mike H 08:34, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • I actually agree with what you're saying, but with one slight difference. By all means these songs should be FAs but I don't think that all of them should be front-page articles, just the "special" ones like Yesterday. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Good article, but some of the chronology is a bit jerky. Ambi 06:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • How so? I reread the article, and I'm not too sure what you mean. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I like it. Go on, stop arguing and get it up there. Also, I agree with Mike H. Let's try to feature as many Beatles articles as possible! Hurrah!--Crestville 12:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Although most of this thread has been a misunderstanding, it is still annoying to me. We have great work from people like John (Beatles songs) and Emsworth (Peerage, English/British monarchs) yet on the several occasions when I have suggested we create something like "featured series" as a section in "featured articles" (possibly renamed to Wikipedia:Features to placate pendants) it gets knocked back with some pretty ill-thought-out objections. Pcb21| Pete 09:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Who's objecting? What are you on about?--Crestville 14:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• As always I am troubled by fair use images. Otherwise support. Another great article of course. - Taxman 14:31, Oct 16, 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)
• Donegal fiddle tradition
• Gram Parsons
• Negligence
• Not the Nine O'Clock News

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)
• Computer security - now has one diagram.
• Have I Got News For You (fair use)
• Illegal prime (It now has 2 images.)
  • Neither of which adds anything to the article. In fact, it detracts. GWO 19:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Instead of criticizing others' work, perhaps you could provide a better image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:19, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, what of? This is an abstract concept. You can't take pictures of it. This article does not need a picture, they add nothing. They've clearly been added to slavishly meet some FAC criterion, which really should have been waived in this case as completely inappropriate. -- GWO
        • The point is that on the front page, the format requires a picture. That is, it is already featured, but can't be used on the front page without some sort of image. I saw that German WP used an image of E=mc² as an image for relativity, for instance. Mpolo 10:49, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
          • If you have to break articles to fit an inflexible format, it's the format that needs reforming, not the articles. GWO
• Indus Valley Civilization (fair use picture)
• 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)