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

Homo floresiensis

Not a self-nom - I just stumbled across this, and it looks remarkably complete, meeting all the FAC criteria that I can see. Ambi 04:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

This is a comprehensive article about the US military's Medal of Honor. I have contributed to it, but so have many others. It is a partial self-nom. It went through peer-review a month or so ago. Ydorb 21:39, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Support Extensive research and lists have made the article very informative and it is a popular topic, given the prestige of the U.S. Medal of Honor Husnock 22Nov04
• Object. 1) Insufficient lead section, should be a summary of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section. 2) The first section is confusing, I don't know what the name of this medal is, or what is should be. 3) The "Marine Corps and Coast Guard" stands out a bit, and might be merged with Evolution of awarding criteria. 4) It seems better to combine the two sections regarding the official statutes, viz. "Privileges to awardees" and "Authority". This would also make the latter section a bit larger. 5) The links in the statistics "By conflict" should link to the actual conflict, rather than country. Perhaps a table would be nice to present this information, but it is OK as it is now. 6) The list of recipients seems rather random, and some soldier do not even have a reason listed. I would suggest to spin off the list to a "Recipients of the Medal of Honor" article (which probably should eventually list all of them). Extremly remarkable recipients (such as the only woman) should be mentioned in the "Statistics" section. 7) The quotation should probably be moved to WikiQuote. 8) The WP:MOS suggests a different style for web references; please consider using it. In addition, a book reference would be nice, or a further reading if no book reference was used. 9) The image of the medals says the medals are in the public domain, but this is conterindicated by the article (if I understand it correctly), so perhaps the image usage note should be adapted. Jeronimo 22:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The lead section needs expansion. If it mentions the most recent awards in detail, it probably should also mention when the first awards were made. The sentence in Congressional Medal of Honor starting "Most recently, Congress passed legislation mandating the award..." lacks any sort of context. Are these meant to be more recent awards than the "most recent" 1993 awards? While mentioning the unknown soldier awards, it might be worth mentioning the reciprocal award of the Victoria Cross to the American unknown soldier. I would prefer the statistics to be presented in a table (but that's just me) and call me sexist but the "by sex" list seems a bit redundant, given that the only female recipient is mentioned straight afterwards. I don't mind including a list of remarkable/famous recipients in the article but I think the current list could be ruthlessly pruned. I don't know why the computer game is included in the See also section. Geoff/Gsl 00:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No information about Medal of Honor impostors (see [1] [2]) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Fair Use

I actually find this article to be really informative and worth reading just for fun; not just for rules on posting. It's also complete and only lacks a photo (kind of hard to add though - maybe an example?). Nrbelex 06:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• This was nominated before. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/September_2004#Fair_use. Have previous objections been addressed? Jeronimo 22:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

Self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support, and why not?--Crestville 22:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

King James Version of the Bible

This article failed last time, mainly because of objections that it underestimated the KJV's influence on modern English. I believe those have been fixed. I did some work on this article, but at the most, I've contributed only a couple of paragraphs worth of prose to it. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object again. What is still missing from this article is the fact that the KJV set the standard for how literate English prose should be written, a standard that held good more or less until the advent of modernism. It also strongly influenced the writing of poetry, impacting on poetic diction and the range of images available to poets. Specifically, some discussion of the impact of the KJV on writers as diverse as John Bunyan, John Milton, Herman Melville, John Dryden and William Wordsworth would be a minimum requirement. This is, to me, infinitely more important than a discussion of how the readability level of the KJV fits into a foreign educational system's class grading structure. Filiocht 14:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • How is the article now? Johnleemk | Talk 18:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • FWIW, references to Milton and Bunyan may be wide of the mark; both men were Geneva Bible readers, and in the original all of Bunyan's quotations in Pilgrim's Progress are Geneva, not KJV. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • yeah, Milton, as a contemporary, will rather have had similar influences than drawn on the KJV. dab
• Neutral Support: I agree with Filiocht; however, I think that the points he adresses can be shortly summarized with a link to a Main article (e.g. Literary impact of the KJV). Other things that I stubled accross:

• the King James Version uses words such as "ye", "thee", "thou", "thy" and "thine", and uses phrases such as "Fear thou not/Fear ye not" (instead of "Do not be afraid"). "words/phrases such as" is a rather clumsy way of putting it. the articles focus cannot be to treat the grammar of Early Modern English. I suggest you just say that it uses the old 2nd person singular pronoun (instead of "words such as") and link to Thou and History of the English_language.
• the quote: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.": are the pronouns referring to God really in lowercase in the original??

ok, sorry. Image:KJV Psalm 23 1 2.jpg. dab

• the article is very long for a FA (not too long, however); other Main articles could be created to export stuff too, also taking some of the burden off this article, making it easier to reach FA standard consistently.

However, I think that the article is very fair compared with today's "FA" (Harappan civilization), and will gladly change my vote to support if these points are addressed. dab 15:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• How is the article now? I think the article is just right as it is; perhaps the names of the translators could be exported elsewhere, but other than that, I think there's a "just nice" amount of material right now. And yes, the quote is accurate; see it for yourself on Bible Gateway. Johnleemk | Talk 18:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"makes liberal use of old second person singular pronouns"? I would say it just uses a 2nd sg pronoun whenever the original text has one.

I still think you should accommodate Filiocht, and I'm not sure squeezing the authors into the intro is the way to go. A good example would also be the Book of Mormon which slavishly copies the (at the time of its composition archaic) KJV style ;o)

but these are trifles in my book. It's good enough for me to change my vote to support. After all "FA" != perfect. dab 19:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 23:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Autobiography (album)

All right, I've never nominated an article to be featured before, but I'm ready to try with this one, which I've put quite a bit of work into. I'm of course open to any suggestions about how it might be improved. The fact that it has only one image might be a problem for some. I can easily add another picture, but it would have to be one I've obtained from another website with permission, and I'm not sure if that's acceptable for a featured article. Everyking 20:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• You put a ton of work into this; I'm amazed. However, I don't feel that Autobiography is a significant album in the scope of things. Perhaps an article on the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album would be of Featured Article status, because it had such a fantastic impact on modern music. (Paul McCartney and John Lennon also didn't lip-synch in concert, but that's another issue.) Minor albums probably don't belong here. -- Barfooz Nov 22 0715 UTC
  • I was under the impression that featured status had nothing to do with importance per se, only with the quality of the article. Also, it isn't a minor album by a long shot, but that's irrelevant. Everyking 07:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It states above that an objection must be actionable. This objection isn't actionable. Ambi 08:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's a reasonable article, and of good length, but some of the prose could do with a bit of work, such as the passage describing its movement in the charts. It also just doesn't really seem up to the general standard of our other album featured articles. I'm not going to object, however, because while I don't think this article is quite up to scratch, it's a difficult one to pick individual holes in. Ambi 08:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, how am I going to make the paragraph about album sales exciting? I don't know if I can, but then again I don't think most album articles even have such specific info about weekly sales. I'm definitely not done working on the article, and of course it will continue to grow as it's still current, but I figured I'd give it a try and see if it's up to featured quality yet, and if people don't think it is, I'm hoping they can give me some specific pointers about how to improve it. Everyking 08:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. I understand why it's done this way, but the article is almost entirely a collection of "X has been described as Y by Z source". Not only does this read jerkingly, but does a collection of 3rd party opinions (from sources of varying 'authority' if such a thing is possible in pop culture terms) really make for a good encyclopedia article? Also the fact that very few negative comments are recorded and the general fanboy/girl-ish tone of much of the trivia (eg. "Love me for me") makes the whole piece seem like it would be more at home on a fan site than in an encyclopedia. Still this might just be my personal biases, and they aren't really factors which can be addressed within the scope of the article, which is why I've commented and not objected. Psychobabble 08:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I try to get everything neatly attributed, and look where it gets me. I've made a point of including negative opinions right alongside the positive ones, so I don't know where you're coming from with that. And I don't appreciate you calling the article unencyclopedic, either. Everyking 08:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object The way quotes are attributed makes the flow of reading uneven. Try using Wikipedia:Cite sources. Most of the featured articles and real-life research papers I've read creates their references in a similar manner. Sixpence 08:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Since I'm a moron, you need to be more specific than that, because I'm not exactly clear on what's wrong with how I cited things. As an aside, I've also added a bit more info on the early stages of writing and recording, which was one of the ways I thought the article was lacking before. Everyking 10:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's about as good as it is going to get, so I don't see what the problem is. My only suggestion is to put the bottom part of the infobox in (the part with the previous and following album). Unless this is her only album so far, in which case it would be pointless. I would also like to see the tabular chart data at the bottom be put in the neat boxes like DCEdwards has been doing, and some chart data from outside the US would be nice. Support though. Tuf-Kat 15:54, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's her only album. I actually objected to Category:Ashlee Simpson albums for that reason, but people tell me we need it so it can be found through the categorization of albums by artist. I'll work on the table/chart issue. I do have the UK chart info in the article...finding reliable info on other countries has been difficult, though. Everyking 16:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. a) Article is filled with trivialities, I feel any topic is worthy of being nominated as Featured article, but I feel that this one is filled by too many little details that make it OVERcomplete and thus more suitable for a fansite. b) Too opinionated, I will not go so far to imply POV as positive and negative views have been properly attributed (kudos for that). This however makes the article not too readable. c) Lacks a proper references section, for the length of this article I expect a proper references section. d) Not a strict objection, but you mention another image to add, maybe a shot from the reality show? That would be available under Fair use and could work in this article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 19:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tell me how to improve the references. I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with that any better than I have. You want every one of the innumerable websites and magazines I cite to be considered "references"? I would think it'd be enough to just give the source in the text. As for your calling the article "overcomplete", I don't really know how to respond. You want me to remove half the detail and then it would be featured quality? I've been careful not to include things that I think are overly trivial, or to go on at excessive length about any specific points. Is it just your bias against the topic that makes you think the whole subject is more suitable for a fansite? I'll add a shot from the reality show, though. Everyking 22:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • All right, I've added three images to the article, pretty evenly spaced out, too. Everyking 00:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I think Solitude pinpoints the problems that I'd seen in this. It would be nice to see a featured article on this topic, as such an article could be then used as a benchmark. But I don't think this is it, and I think this is due to the overuse of trivia here - I just read it and my eyes glaze over (and I like album articles). Ambi 01:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think this is being fair; I don't think the article is packed with trivia at all. I could certainly pack it with trivia if I wanted. But I suppose it depends on your definition of trivia. Personally, I don't think there's anything in excess of what constitutes a good, complete, thorough article. Everyking 02:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Passenger car

Here's one that I've been working on for about a month now. I've included a brief history of the passenger car along with information on major types of passenger cars and a few photos that I've taken at railroad museums in my area to illustrate a few of the car types. I've also included a bit on the differences between heavyweight and lightweight cars, which I have yet to see discussed anywhere else on the site. slambo 17:53, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral. It's a very nice article, but it's exclusively about North American practice. It needs considerable expansion to cover practice in the rest of the world. -- Arwel 22:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've expanded the History section a bit based on a refence that I had. There's a bit more on European developments now. I'm still digesting this information, but at least there's a start to including it in the article. The car types list really doesn't change all that much with this new reference, just the different dates of introduction. slambo 02:01, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Abstain, a bit low on wikification. Happy to change vote when it's fixed :-) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:32, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Is it more linked phrases or more section headings or what? I'm not entirely sure what needs to be done based on your comment. The only part that I haven't already listed on the Talk page is that I'd like to expand the intro paragraph, but I haven't been able to come up with sufficient prose to do that. slambo 11:52, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

There's a little bit more to the intro paragraph and a couple more links. What else do you suggest? slambo 18:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Positive, well-written on a good broad topic, could use more photos, detail, and references. Vaoverland 12:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'd really like to get some more exterior photos, especially of these car types from European or Asian railroad use (anyone out there who can help with this?), or some from the early days of railroad construction. I've taken a quick look through the Library of Congress website, but didn't quite find what I was looking for. I'm also looking through my own library of railroad resources for more information and details. slambo 14:52, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1) The lead section should be expanded to at least two paragraphs, and provide a summary of the entire article. See Wikipedia:Lead section. 2) History section stops in the early 20th century. Should be expanded to modern day. 3) References are inadequate. The only reference doesn't seem to cover most of the content, and certainly not the more recent content. 4) Units should be presented in at least metric units, or both imperial and metric, but not in imperial measures only. 5) A lot of potential information is missing. Who manufactures passenger cars? How many passengers fit in the average passenger car? What are the dimensions (length, weight, height)? How many are pulled by a train? How do they compare with passenger cars in for example metro systems or trams? Jeronimo 19:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll get on them right away... slambo 22:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Supply and demand

It's big it has pictures, what else does it needs? Just kidding, it seems a great article, surprises me it's not featured already.--Alexandre Van de Sande 16:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abstain. The content seems ok, but the article needs much more ilinks (wikifying and such). Shouldn't external links and references be separated? I will change my vote when I have more time to carefuly read the entire article - those are very important concepts in the economics and deserve a very good article. As a side note, note that supply is a redirect to this article, but demand deoesn't even mention it (perhaps disambig or rediect is needed here?), also ilinks to those terms needs to be created/fixed from various economics-related articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. I flagged the difference between partial and general equilbrium models in the header, this seems a fairly good explanation of partial equilbrium supply and demand. Psychobabble 01:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• This looks pretty good, but could rewrite at least the first sentence of the lead section? It is currently rather difficult to understand for the layman. Terms like microeconomic, Marshallian and equilibrium should be brief like explained (f.e. Marshallian could be something like: "conceived by the important economist Alfred Marshall). Jeronimo 19:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault. I'll se what I can do. Psychobabble

Alchemy

I came across this while admiring Gold, below. A good summary of a prodigious amount of information. Not perfect, tackles the subject solely from the perspective of a historian, but then other perspectives may be difficult to pull off seriously. I find it the equal of some currently-featured articles. 05:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I think the nominator is User:Sj.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen ( talk)]] 20:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC))

• Support good article, could probably stand to have someone copy edit it first. And is there any way to get the first image at the top lightened, its awfully dark. Alkivar 06:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• support--Alexandre Van de Sande 17:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Wow, incredible article! Masterfully organized, does justice to a fascinating subject. Just a few pedantries: 1) I don't understand what "the division of the world into four basic elements was as much a geometric principle as a geological one" means. The geometric link is no help. 2) Something seems to have gone wrong with the paragraph about Isaac Newton and alchemy and astrology. I don't know if the paragraph is the raked-over embers of an edit war, but it looks a bit like it. 3) Are you sure you want page numbers in the parenthetic references (consistently punctuated wrong, btw)? I think the principle should be that all scholarly apparatus is as-needed only, since it weighs down the text, Wikipedia is not a learned journal. In other words, leave out page no's if the place can easily be found using the book's index, include them if it can't. But that may already be the principle, only the authors know. 4) The format of the References section would be good enough for just any article, but I think actual Manual of style recommended format would be best for a Featured article; or, at any rate, there should be full bibliographical information (=including publisher and place).--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen ( who can't wait to support this great article)]] 20:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain Good work, no doubt about it. But I think that period of renaissance, Edward Kelley and such is much too brief. I will try to recall, verify and add some information, until then I will abstain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - good work. Andre (talk) 23:58, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work. Filiocht 10:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe the top picture could be enlarged, or cropped? It currently is a bit obscure, and I only saw what was on the picture when I clicked on it. Jeronimo 20:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. easily. (enlarged image). dab 20:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Zerbey 23:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Disclosure: I did some work on the references. I also tried to lighten the image, but I suspect the effect was too garish and it got switched back. I also did some formatting of the talk page a long time ago. PRIIS 04:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gold

A lovely, clear example of the element template. A good brief coverage of its properties, history, and various forms (through pictures). +sj+ 05:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support, beautiful! [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 11:11, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• support--Alexandre Van de Sande 17:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely support. Andre

(talk) 23:58, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. Unless it gets a major expansion, I fail to see the point of the Gold rushes section. Filiocht 10:52, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Light objection: There are a few one sentence paragraphs, and many of them, like the "Gold Rush" one, are tantalizing. (E.g. gold rushes had an enormous effect on the world. Thanks to the gold rush, California got settled, San Fransisco became a city of note, the US expansion to the Pacific was completed in record time, the railroads were built, and the US grew to be a power in the world (inviting immigrants, who came over for the 2nd major rush).) (Also, the paragraph that mentions the role of New World gold in the renaissance. That's huge. The gold trade built Brussels because of banking. It was responsible for the settlement and brutality of the Spanish in South America. It created the age of piracy.) Other than these historical teasers, the article is extremely well covered. Geogre 15:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The history is section is rather inadequate now, as others have pointed out. The one paragraph section should be merged or be expanded. 2) There is only one reference, which certainly doesn't cover all of the content. More are needed, including books if possible. If any of the external links were used as a references, add these. Also, please use the proposed style at Wikipedia:Cite your sources (not required). 3) The lead section should be expanded, incorporating at least some of the history, thus providing a better summary of the entire article. 4) The isotopes section should be expanded. The only reference gives much more text on this topic, so there is more to say. 5) In the compounds section, this sentence should be explained: "Although gold is a noble metal it can form many compounds". I also think it should be mentioned earlier on that gold is a noble metal. 6) I would like to see a table or so of the top 5 or 10 gold exporting/producing nations, including the amount of gold. Jeronimo 19:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Winamp

I like winamp. 5.06 came out recently, and it's made the news as Nullsoft's plug has been officially pulled by AOL recently (google news), and people are sad to see it go. Covers the history well, although not in detail (this would probably change after it was featured, I guess). And yes, it's really a self-nom because NSV isn't quite big enough yet and that's one of the features of the newer winamp that I like. --TIB (talk) 00:18, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Object Too short with the features just being a list. Needs more info about developement, being purchased by AOL, people involved etc. --Enceladus 00:33, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed Object for now, needs much more backstory, doesnt even state when ACTUAL first version was released, just states when 1.0 came out (hell I was personally beta-testing it for a year before then). Needs list of all versions and release dates (you can leave out minor patches like an X.XX-A and an X.XX-B etc...). Shows photos of Ver 2 and Ver 5 skinned, yet does not include photo of Ver 1 (or its predicessors) or Ver 3. No list of things such as reasons for bug fixes is necessary. More details on types of plugins should be included. Especially considering its visual plugins is what made it more popular than its competitors. Alkivar 05:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Generally lacking in content and context. 1) Context: this should especially be added in the lead section. It is not even immediately clear it's talking about a computer programme here. Throughout the article, computer terms are also explained barely or not at all. 2) Content: Most of the topics are dealt with only briefly. We need more on the history, its developers, the major features of all versions (not just the latest one). I also miss comparisons with other media players, both in features and popularity. There is no mention of how many downloads there have been or the approximate user base. And why is it available for free? What extras does the Pro version have? How many users use the Pro version? How is the software reviewed by "experts"? 3) If you used the external links for collecting information, they are references, and should be listed as such. Jeronimo 10:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. News that AOL has pulled winamp and has layed off staff at Nullsoft may well have been premature. Check out the Nullsoft Talk Page. CheekyMonkey 00:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ol' Dirty Bastard

Self-nom. I mostly rewrote this, from its original text but did not begin it. Content is concise, although could probably stand to have more on his musical career. As it stands now musical career and legal troubles are about the same length. Since he has recently passed on I figure this would be a good time. Alkivar 15:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comments: Looks quite good. 1) Many paragraphs, and all of those in the "Legal Troubles" section, start with "In <date>"; it'd be nice to reword a few of these. 2) Any chance we can refer to him as "Jones" rather than "ODB" or "Dirty"? At least some of the time? — Matt 18:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • That would be more encyclopedic. The title of the page should not change however, since it is certainly what he is beter known as, and more often refered to as. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Granted that it would be more encyclopedic, however NO ONE, except for his family and personal friends, referred to him by his given name. Check any of the obits (most dont even mention his real name), check any news articles (again most dont have his real name), he is known as the "ol' dirty bastard" by virtually everyone. I have gone back through and changed some of the ODB's to something else. Alkivar 21:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object - seems a bit sketchy.--Crestville 18:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • sketchy? is there something in particular your objecting to? or is it simply you dislike the man? to quote from above "All objections must give a specific rationale that can be addressed" Alkivar 21:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Good article, but one thing was confusing. The "Life and career" section makes references to his legal problems ("with a court-ordered probation hanging over his head", etc.), but I don't know the specifics until I read the "Legal troubles" section below that. Is there any way these two sections can be merged? Light object for now. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:21, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • yeah i'm aware of this fact. Originally the two subjects were merged into one long section, but I felt it made more sense to seperate his career from his legal troubles. Is there something you would recommend to help fix this? Alkivar 21:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I would much prefer to have the two sections be merged once again. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:57, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) I don't like the constant "ODB"s either. Perhaps they might be appropriate when discussing his musical career, but they certainly aren't in the sections on his illegal activities. 2) His real name should come first, and his aliases should be listed as such. 3) It's very short for an FAC, and doesn't have very much detail. 4) Too many paragraphs are too short. 5) Apart from in the "legal troubles" section itself, his criminal career seem to be glossed over. From reading the introduction, for instance, you'd have no idea how serious some of the crimes he committed were. Proteus (Talk) 18:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) see above, I have corrected this.

2) I think "Ol' Dirty Bastard" should come first as its what he is best known as. His real name is still within the first sentance.

3) It has more detail than the VH1 and MTV biography pages on the man. I think that its got enough content to warrant FAC. ANY article can always use more content, and I am sure this one will grow with time. I'm sure shorter articles have been considered and approved as well. Length is not a necessary consideration according to What is a featured article, however this article is comprehensive and "does not omit any major facts or details".

4) see my comment #3. unless you have a specific objection to the timeline formatting I consider this a non-issue.

5) his career is "glossed over" ??? We mention specifically all of his offenses, we link to their definitions, anything more than that would be POV.

Alkivar 21:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Good summary of his recording career and such, but I think that this article needs more information on this rapper's impact and his criminal career. Object for now. Andre (talk) 23:59, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Turquoise

I walked upon this little gem - absolutely excellent in content and style. I have since discovered it is very largely the effort of User:Hadal as part of Wikipedia:Danny's contest. -- [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 01:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I hope to someday develop all of our gem articles to such a state. We'll see if I have enough self-discipline to make that happen. ;) -- Hadal 06:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support: Very complete study. Giano 16:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Can't think of anything wrong with this article. Jeronimo 20:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object: Image:Bisbee2.jpg doesn't have source and copyright information. — David Remahl 08:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've replaced it with Image:Chacoan turquoise with argillite.jpg; another NPS shot, but it's larger and shows the typical colour range of American material fairly well. -- Hadal 06:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Fantastic. Support. Ambi 08:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support: Exhuastive and informative. Exactly what one needs in an FA. Geogre 16:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• support--Alexandre Van de Sande 17:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A top-notch article (as far as I can tell, not being a minerologist!). The "Formation" section is just one paragraph -- perhaps it could be merged into another section? And I agree that it would be good to have some copyright info for Image:Bisbee2.jpg. — Matt 19:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bisbee2.jpg has been replaced (I don't think the uploader is active any longer), and I've expanded "Formation"; is it still too slim to be a section of its own? -- Hadal 06:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; it's a good length now. — Matt 06:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent. Zerbey 23:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. I'll probably fiddle with the Formation section some more - expand a bit, right now I'm still thinking about that hypogene data, hmm... I did some turquoise mining in Arizona back 25+ years ago. {B-)} -Vsmith 05:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reginald Maudling

Self-nom. I surprised myself when rewriting this article that he came out as a more interesting character than I had expected. A 'nearly man' of British politics. Dbiv 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Far from brilliant prose (sorry to sound like a broken record) and a few things don't make sense to an ousider. What does "read law" mean? What was the conservative party's extensive rethink? Where did he stand in the latter movement? To an outsider this seems to be missing a fair bit. Psychobabble 01:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for "Far from brilliant prose" this is insubstantial and I don't know how you suggest it should be changed. The term 'reading' for studying at a university is a standard expression which you really ought to know. The Conservative Party's rethink was into party policy after the loss of the 1945 election which is a far more general topic than this one article; I've started to cover it in the Conservative Research Department article. Maudling's position in the Conservative Party was much too subtle to be classified as 'Left' or 'Right'; as the article explains he was to the right of Edward Heath when defeated by Heath for the Conservative leadership in 1965. Dbiv 01:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll give eg's then. "Ministerial office in the 1950s" is a long, meandering one sentence paragraph and "experience of preparing economic policy" doesn't sound right to me. "Maudling's defeat was a surprise although feeling in the country and in most newspapers was in Heath's favour." "Maudling's tendency to reassuring calmness" and the first paragraph under "scandal" all read badly. It needs a close copyedit imo, much of the writing doesn't flow well at all. Psychobabble 02:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and as for 'reading' a subject, I dispute it being a common term outside Britain. I've been studying law for 3 years in Australia and I've never heard the term and Australia is, obviously, much more similar to Britain than the rest of the world.Psychobabble 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me take these points one by one. 1) "Ministerial office in the 1950s" has three sentences, not one. 2) Maudling did have "experience of preparing economic policy" in the CRD in the late 1940s - what does "doesn't sound right to me" mean? 3) I've redrafted some of the paras you 'don't think flow well' although this is again an insubstantial objection. 4) It is acceptable to use the variety of English relevant to the context of the article according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling. See sample google searches at [3], changing 'history' for any other subject. Dbiv 14:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Undecided: Sorry to but into the argument, but I think as a potted political biography this is OK. I would like to support it. However, I think it needs a copy edit, perhaps Dbiv you have stared at it for too long, my grammar isn't good enough to do it, but I do see some of the points Psychobabble is making. The facts and dates are all there, it just needs a little more information and explanation. Reading for studying is particularly British, but could stay if about an Englishman (see votes for FA John Dee). The final section 'Death' at one and a half lines is far too short, he must have done something else besides die, dug his garden, walked to the off licence; and some less than romantic, or catholic souls may not know the date of Valentine's Day. Yes I know it says it at the top, bit is this significant? Was he a great lover? This could be the umph this page need!Giano 18:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I have addressed these concerns with the latest rewrite. The date of Reggie Maudling's death is in the first line for anyone who doesn't know what day St Valentine's day is. So far as is known Reggie Maudling was not a notably good lover (although he did have four children). Dbiv 14:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support: I think is a pretty good article and it's turned out much better than I ever thought when I started it. Come on, give it chance. james_anatidae 01:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Revolver (album)

Part of Featured Albums Project, and not a self-nom, though I've made a few edits. Tuf-Kat 18:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

• object. I don't think this qualifies as brilliant prose. The first sentence of the article proper begins with "as a sidenote" which is a bad sign and generally it falls short. It also seems to be lacking information such as sales, chart position, band member's opinions/interviews on the subject. Seems a fairly long way from FAC to me Psychobabble 00:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object, for now. It's a bit disorganised, and I'm not sure why Tommorow Never Knows warrents it's own section. I'm more than happy to take a look, and it is a very good article.--Crestville 18:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object, structure is frankly a mess. 1) The text after the Lead ought not start with the short "side note" section 1. American release (thematically an aside and chronologically obviously not the first thing that happened). 2) The second section, 2. Songs, with its single subsection "Tomorrow never knows", needs heading levels revision. If "Tomorrow never knows" is the only song thought to deserve its own subsection, 2. Songs, 2.1 "Tomorrow never knows", and 2.2 Other songs would be a logical hierarchy, with any general material about the songs (e. g. the misplaced last paragraph in the "Tomorrow never knows" section) moved to the 2. Songs level, before 2.1 and 2.2. However, that would present the songs in a different order from on the album, so it's not something an outsider can easily fix (I started to, but gave up). It would be better if the contributors re-thought the structure in a more integral way, with some rewriting. Incidentally, "Yellow submarine" and "Doctor Robert" are described as "also" reflecting the growing drug culture of the 1960s, but I can't see anything for the "also" to refer to.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 19:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

support (self nomination) i think this article would be a great candidate seeing as it has been substantially re-worked. i think its ready for featured status. --Larsie 16:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Looking at the edit list, it appears that this is a self-nomination. jguk 19:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support even more. Geogre 17:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object I do not understand why this article was renominated less than 10 hours after it was removed from this list as a failed candidate. The only changes since then are to link in neurotoxicity and to remove the words even and lips. My objections made when this was on the FAC page earlier remain. In summary, this article is not accessible to the layman and contains too much jargon. jguk 09:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i am somewhat curious as to why it was removed as all objections were addressed and fixed. the jargon has been formatted to be understandable if you read carefully (which is how you should read an article anyway). also there were more supports than there were objections. --Larsie 17:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Swastika

Seldom do I find a page that so thoroughly addresses almost all my questions. Nuanced, detailed, richly endowed with images, and many helpful external links integrated into the main article text. Fishal 20:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support - my only concern is that the article may not be appropriate as a 'Today's featured article' because we would then end up with a swastika on the Main Page. Other than that an excellent article--Enceladus 20:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • That concern is not actionable (and you are supporting, after all). I don't think it is a problem to feature it on the main page either. People are intelligent enough to read the accompanying text and to realize that it is not used to support nazism. — David Remahl 21:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As long as we don't use Nazi one, I don't see the problem. The Hindu one looks quite nice, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • In any case they are completely separate issues. Just because an article is a FA does not mean it will get on the main page. They are both called "featured" which is why this is sucha common confusion, but they are separate. The main page articles are picked from among featured articles. - Taxman 23:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • It would not be a problem to use the nazi one either. I guess (perhaps incorrectly) that it is the version that the highest number of people world wide through accumulated through all times have came in contact with. — David Remahl 12:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Covers the ground it needs, and will perhaps help to remove the stigma from an ancient symbol. Denni☯ 20:51, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
• Support: Interesting article, but still causes a shiver. Giano 21:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more than one reference. References are a FA requirement. I could go on about pieces of flair, but I'll save that. :) It appears some of the external links are being used as references, but then those that have actually been used to reference material in the text need to be formatted as on the page I linked to in a section called 'References'. 2.) I really feel the intro needs to explicitly state that the swastika is not just what nearly 100% of English speaking readers will associate it with. But because that is such an overwhelming association, ignoring it seems very odd. Otherwise seems very well written and complete. Nice work. - Taxman 23:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I don't think the Unicode code points deserve to be in the lead section. The lead section needs to mention the use of the symbol by Nazi Germany since that is a very common understanding of the symbol today. Also, "Allegedly, the Nazis believed that ... Aryans ... were the prototypical white invaders." Did they or didn't they? Who alleges this? Does anyone dispute it? References definitely needed here. Gdr 00:48, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
  • I fixed the lead section part. Johnleemk | Talk 05:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: the lead is still inadequate. At the moment it seems to be a repository for trivia; it should be a summary of the most important points of the article. Mark¹ 06:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I moved the Unicode trivia, but the rest of the info is relevant: it describes the symbol, briefly states who it was used by, and tells the source of its name. Fishal 19:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The lead is not the place to tell us that a swastika is an "irregular icosagon"; that tells us something about icosagons, but nothing about a swastika. And the lead still makes no attempt to summarise the article: see Wikipedia:Lead_section#Lead_section. Mark¹ 01:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely, a well done article on a controversial subject. Zerbey 01:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. For the main page, the Aryan pic with the dots rather than the tilted Nazi version should be used. Add a couple of references though. Chameleon 12:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A good NPOV article on a controversial subject - and it is important (and interesting) to know that the symbol is not only a Nazi one. A few more references wouldn't hurt, although there is quite a few in the external link sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Tuf-Kat 21:10, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Andre (talk) 21:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Dbiv 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. The article includes the sentence, "The swastika symbol was found extensively in the ruins of the ancient city of Troy." There was no city called Troy - though often Ilium is the city to which this term refers; more importantly, this city has not yet been discovered. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 02:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you're getting at here. "Troy" and "Ilion"/"Ilium" are different names for the same place. The link you gave redirects to Troy. Proteus (Talk) 19:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. In general, I find the article a bit disorganised, and it reads like a huge collection of "swastika facts" rather than an encyclopedia article. The article should become far more coherent, and remove redundant parts. Some additional, specific objections: 1) The first section and the lead section have a lot of overlap. 2) The article has a lot of "single sentence facts", which bear little relation with the preceding or following paragraphs, and it reads like a list at times. The "Jainism" subsection is an extreme example of this. 3) The "worldwide taboo" section repeats itself a bit, and actually shows the taboo is not worldwide, making the title inappropriate. 4) References should preferably be organised according to the WP:MOS, and I would really like to see more books; even if just as further reading. 5) The article's subdivision is partially chronological, partially geographical, and partially by means of use, and this is not done consistently. For example, the use in religion/mythology results in works of art, and the Indians in North America also used it as a religious symbol. It seems that the geographical approach would work best, using chronological order within these sections. 6) The "origin of the swastika" section gives only one explanation apart from the "no idea" explanation (the reference to the book should (re)appear in the reference sections, by the way) It is not clear whether there are more theories. Jeronimo 20:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection challenged: The categorical structure makes sense, and it makes more sense now that I have moved the section I had added (in the wrong place) about its use in Native American religion. The article talks about its decorative uses, its religious uses, and finally its use in modern times. Fishal 05:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Only one part of my objection is "challenged" here. I'm not saying the categorical structure does not make sense, I'm only saying it isn't applied consistently, and it still isn't. The sections art&architecture and religion&mythology are largely overlapping, since the reason for its use in art is mostly religion (most of the buildings mentioned are temples of some sort). This leads to duplication, and I think duplication is undesirable and, in this case, unnecessary. Furthermore, "modern use" is not a categorical classification, but a chronological one. So again, this is inconsistent. Another minor error I spotted: a synagogue is mentioned under the "Christianity" section. Jeronimo 07:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• nice article, but I have to object until the following (minor?) gripes are satisfied: (a) either merge or expand the 1-sentence "Jainism" section; (b) the entire "Early Indo-European traditions" section reads like neo-pagan internet myths. either remove, or give sources (excavations, manuscripts...). remove the proto-indo-european part altogether (this is complete speculation). Where and in what contexts was a swsatika ever referred to as "Thor's hammer"?? dab 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

House of Lords

-- Emsworth 00:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Should have a picture of the Chamber. Dbiv 11:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Having searched, I was unable to find one that is of the appropriate copyright status; a request has not yielded any results, either. This image may be available (see http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hcio/images.cfm here], but I am not confident, as the page is marked "Parliamentary Copyright." -- Emsworth 20:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object; where are the references? Support. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I think the "external links" (including the 1911 EB(!)) must be references and have amended accordintly). -- ALoan (Talk)
• Support. Excellent writing. Zerbey 17:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support--Enceladus 20:14, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, strongly. Great work. GeneralPatton 20:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral for now: The references are pretty light and antique. Additionally, though, there is a severe telescoping of history. For example, we get "The power of the two Houses grew slowly, but was restrained by the numerous civil wars that plagued the country during the mediæval era." And then we hurry on to the 19th century. If one is going to go into extraordinary detail about every politician that attempted to limit Lords's power in the 19th century, then one ought not brush away 400 years of development at a stroke. If nothing else, it seems to me that the planetary motion of power in Lords in the "medieval" period needs to be summarized more than this. (I.e. with Edward II, the barons usurped the throne. With the War of the Roses, it was a split entirely in true civil war. Because Lords represented people who had claims on the throne (even the Lords Spiritual often did), and since they had their own armies and "impregnable" fortresses, their power's wax and wane had a lot to do with the power of the throne itself, and certainly not a teeter-totter with Commons.) I think either some discussion of that fuzzy spot needs to be introduced or some of the detail of 19th century political crises needs more summary treatment. Also, the practice of selling titles is antique. George III gets blamed, but that, I suspect, is due to the historians and not the facts, for contemporaries blamed James I, Charles I, and George II for the same things.
  Geogre 21:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to address these, especially the reference and history-related objections. -- Emsworth 01:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support with one more cleaning and examination of the references. Great answering of the objection on the history. It is much, much more even-handed now. The references are still a little...odd. Blackstone is, for example, authoritative, but not really an overview source. All the same, with a little cleaning and bolstering of references, just a little, fully support. Geogre 03:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Undecided: For the following reasons:
  1. With reference to selling titles: In the early 20th century so many brewers, and similar types, donated to political party funds and consequently obtained titles, the peerage was referred to by the British Royal Family and aristocracy of Europe as the 'beerage'. Should some mention be made of this quite recent history?
  2. I may be wrong here, but does the European Court in Strasbourg not have the final say over the House of Lords in British judicial matters now ? Giano 21:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The tern "beerage," I think, may not be of too much historical significance, compared to the other issues discussed in the history section. The Court in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights, only hears complaints from the Council of Europe, not British judicial matters.
    • I think it should be made clear in the article that since Britain's entry to the EEC, the House of Lord is no longer the last form of redress, this is now the European Court. Giano 10:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • That's slightly misleading. Individuals can't appeal to the European Court of Justice (though courts may ask it for rulings). And the European Court of Human Rights is not a court of appeal as normally understood. Certainly the relationship between these courts could do with an decent article, but I'm not sure House of Lords is the right place. Gdr 11:55, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
        • There is a separate article on judicial functions of the House of Lords. The HL remains the final court of appeal in the UK, but it may be worth mentioning that, as such, the HL is obliged to make references of "preliminary questions" to the European Court of Justice (the court of the European Union, in Luxembourg) in cases where interpretation of EC law is on point (unlike lower courts, which are merely empowered to refer questions): however, the HL makes the final decision once the ECJ has opined. There is no appeal from the HL to the ECJ. As Gdr says, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg interprets the European Convention on Human Rights and is completely separate (it was created under the aegis of the Council of Europe, not the EC/EEC/EU): you don't appeal from the HL to the ECHR, although you need to have exhausted your UK domestic remedies before your start in Strasbourg. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The sentence "The House of Lords remained more powerful than the House of Commons, but the Lower House did continue to grow in influence, reaching its zenith during the reigns of the Stuart monarchs in the early seventeenth century" seems quite misleading to me. Surely the Commons reached its zenith in the early interregnum (or perhaps now), not in the reign of the Stuarts? Gdr 11:55, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
  • Is this referring to the zenith of the Lords? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Just for whatever it's worth, while the sentence could get a rewrite, I can see that Commons reached its height at the Long Parliament, but, at that point, there was no Parliament, since Lords was gone. Perhaps "zenith in relation to Lords?" Pretty much the next sentence points out that Lords was dismissed by Commons at the outset of the Interregnum. (I.e. during the Interregnum, people don't talk about Commons anymore. They just say "Parliament." Again, just FWIW.) Geogre 16:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Addressed, I hope. -- Emsworth 20:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 01:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palladian architecture

This article is beautiful to look at and a great pleasure to read, I'd love to see it on the Main page. Not a self-nom, far from it, although I did a little superficial copyediting.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 20:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support, though these two images need copyright tags: Woburn Abbey.JPG, Andrea palladio fourth book image.jpg --Enceladus 20:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

  fixed Woburn Abbey was photographed & uploaded by a User, now tagged; and second, a scan of 300 year old print is by virtue of age PD Giano 20:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Extremely good article. Filiocht 08:24, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Have given it a light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Small objections. All fixed, but I need some time to read the whole article again before offering full support. Some dodgy writing. 1.) A few one sentence paragraphs that are not enough of a developed idea to stand alone. Specifically the ones starting "Colen Campbell..." and "This theme..." (What theme) should be either expanded or merged with other paragraphs. 2.) some grand claims could stand to be more factual, such as the part about Duke of Bedford that it was "inevitable that the Palladian style would be chosen". What made it inevitable and is that really a fact? Obvious or observable things are ok to state, but the rest need to be backed up and stated factually. 3.) Where Palladian architecture was influential would be helpful to state in the intro. Is this a European thing, Asian, Austraian, etc. Some idea of that in the intro really helps the unaware reader.- Taxman 00:13, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

  I have made a few minor text changes which I think are relevant to the above comments by Taxman Giano 09:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support, but is it possible to add some external links? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:05, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

  External links now added Giano 13:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support GeneralPatton 17:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's great to see articles on architectural movements get full presentation. No swipe at popular culture intended, but the more often we can balance the young audience with the university audience, the better. Geogre 18:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Thanks for the vote Geogre! I though I had written it in a zany upbeat, loadsa pictures, punky kind of way to appeal to the young; now you say I'm just another a sad old editor. My next effort was going to be Nicholas Hawksmoor's mausoleum, I'll have a rethink on that one. Giano 19:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) (on a zimmer frame)

• Support. James F. (talk) 01:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Auto Train

This is a self-nomination. This article is a collaborative effort of Vaoverland and Slambo. Each of us has been working daily and/or nightly on railroad-related articles. This one should have a broad appeal to include families and younger Wikipedia readers and presents an interesting opportunity to learn more about trains, including several types of locomotives, passenger cars, auto carrier freight cars (called autoracks in trade terminology) and even the old favorite, the caboose. It is also about a new innovative business idea, making profits, growing too much, having bad luck, and bankruptcy and failure. Resurrection of failed private railroad passenger service is what Amtrak is all about, and this is an example. There is also a mention of the debate underway about privatization of such services. All photos are credited and used with permission, and we have enhanced some of the articles with internal link, such as autorack, and are working on the few which still lack an article. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. All aboard? Vaoverland 10:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The photo's that are "courtesy of" somebody must be released under an suitable license, and this must be mentioned on the image pages. In addition, you should Cite your sources by adding references. Jeronimo 12:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "Auto-Train Corporation: an innovative concept" is a poor section title. Not only does it sound like it came from a promotional brochure; it also doesn't describe the contents of the section. --P3d0 15:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
• section title changed to "Auto-Train Corporation: an innovative railroad." Perhaps that is better, but open to any constructive suggestions for improvements. Vaoverland 18:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Skateboarding trick

Seems pretty good, interesting! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Image:Skateboarding.jpg needs a source. I've asked the uploader to provide one. Lupo 07:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure I've come acrros this image while browsing the U.S. Marines photo archive [4], see for an image I extracted from it: Image:Surfing in Hawaii.jpg. I added the U.S. Marine PD tag. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:13, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This is not an an article about skateboarding tricks, it is a list of such tricks. Lists are generally not eligible for FAC status, while this article has no content without the list. The list itself is also quite poor, not explaining the different groups, and referring to non-explained other tricks. Especially the more difficult tricks would need illustrations (maybe even a video). (Minor error: "It is called a 'nollie' for two reasons." is followed by only one reason). In addition, there are no references. Jeronimo 12:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It's a list, and it needs a major copyedit. This article isn't even close to FAC status. It is interesting though I agree :) Zerbey 17:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: it needs a lot of formatting and tidying, but I like it. I should hold off voting, though, to ask: is there a reference for lists not being eligible for FA status? The article does have a Lead section (i. e. displaying it on the Main page wouldn't in itself be a problem).--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 22:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1.) No references 2.) Not comprehensive. Doesn't trace the origin of skateboard tricks or tell anything about their affects, safety, etc. Doesn't cover the various obstacles used to slide or jump on etc. Many additional topics would need to be covered to be comprehensive. 3.) The lists are not great writing. Many are just one sentence, and some are not even proper sentences. I can't see how this would be considered great writing without being written in proper paragraph form. - Taxman 13:33, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Computer mouse

Seems to be a nice complete account--Enceladus 02:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Yes, it seems pretty good. I added some information about coloured mouse buttons that was missing. My 1) objection is about the history section. Douglas Engelbart is credited with inventing the mouse. That seems to be contested by some. Here is an article about a Swedish inventor, Håkan Lans, who claims to have invented the computer mouse. Apparently he lost a legal battle in the United States recently. The Swedish minister for industry and trade at the time, Leif Pagrotsky is quoted in the article as saying "they stole his patent." Wikipedia's article on the subject says that he invented a digitizer, not a mouse, which may be accurate. [5] [6]. My hunch is that this is something that has been exaggerated and simplified by an over-enthusiastic Swedish press, but I think it should be investigated before we feature the article. 2) Very little seems to be supported by references. 3) Doesn't touch on gyroscopic mice [7] — David Remahl 07:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Image:Firstmouseunderside.jpg lacks a source. I've asked the uploader to provide one. Lupo 07:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• As per Chmod007's objections. Additionally, I don't think it's very well organized. Andre (talk) 00:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Looks nice, but a lot of the technical side is missing. A nice trivia bit would be that the BIOS communicates mouse movements in discrete units called mickeys (no kidding). JFW | T@lk 17:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox

I just fixed up the writing for this a little, and I now think it would be a good featured article. It would be nice if we could feature it on the main page sometime soon, also. Andre (talk) 21:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. For NPOVs sake it should mention that Firefox too has been found to have some serious security bugs (albeit in beta). (added some myself) Also Microsoft's thoughts on the browser should be reflected (I don't think they've commented a lot on it, but the Australian manager said something to the effect that they did not consider it a threat to IE shortly after its release). The SeaMonkey codename is used unnecessarily in a few places. Possibly its relation to the Camino project should be expanded slightly (right now it says only that Camino is not XUL based. Camino developers feel that XUL doesn't allow them to give the proper look-and-feel for the Mac platform.) Quite a few people have referred to Firefox (in a positive sense) as a "Trojan horse" of Open Source. This point of view should be mentioned. — David Remahl 22:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The article does not go into detail on any of the features of Firefox. Compare to the featured article on Emacs, which has lots of detail on the interface, customization, internals, etc., all of which this article seems to be lacking. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote to Support in light of the recent changes to the article. I think the "Delicious delicacies" section is still too prominent, but whatever. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:35, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Support Currently a large chunk of the article is taken up with the version table and market adoption. Very little is on the subject of features etc. --enceladus 01:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've tried addressing these concerns. How's it doing? Andre (talk) 02:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • As stated above, the Emacs article is a good example of a software article. At the moment the features is just a list. Maybe some product comparisons with Opera and IE.--Enceladus 02:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Also include what Mozilla App Suite features have been dropped / offloaded to extensions. — David Remahl 02:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object. The features section needs some serious expansion first. It's getting there, though. Zerbey 16:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't really expand the features section to the degree that Emacs has - Emacs is a far more complex program than Firefox. Andre (talk) 22:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • As someone who was intimately involved in Mozillazine until recently, I've drastically expanded the features. There are a few holes, notably in the references (and the lack of a proper mention of Mozillazine), so I cannot support this article yet, but it's definitely getting there. I've also added a few caveats in Firefox's features — a quick run through Bugzilla should yield several more notable ones we can include. Johnleemk | Talk 12:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Decent article, the table's great, but 1) Not quite NPOV. I know that Firefox is the bees knees, but the article seems a little too sympathetic. Surely the browser must have weaknesses and critics? Aren't there any Opera / Konqueror fans who can find fault? For example, IE gets hammered in the lead section; M$'s response appears tucked away at the end of the article; the "Features" section seems to be a list followed by a paragraph of how Firefox is better than other browsers. 2) More screenshots would be useful 3) "it has been referred to as a gateway drug or a Trojan horse for the adoption of open source software. — OK, by who? And is it a common enough assessment to warrant placing in the first paragraph? — Matt 11:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I appear to have found at least one reference to Firefox being a 'gateway drug' of open source software: http://www.nyunews.com/opinion/columnists/8348.html, the student newspaper of New York University. Personally I don't think it should be included in the lead section but maybe it should be rewritten to something like "Mozilla Firefox is often a computer users first experience with open source software"--Enceladus 20:36, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Not to nag, but, is this article far along enough yet for all you objectors? Andre (talk) 19:16, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The noteworthy issues section needs NPOVing and possible renaming. Norman Rogers 22:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • What's POV about it, and what's wrong with the name? Andre (talk) 05:08, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I must concur with Andre; what's wrong with it? Does it provide too brief a view of Firefox's weaknesses, or is it too anti-Firefox-ish for your tastes? As a Firefox fan, I can say that more than few of those things mentioned do piss me off, and I can assure you that people do frequently complain about them on the Mozillazine forums. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I now find said section NPOV enough to support. Norman Rogers 01:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Give an objective overview of Firefox, e.g. history, known issues, etc minghong ( talk) 07:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support Best Browser and also a very good article. --ThomasK 11:37, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Support This article has really improved over the last few days. I certainly think it is a good article, and is quite NPOV to me, why over-report on Firefox vulnerabilities? If there aren't many, no need to dedicate huge portions of the article to it. Khlo 22:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs work on structure; some information is presented in seemingly arbitrary order. That's the only real problem I can think of, though. Fredrik | talk 23:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Several people (as far as I can tell) have been working on modifying the structure. I think it's better now. Might need some polishing ..? Merged it with Delicious Delicacies, too. :-) Don't know if it was the right decision or not, but it was a decision, anyway.
  • My objection has been addressed. Support. Fredrik | talk 19:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support This article is quantitative and neutral as well as an excellent introduction to the software. LadyAphelion| 1:54, 22 Nov 2004 (EST)
• Object It's riddled with advocacy. If the article were moved to, say, Why Firefox is a much better browser than Internet Explorer then I'd support it for featured staus. It needs some careful attention to tone, to balance, and to selection of things to include/exclude. Tannin 07:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Added later) Much improved now, but still not an article of any particular quality. Competent, detailed, but not outstanding. Tannin 11:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Thorough, neutral, and much improved. αγδεε(τ) 10:40, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
• Support. It's a nice article, and Wikipedia should be proud to spread information about high-quality alternatives to dominant commercial products. --VerdLanco 18:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Has improved substantially in the past couple of days. CheekyMonkey 20:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incest

Well written, interesting, covers all ascpects (social, religious, legal, biological) of the topic. -- Kpalion 18:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object, 1) no references. 2) lacks image(s) (though not a strict requirement for FAC:s IIRC). — David Remahl 21:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: I think that the article could be merged with Incest taboo as much of the Incest article seems to be about prohibition of Incest and the Incest Taboo is about why we prohibit incest. And there is also no pictures but that may not be appropriate for this article.--enceladus 21:39, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

OK Soda

Self-nom. I finally got around to addressing the last of the issues brought up in the last nomination here. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:32, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Support. Can you expand the lead section a little, though? You haven't addressed all of them, 1) I want to see more about why the drink failed, 2) Cult following... can't have been very big if there was only 2 sentances worth :) Can you research this? 3) No references. Zerbey 17:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Well... It's very difficult to say decisively why a product failed. I think that in the absence of a professional opinion, any detailed speculation on the matter would be unavoidably POV. However, the article does contain the line "Most soda drinkers found the taste unappealing and the soda did not test well", which is a pretty bold statement as it is, and covers the drink failing from a taste perspective. What kind of references do you think we could include? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:12, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

  OK, i got bored again and after doing some in-book searching on amazon, there actually turned out to be some decent references there, so I was able to add some concrete numbers about the failure and add some books that reference the soda directly. What do you think? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:10, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

  An improvement but see my other concerns. Zerbey 17:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• What is meant by "OK Soda never captured more than 3% in any of the target locations"? Three percent of what? Overall I think the structure has improved and I like the effort to address the directions of inquiry I noted last time. I agree with Zerbey though that the existence of a cult following could stand a little more discussion. For example, what was the following focused on - the soda's taste, the manifesto, the art on the cans? --Michael Snow 05:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  I reworded that line. I'm not sure if you can really identify why a particular phenomenon gathers a cult following, but judging from the content of the fan sites that are left, it's all of the above; I've tried to incorporate some of that as well. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

  I appreciate the problem - the additional changes work for me. --Michael Snow 17:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Image:OK Soda - can.jpg lacks a source. I've asked the uploader to provide one. Lupo 08:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  The image is fair use, as it is related to a discussion/criticism of the can art itself. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

  I wasn't disputing the license. I was asking for a source. Could you please provide one? Lupo 15:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Gotcha, I've included the source on the image page. Thanks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:02, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Seems incomplete without some sales numbers and marketing budget numbers. Were 2 cans sold or 1 million? A $100,000 budget or millions? It says never got more than 3% of the market in test locations, but we have no idea how big that is. Also the word "test" is used several times as jargon that may not be entirely clear to someone not familiar with marketing. What exactly defines not "testing well"? A quick explanation of test marketing could help that. What tests were used, simple retail sales in test locations or taste testing or what? - Taxman 00:24, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

  A good idea, definitely. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a source for this sales or budget information anywhere. I will try to reword the "test" phrases wherever possible; I am of course referring to market share in "test" markets, not taste-tests like the "pepsi challenge", or anything. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Max Weber

Partial self-nom. I have worked on Weber's article since I arrived on Wiki this April, incorporated advice from 2 peer review rounds and I think that it is ready for a nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Two of the three suggestions I made on peer review have not been resolved: multiple one and two sentence paragraphs throughout, and the use of the term economy is confusing. It is used and linked to (through the word economist) in the intro and linked to later. This page is a disambiguation. What sense of the word is being used here? There is no field that is currently referred to only as economy. At least not in any usage I am aware of. - Taxman 19:52, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Fixed economy (to economics). As far as remaining 1/2 sentence paragrahs, I did what I could, feel free to work on the few that are left, but personally I really don't find anything bad with them. Note that recent FA Linus Pauling has several of such short paragraphs as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Besides the fact that it violates basic guidelines of good prose style in an obvious way, it also often highlights ideas that need expanding in order to be useful. For ex: "Weber analysed the interaction between the Bedouins, the cities, the herdsmen and the peasants. The conflicts between them and the rise and fall of United Monarchy." Is not a complete idea. What did he find?, etc. I fixed as many as I could, but the discussion of the stratification issue in the economics section is not well structured as a whole. I think it would be better served by a well written paragraph, than two sentences split by a list. The rest of the one or two sentence paragraphs just need expanding. - Taxman 23:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

• A very promising article on an extremely important subject. The author has done great work, but I can't support yet, as there are big formatting and style issues. I agree with Taxman about expansion, noticing at the same time that the article is at this moment 33 kb, one kb over the recommended article maximum. I have copyedited and formatted a ways down, especially the captions, and will be back for more, but am not knowledgeable enough to do any expansion or informed critique. Piotrus, one detail: I assume you know which child is Max in the photo, since you uploaded it yourself, please put that info into the caption. (From the text, I can only tell he's not the youngest.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 21:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC).

The picture is from the gallery (external links in the article, assumed public domain) - since they don't tell which one was Max, I have no idea as well :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Having gone through another few sections to copyedit, I have to say, unfortunately, that the choice of words to wikilink is very lacking in reader usefulness. I hesitate to mess with it myself, but it needs a bigtime overhaul by someone who a) knows about Weber and b) has read some policy pages about the principles of linking.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 23:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on problems with wikilinks? I would try to fix them if I knew what was wrong, exactly. I did add majority of them myself and I tried to make them relevant to his work in sociology. Tnx for input and help, everybody. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've put a wikilink discussion with examples on Talk:Max Weber.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 15:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Wow. I just read the article for the first time after the rewrite. Support. 172 07:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly Support: This is a fascinating and very interesting article about one of Germany's Greats. Probably one of the most comprehensive studies on the internet. Superbly illustrated and a complete credit to Piotrus Giano 10:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much tnx, but I cannot take all the credit. Many other people helped and are helping with this project (after all, this is Wiki) - just look at the history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support with contingency: A quick dusting for verb tenses is necessary. There are unsettling shifts from past to present that need to be made consistent. Excellent work, and one of the really difficult jobs (like the Restoration comedy) of doing the impossible: being concise on a subject so monumental and gnarled as to escape most. Writing about figures such as Max Weber in an online encyclopedia is like trying to shove the horizon into a pint glass. Congratulations to the principal editors for saving it from the dual dangers of partisan cheerleaders and academic fussiness. Geogre 17:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Sorry I can't undertake to remove your contingency, Geogre, the reaction to my initial dusting and comments has been a bit disappointing. I don't want to trip up the article by objections, but can only vote neutral at this point.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen ( talk)]] 20:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Could use a bit more work before being on the main page.GeneralPatton 17:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Erich von Manstein

Partial self-nomination, von Manstein is one of the most important military leaders of World War II and of the 20th century. GeneralPatton 05:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object.Concur. As a military buff (and you know I am because you've seen the articles I edit), I realize von Manstein's importance...but he is not going to mean much to most Wikipedians. -Joseph (Talk) 06:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
  • ...so...? What's your objection? →Raul654 22:10, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, that's not the point with features articles, the point is that they represent the best work of wiki, regardless of how many people know about their subject. For instance, look at the Japanesei toilet article, obscure topic, but a good entry. It is about quality not popularity. Also, this reasoning is against wiki policy, for it states that "All objections must give a specfic rationale that can be addressed", as is not the case here. GeneralPatton 07:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Quibble: Is there really only one reference? Much better! Thank you! Zerbey 02:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Reference section has been expanded, citing the best books available. GeneralPatton 04:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Have those references actually been used to expand and/or fact check the material currently in the article? If not, it is intellectually dishonest to list them as references. - Taxman 14:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • That I’ve used them, then the answer is yes, I could have listed more than a dozen other works that are not as helpful. Also, I believe the reference section should make it easier for someone who's interested to find out more on the subject matter. GeneralPatton 16:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Excellent. If you actually used these others then I think they would make a good addition. While making it easier to find more about the subject is noble, I don't feel it should override the importance of citing all sources used in the article, or of using and citing those you have available. - Taxman 21:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Support--enceladus 03:37, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Object Support. (1) "was a General, and later a Field Marshal" is a strange way to put it (he was also an ensign, a lieutenant, a captain etc). Perhaps "was a military officer", or plain "was a Field Marshal" would do. (2) The lead section should say a bit more about him: he's famous for more than just arguing with Hitler. (3) Wikipedia has many article on the two world wars. Please link to them when appropriate. For example, you write that he fought in the "attack on Verdun", but wouldn't it be better to link to our article on the battle of Verdun? There are other missing links, notably Third Battle of Kharkov. (4) The big pictures are rather overwhelming: perhaps 300px would be better. (5) "This was considered his first mark of genius" Considered by whom? (6) References should follow the format recommended at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Gdr 14:07, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
  • 1 and 2 have been fixed so far, im working on others. Thanks for your imput. GeneralPatton 15:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've now linked both the Battles of Verdun and Kharkov as well as some other articles. Working on the References. I ought to stress that your link is the "proposed" not the "accepted" citation style guide, thus I don’t think the articles are obliged to follow that exact style. GeneralPatton 15:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Removed 5 as its redundant, the text speaks for itself. GeneralPatton 15:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • And the photos really don't look this good when they're smaller, a lot of fine detail is lost, particularly because of their horizontal format. And they're really not a major bandwidth burden, since together they're around 120kb. GeneralPatton 15:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning toward object, but I am open to being shown I am incorrect. Seems a bit whitewashed. He was convicted of war crimes, but the intro fails to mention this seemingly very important fact. He was also a member of the Nazi party was he not? I know we have to be careful about guilt by association, but not mentioning it at all also seems POV. Otherwise looks good, well written and researched. - Taxman 21:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • He was never a member of the Nazi party, that's one of the reasons why he had no trouble in the West Germany, unlike some other of the Reich’s Field Marshals. For the first few years of the formation of Bundeswehr, he was seen as the unofficial chef of staff, and even later his birthday parties were regularly attended by official delegations of Bundeswehr and NATO bigwigs, such as Hans Speidel who was NATO SACEUR; The Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 1957 to 1963 and Adolf Heusinger who was NATO CMC; The Chairman of the Military Committee from 1961-1964. This wasn't the case with the party card carrying pro-nazi Feld Marshals such as Milch, Schörner, von Küchler, List... who were disregarded and forgotten after the war. GeneralPatton 02:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The intro now mentions the trial. GeneralPatton 14:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The above needs a mention in the article. Gdr 10:59, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
      • Intro now also mentions his trial and advisory career for the new German government. Lupo 08:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Neutral. Article has improved considerably, but I think the points not yet struck out below are still areas of improvement. This article is a good start, but still needs lots of work. I'm worried about the neutrality, and the language needs may need work. Already in the intro: "mastermind behind the ingenious plan for the German invasion of France"—"ingenious" is a judgemental term that should go. "Eventually even Hitler had enough of him"—can't we formulate that better? (Changed it myself.) Manstein increasingly had serious differences with Hitler over questions of strategy, and tried repeatedly to lobby for the institution of an "Oberbefehlshaber Ost" that would have planned the overall strategy. This brought him in direct rivalry with Hitler. (Incidentally, I cannot find any can find only a minor mention of his ideas on strategy except Fall Gelb in the article.) "Operation Northern Lights": "...where Manstein's inferior forces managed to outmaneuver superior Soviet forces..." without any mention of the fact that the goal of this operation was to take Leningrad by cutting it off from its supplies and that this operation did not succeed is too heavily biased for my taste. The WWII section is too much of a list of battles. It lacks coverage of Manstein's strategic ideas, his political views. In his autobiography, his thesis is basically that if the Generals had been in charge of strategy, the war on the eastern front could have been won. That needs mentioning, (Is mentioned now) together with some renowned historians' views of that credo. (BTW, Manstein expressed this opinion already already during the war, cf. "Oberbefehlshaber Ost" above.) His refusal to become involved in complotts within the Wehrmacht to dismiss Hitler ("Preussische Feldmarschälle meutern nicht.") deserves more coverage, too. In general, I think before this article can be featured, the critical biography at [8] needs to be taken into account: facts reported there need to be checked for accuracy and incorporated into the article. (Mostly done.) BTW, I added this link to the article, and it was removed pronto on the grounds that it was in German. (It's back there...) Lupo 16:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, and another point: the images used in the article do not have sources. Lupo 16:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Most images still don't have sources. Even WWII images need sources. Lupo 09:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • You seem to forget to mention that I’ve also removed the link to the Achtung Panzer bio, that was highly positive in its portrayal of von Manstein. The form of this biography is pretty much to report the facts, leaving excessive criticism and or excessive praise out of it and letting the reader judge for himself. And about "ingenious", so according to you the invasion of France was not a success? And it's not my insertion, its something B. H. Liddell Hart wrote. GeneralPatton 17:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • A criticism by a valid source is an important part of th article. If you cite it properly and you are relatively balanced about the criticisms then it is not POV. What is POV is to leave out valid, important, information. You can attack Lupo for conspiracy[9], but the facts that he raises need to be discussed in the article. - Taxman 17:45, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • Err, I'm not attacking Lupo for conspiracy. I’m just saying he's making this look like I'm David Irving, which is ironic since last week when I nominated my Irving article, I was accused of being anti-Irving biased and ADL’s lapdog. So I guess I must be doing something right. Also, That article by Michael Schröders doesn’t reveal anything shocking or new, and is pretty much about how von Manstein’s memoirs and trial defense were self-serving and skewed in his favor, but that’s how all memoirs and defense strategies tend to be. GeneralPatton 19:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Answer on my talk page. Lupo 19:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The article also doesn't trump down on "Operation Northern Lights" just as it doesn't trump up on the Crimean Campaign. It's an effort to make a balanced, fact based military biography, without either taking sides or being too judgmental. GeneralPatton 17:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not a question of "trumping up/down" something. It's a question of giving the reader some background. And I do think that by including some of the facts mentioned in Schröders' article we can arrive at a much more differentiated portrayal of the man. It is rather one-dimensional right now. Schröders' article certainly isn't shocking—but why should it be? That's completely besides the point. It's a scholarly article, with lots of properly referenced citations. The point is that Schröders shows another side of von Manstein, which is currently completely lacking from the article. Lupo 20:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • And that is? Where exactly have I failed? Give me a concrete list of problems, point by point, and I'll work on it. GeneralPatton 20:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm trying to give constructive criticism on that article. I have given some concrete points in my original rationale for my objection, and I have explained what I think would need to be included. That, however, needs research. Maybe a round of peer review might help? Finally I'd like to point out the Forum on Erich von Manstein, a scholarly discussion forum of historians with lots of additional information (unfortunately in German again) and pointers to additional sources, hosted by the "News Service for Historians". Lupo 14:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • More comments and questions on the article's talk page. Lupo 08:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object There is almost no info on year 1939 and his participation in the Polish September Campaign. This should be expanded before this is a complete article worthy of being featured. In what battles did he participate before and after Siege of Warsaw (1939) (and why doesn't this article mention him at all ATM)? What units where encircled and destroyed afterwards?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • He was Gerd von Rundstedt’s chief of staff, that means a headquarters job, not a frontline job. I’ll expand it within 24 hours. GeneralPatton 07:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It's been expanded now, do you want more? GeneralPatton 14:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain Better. Just stress what you wrote here (it is not easy to understand it from the article), and perhaps you could elaborate on how well did his plan work? After this is done I will likely support this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Expanded on that stuff. GeneralPatton 06:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Support now. Good job. In the mean time, take a look at the battlebox at Polish September Campaign and list of battles in it, you may want to ilink some of them relevant to the plans and battles mentioned in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Presuppositional apologetics

This was nominated two months ago by me -- it was eventually voluntarily removed from FAC so that I and the article's principal author could work on more clearly defining apologetics, more fairly presenting the criticisms of this particular approach, and fixing some issues people had with unfamiliar vocabulary. I believe we've addressed this, so this is a self-nomination. The reading level is still reasonably high, but I think acceptably so. The only potential objection I am anticipating is the lack of a picture, but I can't envision a picture that would add to the article (except perhaps of a theologian who helped develop it, but we haven't found one yet). Jwrosenzweig 02:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. 1.) Those resources that were actually used as references for additional material or to fact check material in the article need to be explicitly listed as such and not lumped in with those that were not. The references section is the accepted way to do that. 2.) Only two schools of PA are discussed, even though the article specifically states there are others. What about them? Are they so insignificant that they warrant nothing more than saying they exist? If so, that is a POV that needs to be cited to a source. - Taxman 19:28, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've left a note for the article's principal author on the article's talk page, since I was not involved in the creation of the article -- I don't know which books were used as references, and I don't know if there really are more versions of PA, as the article asserts (or how influential they are). If, as I have a hunch is correct, the article was written with the benefit of having read all of the books mentioned (although they were not cited specifically in the text), should they all be "references"? I'm unclear on that point. The second one, I'll get to work addressing. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • P.S. I've looked into it a little more. The article stated "There are at least two systems of apologetics..." known as presuppositional -- looked awfully weak to me. I can find no evidence of a third branch of PA. I imagine the words "at least" were inserted because any theologian could alter a few fine points of a school of thought and claim it as "presuppositional" but his/her particular variety of it. I decided they looked like weasel words and took them out -- until we see any evidence of a third school of thought, I don't think it's worth implying that one exists. Perhaps this addresses your second point, Taxman? If you think I went about it wrong, tell me -- I can do more in-depth searching if you suspect I was wrong to remove the wording, and that other schools of PA exist. Jwrosenzweig
      • If all the major references in the field say that those two are the two major schools of the subject, then that is fine. Then cite one of them to a statement such as "The two major schools of PA are .... (Doe 1976)". But yes, I think it needs a good search to see if there are other important shools unless you can find that something akin to the above example is well accepted in the field. Otherwise it is POV to fail to cover a notable branch of a subject. - Taxman 13:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
        • I still haven't found said citation, but I hope to soon. I have, however, added a reference section for some recent additions of mine -- I know it doesn't cover the entire article, but perhaps it partially resolves the objection, at least? I'm curious to hear your response. Jwrosenzweig 22:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • That's pretty good for me. So all the sources you've seen, no other ones mention any other major schools of PA? What makes you say those are the major schools when Bahnsen and Frame also contributed? The answer to that will probably answer my above question. By the way the new history section telling us when this school of thought came out is an excellent addition. Great work. Is saying in the intro it is a 20th century school of thought problematic to you? I think that is helpful to tell the reader straight away what era the school of thought is in/from. As for my point 1 above, at least put the sources you have used personally in properly cited form in a 'References' section, websites can be included. - Taxman 00:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
            • So far, every mention of PA either talks about it as though it had no origin (people have so little consideration for us wiki researchers), or else it traces PA to either Clark or Van Til (and most mentions of Clark note that Van Til predates him). Nothing says it quite explicitly enough, though, for me to quote a site as defining those two schools as the only two. I would call them the two major schools, as Bahnsen, Frame, and Robbins (though differing in minor points from their teachers) essentially present themselves and their perspectives as being unified with that of their teacher. Their intense focus on defending the ideas of their predecessor indicates (in my opinion) that Van Til and Clark provide the dominant two views of presuppositional apologetics. I'm fine with the mention in the intro, and will add it in my next pass. And a references section will be duly added. :-) Jwrosenzweig 02:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • Taxman, I've added the references I consulted and altered the intro. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mild objections: First, I find plenty of evidence of three types of apologetics. My F. A. Cross ed. of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that apologetics has traditionally fallen to three endeavors, "(1) to show that it is more reasonable to have a religion than not; (2) to show that christianity can give a more rational account of itself than any other religion; (3) to show that it is more reasonable to profess orthodox Christianity than any other form." However, my objections are two fold. One is easy to fix, the other not. i) The reference to Fideism in a dismissive tone, as if it were a childish gesture, was wrong. Fideism is not an intellectually or philosophically empty concept, and it's arguable, in fact, that existentialist Christian apologetics, which is no slouch in the brains department, is ultimately fideism with its emphasis on mysticism. ii) The harder subject is the general notability of this type of apologetics. The article says at the outset that this is a Protestant development, but it's clear in the article that it can only be a Protestant one, and, at that, a fundamentalist one. How prevalent is this type of endeavor? How much is it running the field now? How stiff is the opposition? I would imagine that the old churches would be a bit out of the loop with this, as it is a pretty hostile type of apologetic (and arguably not apologetic at all, since it works from within a closed system and demands that all listeners do the same). I can't really see a severe minority development (which I gather is recent) in apologetics as a Featured Article if it doesn't at least allow breathing room for the rest of the churches. Geogre 03:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • George, we're talking about specific forms of this specific type of apologetics, not types of apologetics in general. - Taxman 13:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with Taxman on the initial point. On Fideism, Geogre, I'll definitely look at it and see what I can do -- it shouldn't be referred to dismissively. The final objection, however, doesn't seem actionable to me -- unless I misunderstand you, your objection is that this field of apologetics appeals to only certain denominations. I have no control over which denominations accept or reject this practice. I don't know what you mean by "old churches" -- I'm confused, in fact, by the entire objection....perhaps it's your objection to this kind of apologetics, but I don't see it as an objection to this as an FA. I'm not arguing it should be featured based on what it's about -- I can't envision this article ever making the Main Page. But it's my opinion that it's essentially done and well written, and I thought that was fundamentally what an FA was supposed to be. Jwrosenzweig 14:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • P.S. I removed the Fideism comment -- I couldn't see a way to include the comment in that context without either leaving it somewhat dismissive or else going to lengths to explain a more complex definition of Fideism. As the mention was an aside intended to further illustrate a point already made, I decided to cut it. Hopefully that resolves your objection? Jwrosenzweig
        • It may solve one objection, it gives rise to another. To those who know about both fideism and presuppositionalism, the two seem to be very similar if not identical. Fideism is, at least to me, the honest answer given by a believer who understands that arguments for the existence of God are all flawed. Presuppositionalism seems to be a system built on a fideist base. At least, this is what Reymond's New Systematic Theology seems to claim. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Hmmm, well, if Fideism needs to be reintegrated as you suggest (thanks for the note, btw), it certainly needs to appear in a different context than it did initially (the context Geogre objected to). Once again, I'll go back to the drawing board and see what I can come up with. Ihcoyc, if you can include the comment from Reymond on PA's talk page (or else add it to the article) I'd really appreciate that -- don't own a copy myself, but it would be great to add the perspective to the article. Jwrosenzweig 00:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll try to be more precise. Presuppositional apologetics is a narrow field. That's fine, and certainly no reason to object. However, I feel like it is not presented in the general context sufficiently. The old churches are the various Orthodox Christian churches and the Anglican churches -- i.e. those prior to Luther. In fact, however, it would appear that this field is even more specialized, requiring a Zwinglian or Calvinist background. My objection is that some placement of this development is necessary, rather than merely desirable. When did it arise (I gather that it's new)? Does it have active opposition? Is it widespread now and dominant among Protestant apologetics, or is it merely a hardline expression of the fundamentalist movement? At the very, very outset a mild statement appears indicating that this is predominantly Protestant, but I get the impression that it is much more than that. Without a location in the general field, especially in terms of novelty and support, I remain a reluctant objector. I do think it's a well written article. Indeed, I would have thought it unnecessary to define Apologetics, but I think that any movement needs to be located in the general context. A few sentences would be all that is necessary. I appreciate letting up on the poor Fideists. It looked like they were being a punchline in that sentence, and I know the authors know more than to have meant it that way. Geogre 18:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me give you an example. From the "Varieties of" subhead: "There are two systems of apologetics that commonly are called presuppositional. The first -- and by far the most widely followed -- was developed by <the X church or at least X nation> Cornelius Van Til <when?> and his students, especially <denomination theologian> John Frame and <ibid> Greg Bahnsen." That would give the reader a sense of when this school emerged. Later on, an "Opposition to" or "Doubts about" or "Place in general apologetics" subhead would give the reader an idea of whether or not this type of apologetics is triumphant, emregent, or persistent. Geogre 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • Ah, sorry I misunderstood! Makes perfect sense -- I'll fall to work right away. Jwrosenzweig 22:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Geogre, I've written a section called "History of presuppositional apologetics" (shifting some text up in the article and adding quite a bit more) to help place the movement in time and to suggest its general area of influence. Please tell me how it looks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Full support: Excellent! This gives me a good way of locating this development and an idea of how well it has thrived. A naive reader looking at the article will realize that this is not fringe but will also recognize that it is located in the Calvinist tradition. I'm delighted to give support to an excellent theological article. Geogre 03:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

French language

A solid, complete example of the language template. +sj+ 06:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Needs a picture. -Litefantastic 15:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • map of Francophone countries? Eiffel Tower? Frenchman in stripey shirt with onions round neck? (maybe not the last) Dunc|☺ 17:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe King Francis I of France; he made Parisian French the official language, and in his picture he's wearing sort of a beret thingy. Smerdis of Tlön 02:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • gonna have to go for map of francophone countries --Larsie 23:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, feature articles on need pictures if one is suitable.--ZayZayEM 02:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Picture would be nice, but not necessary. Chameleon 11:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: "Contrary to a misunderstanding common in the American and British media, France does not prohibit the use of foreign words in Web pages or any other private publication, which would anyway contradict constitutional guarantees on freedom of speech." — could a source be found for this? I wasn't aware that this was a common misunderstanding in at least the British media. — Matt 19:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flag of the Republic of China

Good article. Very informative. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:01, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

• References, please. Jeronimo 07:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • addressed. --Jiang 20:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I feel that the prose in this article is not up to snuff. The lead section, particularly, is not terribly clear. The material is interesting, but I don't think this quite meets the criteria of "brilliant prose" quite yet. --Eudyptes 23:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • has been addressed --Jiang 16:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (I've just tweaked the text a little.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • you sure? i don't see an edit by you. --Jiang 03:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Damn - must not have saved. Done again. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Thank you for the changes. I withdraw my objection and am now a neutral (I have a slight uneasiness which stops me from becoming a support, but I don't think I can specify it, so will withdraw my objection and let others decide if it is FA standard or not). jguk 00:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)Object As Eudyptes says, the lead section is not clear: I think it can only be understood by someone having some familiarity with the history or current political situation of Taiwan. The last clause of the lead section is particularly vague: don't tell me to remember something I don't (necessarily) know. In fact, looking at the article as a whole, it assumes knowledge of Taiwan/ROC/Kuomintang/History of China throughout. It also uses jargon without explanation: eg under 'History', the jargon word 'canton' is used without explanation. The article should be able to stand alone (albeit with cross-references). Some of the longer sentences could also do with shortening. The first sentence of the second paragraph under 'History' is particularly convoluted. Finally, the last sentence of the article seems to have been added as an afterthought: it is not integrated into the text.jguk
  • I really don't see how any of this can be made much clearer without reproducing the whole mess already present in the linked articles. We've linked both political status of Taiwan and Flag terminology (for canton) in the article. Explaining the whole damned and complex situation would take up the whole article and cannot be done. This is the beauty of wikipedia. Confused readers should be sent to the links so I don't see your point. I suppose a few minor clarifications can be made, though. I expect "canton" to be in the vocabulary of an educated reader. If we used "upper corner of the flag", it would look dumbed down, in my opinion and more fit for the Simple English wikipedia. Do you mean the last sentence or the last clause being vague? I've dealt with the 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph in history and expanded on the last sentence. --Jiang 08:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've rewrote the lead and put parenthesis after canton. Any other jargon? --Jiang 08:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm afraid. I don't think the article makes sense without a brief description of ROC being (or not quite being) Taiwan as part of the lead section. Kuomintang? Pan-blue and pan-green? Three bits of unintelligible jargon in the lead section? (I shouldn't have to two different article to understand one sentence in the lead section.) Indeed, the whole lead section implies a knowledge of the Taiwan/PRC situation that is beyond me (and I thought I was reasonably knowledgeable about international politics). The last bit of the lead section (beginning with "if one remembers") even makes clear that you have to have background knowledge in order to be able to understand the article! I'm sorry, but this is NOT a standalone article. It does not yet explain its jargon, and I still strongly oppose it becoming a featured article in its current form. I hope, however, that it can be re-edited succinctly so that I may change my vote at a later date. jguk 22:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I made a couple minor changes. I understand how "pan-blue" and "pan-green" can be unfamiliar and have removed it from the lead, but the fact that the Kuomintang was/is some political organization should be basic knowledge, just like I shouldn't expect you to be confused if I mention the Communist Party of China or the British Liberal Party. It was a major player in world history and is given sufficient coverage even in the very poor American high school curriculum (10th and 11th Grades). Will calling it "Nationalist Party of China" be more self-explanitory? History books usually use "Kuomintang." The "remembering" part (I've changed it) isn't the best phrasing but refers to the text earlier in the lead which descibes the flag as being used in mainland China and the mention of immediatly after- "a Republic that only acquired Taiwan in 1945 and moved its government there in 1949" -is meant to explain the "ROC being (or not quite being) Taiwan". I urge you to rewrite it so you (and people with similar background) can understand it because I find it difficult to tell how obvious this has to be to make it understandable. From the lead we can deduce 1) the flag is used in Taiwan and represents the ROC 2) the PRC regards the ROC as a defunct entity and thus opposes any symbols of a defunct entity and 3) there are pro-unification and pro-independence groups in Taiwan who dont agree on the issue because the flag was not designed in Taiwan and first flew there only in 1945. This is the conflict in a nutshell...what knowledge needs to be implied? Please provide quotations to make clarifying easier. --Jiang 00:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've edited to clarify that the KMT are the Nationalist Party of China. The lead looks pretty clear to me now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I know very little about Taiwan and China (err... they don't like each other) - but the lead section was informative enough for me. Pan blue and pan green being the only confusing terms, but explained by wikilinks--ZayZayEM 14:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support (I worked considerably on the article). I've made an attempt to address the objections. Anything left? --Jiang 16:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good work :) Zerbey 18:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support now, but two remarks: 1) I would still like to see an offline reference (or when not used, see also). 2) What are the exact colours used (many countries have this specified in a law)? Or are the colours just "red and blue"? Jeronimo 18:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • the flag law itself doesn't really go into much detail beyond red and blue. --Jiang
• Support. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 20:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Neil Young

No, he's not as important as Elvis or Dylan, but I think its a pretty comprehensive article. Self nomination -- I wrote nearly all of this, modulo some copy editing. --- GWO 16:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Lots of blank links though.--Crestville 18:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good stuff, but the one and two sentence paragraphs need to be fixed. The lead section could stand to be expanded. The discographies would also look better in a separate list article that is linked in this one. Are all of his albums so notable that they deserve their own entries? They could stand to be unlinked until someone chose to write an article about them in any case. - Taxman 00:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • The entire 'Other achievements' section needs to be turned into prose. - Taxman 13:48, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. It has always been prose. Terse prose, perhaps. But it is prose. -- GWO 16:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Well prose didn't have the precise definition I was thinking, but in general, more of a cohesive paragraph like it is currently than the broken up list that it was. It could still use some improvements in flow now, but I won't object over that. - Taxman 01:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
        • I've expanded them a little, and ironed some of that terseness out. -- GWO 15:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but tepidly. The redlinks are no big deal. The linking of redneck bugs me more, especially since "Sweet Home, Alabama" is not, likely, a response to "Southern Man," but to (big surprise) "Alabama," from "Harvest," with which it actually shares chords (i.e. Lynyrd Skynyrd was not only taunting him lyrically, but saying, "This is how you play guitar"). At any rate, there is still a bit of immaturity to the article, still too much of a narrow POV (e.g. the lead jumps into the types of songs he's known for, but it's probably better to say, "Neil Young is a rock and folk musician regarded as one of the most important figures of the 1960's through 1990's" -- something a bit more global than getting to what songs he's loved for). Nitzche is a controversial figure in his own right. He got to be so much The Man that he began shoving his approach down a lot of throats, and it's arguable whether he did good or ill by Neil (yes, Neil liked him). Anyway, these are quibbles. It's of FA quality with a bit of copy editing now. Geogre 03:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  WRT Southern Man / Alabama. The same chords, well you can't read too much into that. The chords to SHA are D/C/G, with a shuffle 6th in each bar. I could real off 30 songs with that chord progression without breaking sweat. (Actually, if this [10] is to be believed, the chords are distinctly not the same). Southern Man, however, is mentioned explicitly in the lyrics. I'll get on the copy editing (the lead section was one of the few bits that weren't mine :)) -- GWO 08:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, SWA isn't just DCG (which is the old I-IV-V, which is every rock song ever), but a particular formation of the C and G that are the same as "Alabama" and "Ziggy Stardust" and a few others of that time but which are not used very commonly. Young liked that C formation (to tab it, it would be 3/5, 2/4, 0/3, 3/2, 3/1), and you almost never see it anywhere else in LS's stuff (although the Gsus is used plenty of places, part. in "Freebird"). Lyrically, they refer to "Southern Man," of course, but the title invokes "Alabama," which is a song that is even less deft in its criticism. I also think that "redneck" absolutely shouldn't be part of the reference. That's POV. The struggle over Civil Rights reflected in the song battle was the Dixiecrat stuff. Wallace and Maddux were ignoramuses, but it's irresponsible and inflammatory to refer to the entire southern Democratic party (which was anti-Civil Rights act) that way. We saw the fruits of that kind of name calling just recently. Geogre 17:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for how common x32033 is LS's work but its ubiquitous in folk music, (Cos of the easy fingering to the full G). And anyway that's not what's tabbed here, [11] or how I was taught to play it. And I don't think its in Alabama either. Compromise : mention that it has relevance to multiple Young songs. -- GWO

• Support, as it's an excellent article, but I'll consider changing to object if Geogre's points aren't fixed up. Ambi 07:27, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support now. Filiocht 16:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) Object. The lead section is inadequate, there is no explicit references section (were all those books and links used?) and there is a bit too much of the "fan" to the writing. For instance, I fail to see how a sentence like: 'During the late 1970s, Young was sometime referred to as a "disciple" of the "master" Bob Dylan and seemed on the verge of surpassing the legend.' can be seen as anything other than POV, not to mention confusing for the imaginary reader who is here because they want to learn about a subject they currently know little or nothing of. Who did the referring? Why would Dylan be the "master"? Which "legend"? On what basis is the claim that he 'seemed' to be surpassing Dylan made? Why all the "ironic" uses of ""? There are more statements that raise similar questions, but this is the most blatant. Filiocht 08:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • After a few unsuccessful attempts to write something more coherent, the passage about Dylan as master has simply been deleted. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:36, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Filiocht: Could you elucidate on what (if anything) you consider "fan writing" remaining in the article? -- GWO
• Object, I agree with Filiocht that there is too much "fan" writing. Also, I'm not a big fan of the strictly chronological layout; I'd like to see some separate and more in-depth sections on e.g. his person and his music in general (including more detailed critique). The main problematic aspect of a chronological layout is that it is much harder to find information in the article unless you have knowledge about the subject in advance -- a much more comprehensive lead section might also solve the problem. Some recent photo would be nice too (there must be some fan somewhere who has taken one who'd be willing to release it under the GFDL). Finally, Neil Young might not be as important as Elvis or Dylan, but he makes better music ;) - Fredrik | talk 01:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Fredrik: Could you elucidate on what (if anything) you consider "fan writing" remaining in the article? -- GWO
    • There is some POV in it. For example, "weak selection of songs" (which I disagree with, Re-ac-tor is a masterpiece). Also, I agree with Paul August's point below about understatement. And Dylan isn't even mentioned in the current revision. More context and information about influences and impact is needed. Fredrik | talk 05:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I think the comments on the albums, such as "weak selection of songs", accurately reflect the critical consensus (such as it is) on those records. And the brevity reflects the general consensus that these are considered Young's minor works. -- GWO 15:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I've tried to address all the actionable points above, and requested more info on those that I don't consider actionable at the moment. Feedback from the present objectors would be nice. --- GWO 15:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. But wanting to support. This is a good well written article on an important musical figure. However I think it understates the depth and expanse of his work, as well as his importance and influence. Some comparison to Dylan needs to be made I think. Paul August 02:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Gut feeling would be that any comparison with Dylan will be POV, by definition. Would we insist that the Shakespeare article contain a comparison with Cervantes? Filiocht 13:43, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't think any comparison with Dylan would be necessarily POV, consider the following quote from allmusic.com: Young's body of work ranks second only to Bob Dylan in terms of depth, and he was able to sustain his critical reputation, as well as record sales, for a longer period of time than Dylan … As to Shakespeare, I don't know about Cervantes, but I might expect a comparison with Christopher Marlowe. Paul August 14:45, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the allmusic quote is NPOV or terribly accurate. "Second only to Dylan in terms of depth" according to whom? Fans of Bruce Springsteen, Lou Reed, Joni Mitchell, Laura Nyro, Tim Buckley, Nick Drake might kick up some disagreement there. A longer period of time??? Every Dylan album from 1963 to 1974 sold pretty well. Many since (Slow Train, Love & Theft) have done OK too. Young's peak lasted from Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere to ... Tonight's The Night, which is 5 years. He's had returns to occasional good sales (Unplugged, Freedom & Ragged Glory spring to mind) but I bet Trans sold fewer than Saved, and Everybody's Rocking did worse than Down In The Groove. -- GWO 15:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I actually think that the allmusic.com quote reinforces my point by being so clearly POV in itself, as demonstrated by GWO. I'd add, which recent Young album gets near Love and Tefth in any department? Filiocht 15:26, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to dispute the relative accuracy of the allmusic.com quote, but I do dipute that "any comparison with Dylan will be POV, by definition". Paul August 16:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how, apart form sales figures, they could be compared objectively. Filiocht 15:32, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

My thoughts on how to link them : (i) Neil was, for a while, the rock press's favourite "New Dylan". Springsteen had overtaken him by 76 though. (ii) Dylan admits to listening to Neil on "Highlands". Not liking, necessarily. (iii) Neil played at Dylan's Tribute Concert, and dubbed it Bobfest. (iv) They both play harmonica badly, and have whiny voices. Any more for any more. (v) They're not dead yet. -- GWO

Well potentially applicable concepts like "depth", "range of genre and style", "longevity", "influence" along with many others are all objectifiable (although perhaps difficult to measure). Interpreted broadly enough every statement is POV. Paul August 16:55, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

But why compare Young to Dylan? Why not compare him to Joni Mitchell. There are just as many interesting parallels in those two careers, including the wide variety of styles. (Few Dylan albums couldn't be classified as folk, blues or rock). Sales volumes are probably closer too. Why not compare Young to David Crosby or Steve Stills, instead? -- GWO

Well probably for the same reason that "the rock press" called him the "New Dylan" and not the "New Mitchell". Dylan is a kind of "gold standard" and a comparison to him might, IMHO, help establish the relative importance of Young. However Comparing him to Dylan, doesn't preclude comparing him to others. By all means do compare him to Mitchell, they do have "interesting parallels, and this would also "help establish relative importance". At any rate it's just my opinion ;-) Paul August 17:37, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've got nothing Neutral to say, wrt to comparing Young and Dylan. If you want to right something, I recommend you add it.

the same reason that "the rock press" called him the "New Dylan".

That reason is "laziness", and an insatiable desire to pigeonhole people and promote the Next Big Thing. Let's not do that. GWO

For what it's worth ;-), Thrasherswheat.org [12], a repository of Neil Young information available on the internet, has a page [13] which chronicles some of the comparisons which have been made of Young and Dylan. Here are some of the quotes they cite:

• Young is still about as individual, talented and touching a musical poet as American popular music has produced, worthy of comparison with Bob Dylan. John Rockwell, New York Times

• Young is comparable only to Bob Dylan in terms of his contributions to songwriting and rock n' roll. David Rosen, Ink Blot Magazine

• Though Neil Young will never have the iconic clout of Bob Dylan, there are citizens who'll tell you he's made better music … Robert Christgau, Playboy

• Whereas Bob Dylan's music formed the aesthetic spear-head of generational rage and moral fervor in the mid-Sixties, Young's subsequently expressed, with equal credibility, the accompanying guilt, self-doubt and paranoia, especially in its obsession with time and age. Stephen Holden, Rolling Stone.

Perhaps the above comparisons are all hopelessly POV, but it must mean something that these (and many other) writers have thought it important to make such comparisons. It seems to me that something of what is being said above could be useful and relevant to our article. Anyway, since I'm not objecting to the article, perhaps all this discussion should just go to the talk page? As I said above I think this is an excellent article on an important subject. I'm just trying, perhaps incompetently, to make it even better ;-) Paul August 16:36, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

A selection of music critics really like Neil Young, and think he's (nearly) as good as Neil Young. Fair enough. Sadly, thats a self selected bunch (Dave Marsh, for example, has also compared the two, noting

"Instead of a unified body of work, Neil Young has forged only a series of fragments, some relatively inspired, some absolutely awful.[14]"

Do we include both of these analyses, one or neither?

Other than the fact that 70s rock critics are capable of banging on about Dylan at terrifying length, do these comparisons tell us anything (a) interesting or (b) insightful? Secondly, is there a critical consensus which we could reasonably summarise, thereby maintaining our NPOV? IMHO, the answer to both those questions is no. Which is why I am not going to write anything in the article, on that issue. If you want to try synthesise something coherent from these critics' squawkings, I wish you luck, and if you succeed you're a better man than I. -- GWO

NPOV is NOT about only summarizing critical consensus. The idea behind NPOV is to include different opinions, including less widely held ones, but attribute all opinions to their supporters. Fredrik | talk 18:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But we can't report everyone's opinion, and in the lack of anything like a consensus, who's opinions do we select? -- GWO

In general, we should present opinions with prominent supporters or opinions which can be demonstrated to be popular (if not in majority). Being able to quote four different critics is certainly good enough. Fredrik | talk 19:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Five, if you count the AllMusic guy, but whose counting ;-) Even a comment like "Neil was, for a while, the rock press's favourite "New Dylan" " might be helpful ;-) Paul August 18:55, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Also I agree with Geogre's suggestion of adding something like "Neil Young is a rock and folk musician regarded as one of the most important figures of the 1960's through 1990's" to the lead, would also help address my concern. Paul August 19:10, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that, and will act upon it. I have been thinking about the Dylan/Young issue, and I really can't think of anything accurate and non-superficial to say about them, specifically --- GWO

• FYI: Starting, Saturday, I will be on vacation for two weeks, (islands … sun … snorkeling … no computers … ahhhh) so if I don't respond to someone's possible query, you now know why ;-) Paul August 03:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way I would like to make it clear that I don't think the "Dylan" issue above should keep this article from being a FA. Paul August 03:18, Nov 19, 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

• Negligence

These now have pictures

• Ackermann function - use pic of equation
• Application programming interface - use UML lollipop symbol for an interface.
• ASCII (a lame one)
• Korean name - use Image:Hangul_seong.png
• 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.
• Shroud of Turin - better public domain photos (from 1898) needed.
• Chuck Palahniuk (needs picture of author)