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

Patent medicine

Self-nomination. Been on Peer review several weeks, and it seems to me to be interesting, readable, and as complete as I know to make it. — Smerdis of Tlön 21:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Minor objection. Looks pretty good overall. I've made some copyedits to fix most of the issues I saw, but one more requires someone with sources in hand. The coverage of Snake oil is one short and somewhat stilted paragraph. The term "snake oil" is arguably more common than that of patent medicine, and "snake oil salesmen" has become synonymous with any unscrupulous sales person. It could be different in Europe, but this is certainly the case in the US. So that coverage and information should be expanded. - Taxman 23:00, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC) +
  • I mentioned snake oil in the lead, and tied it to the point made below at greater length that the promoters talked up exotic ingredients that really didn't do much. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aramaic language

Not a self-nom, as I've never edited the article, but I'm quite impressed by it. It's a thorough and informative description of a historically important language, with appropriate pictures and solid references. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:28, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

• (Mildly) object at this point. It's strong on the history of the language; I suspect, though, that the historical material could be made clearer — perhaps making "Old," "Middle," and "Modern" into top level headers would be a start. Also, there's relatively little information about its grammar, phonology, or relationships with other Semitic languages: since the historical parts make reference to certain sounds, diphthongs, and grammatical features, these remarks don't have much context. -- Smerdis of Tlön 22:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I totally agree with the objection, seeing as I wrote the article only a couple of days ago, and I'm still working on the part in question. The long and complex history of Aramaic makes its phonology and grammar a difficult subject. What I have so far can be seen on User:Garzo/projects#Sounds. I might support the article in a few days...

Gareth Hughes 01:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Since Gareth is still working, a few suggestions: 1) add a lead section. 2) Avoid single paragraph sections like "Classification". Integrate the information with other sections, or expand the information in that section. (As for "Classification", I would suggest putting it in the lead section. Also, the information is already in the table, so not strictly necessary in the article itself.) 3) Adding one or more sound samples to hear what the language sounds like. Jeronimo 08:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History of the Yosemite area

Self-nom. I've exhausted several sources to write this and have been really scrapping the bottom of the barrel to find more, which is a good indicator that I should stop. Other than some more images (which I'm working on), what else needs to be done to bring this article to FA standard? --mav

• I haven't had time read it all, but I'd like to see the article started with an explanation on where the area in question actually is before you shoot off into its history. I'll try to give it a closer later. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:50, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Geo-ref added. Images too. --mav 12:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This article is a detailed article, while Yosemite National Park is the general one. I don't think this article needs background. It's quite good, actually. --- hike395 08:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! --mav 12:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I had to chose one thing that bothers me about the article, I would say referring to non-Native-Americans as "white". It might not be accurate (are you sure that no black people were involved at all?) and also I find it a little weird. I don't have a concrete substitute that is flawless, though (Europeans? Americans? non-Native-Americans?) -- hike395 08:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'Non-Native-Americans' might be best, since being born in America doesn't a European make. :) Euro-American would also work. --mav 12:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Impressive work as always, mav. - Fredrik | talk 18:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Great work. Support when two issues are taken care of: 1) The one and two sentence paragraphs are eliminated. They show areas that are incomplete ideas and are not good prose. 2) The writing is pretty stilted throughout and doesn't flow very well. That is a consequence of being pretty well researched it seems, but it does need to flow a fair amount better from one idea to the next in many parts. - Taxman 20:57, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hawaiian architecture

Renominating. Previous nomination was shot down on insignificant copyright issues. I think its quite good and deserves to be featured. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 02:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Previous nomination here. I strongly doubt whether all the images tagged as Fair use actually qualify for that tag, copyright is not insignificant for a serious encyclopedia. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 07:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• My original objection still stands: "Object, I'm afraid. This is a good article, but the majority of the photos in the article are copyrighted. A minor thing is the use of bold in each paragraph. This is not only unnecessary, but also discouraged by the WP:MOS." Jeronimo 07:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HMS Dreadnought (1906)

Not at all timely or of contemporary relevance - although it will be in two years' time - I believe this article is well-written, informative, of a suitable size and possessed of an attractive illustration. It taught me things I didn't know about the ship and the writing is flawless. - Ashley Pomeroy 19:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Featured articles have nothing to do with being timely or having contemporary relevance. No need for a disclaimer. Everyking 19:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mild object - needs section headings. Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added some section headings, and the word 'was' (which rather torpedoes - pun! - my premature clam - pun! - that the writing was 'flawless'. I nonetheless maintain that it flows well and is well-written). - Ashley Pomeroy 21:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support - though I tend to agree with Jeronimo that some discussion of the Dreadnought Hoax in-text would be an improvement. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The lead section could be slightly expanded. 2) I would prefere to see some offline references as well, and have the references listed in the format recommended/proposed by Wikipedia:Cite your sources. 3) The lead section mentions that this was a very important ship, but little is said about that in the article (apart from repeating this fact). 4) Little is said about the actual operations this ship served in/on. More is needed on this. (Also, the sinking of the submarine is called "ironic" - why?). 5) The table needs links to articles about the terms mentioned. It should be possible to find out what Barbettes and Conning Towers are. 6) The Dreadnought Hoax, mentioned in the "See also" section, deserves attention in the article. Jeronimo 07:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've taken these points on board and polished the article further, although having just read the Battle of the Bulge article I'm having a crisis of confidence, because that's much larger and more impressive. In order 1) I've left the intro pretty much as it is, because it's a 'sting' 2) As for physical paper books, I have added 'Jane's Battleships' (mostly for information on the turret layout), which I have been reading and which prompted me to have a look for 'Dreadnought' on Wikipedia, and Robert Massie's 'Dreadnought', which I borrowed from the library but got bored with because Massie's thing is politics rather than machinery 3) 4) Dreadnought's influence is hard to express in a way which connects with the heart; rather like the modern-day Space Shuttle or the Me-262 jet fighter it exists as a monolithic presence, a junction-point in history, but one with no emotional resonance. Its philosophy was hugely important, but as a ship it had a thoroughly uninteresting career. I have however explained why the sinking of U29 was ironic 5) I have linked those terms and others, but I believe the table is common to several ship-related artlces 6) I have briefly alluded to the hoax in the text, as a consequence of Dreadnought's fame. - Ashley Pomeroy 20:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1973 energy crisis

With the price of oil nearing $50 a barrel and fears that the price of oil could hurt economic growth next year [1], I've been finding myself explaining to a lot of younger people off Wiki the impact of a sudden oil shock (something far more overwhelming than any of the measured predictions for next year). With that in mind, in think that many readers these days will find this article an interesting one for the main page. Self-nom. 172 18:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Excellent writing for the most part, I scurried up a new image to accompany the lead section, I think it fits nicely. The one thing I am missing for sure is a references section, and maybe some external links/further reading. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 20:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Here's a start at expanding the notes and references section. [2] 172 22:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mild object. Article is at 1973 energy crisis, but its not a crisis for solar energy, or nuclear energy, wind energy, etc... you see my point I think. Article should really be at 1973 gasoline crisis or 1973 oil crisis. Other than that good article (even if it is minus a few references). Alkivar 22:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. I've been wanting to change it to 1973 world oil shock for a while. Any objections to me moving the page? 172 22:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to me that 1973 oil crisis would be a better title, since "1973 world oil shock" gets about 90 google hits, and "1973 oil crisis" gets 6500. But I'm unfamiliar with the subject (born 11 years later), so I don't know how the event is generally referred to. Spangineer 23:51, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • As "the 1973 oil crisis"! Or even simply as "the oil crisis" (but that wouldn't be a good article name). I was 110 in 1973 and I've never even heard the term "oil shock". Please move it again.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term "world oil shock" is very common in the academic literature, though. See the JSTOR search here [3]("Shock" is borrowed from a concept in social science and economics literature, e.g., endogenous shock and exogenous shock.) 172 03:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JSTOR is subscription only. I'll just take your word for it.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 13:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • "Energy crisis" is by far the most common term. Also, while one can say that non-petrochemical energy sources didn't have a crisis, the world was more dependent on oil (and coal) then than any time since, so the oil crisis was an "energy" crisis. If the focus of the article were solely on the economic effects, then "oil shock" would be appropriate, since it was a "shock" to markets. To people who couldn't commute to work in their cars, it was a crisis. Geogre 20:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. Ambi 00:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Clear, relevant and well written, although there is still some awkward phrasing in places. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|George\^talk ]] 02:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article is very US centric. What happened in the other countries that were boycotted, Western Europe and Japan? There is virtually no information about this. In the Netherlands, for example, 6 so-called "car-free Sundays" were imposed by the government. A minor issue is that it is common to list references in normal font size in a sepearate section (title References). Jeronimo 07:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There is indeed more coverage on the U.S. than any other country, which is warranted considering how these events were underpinned by the declining power of the U.S. to control the international economy. However, coverage is not at all U.S.-centric. (Perhaps this impression is given off by the pictures, which are all U.S.-related. This can be easily corrected.) The impact on Japan, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other Western nations; the Eastern bloc; and the Third World is thoroughly presented. Please take another look... There is also a considerably greater amount of attention paid to oil producers in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa than in most write-ups on this subject found in other reference materials. Indeed, the article starts and ends with a look at the internal conditions of oil producers in the Third World. 172

08:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • Can you point out where the article specifically mentions a European nation? I can't. Take the "Response in the industrialized countries" (previously "..in the US"). First paragraph: all but the first sentence is about the US. Second paragraph: entirely about the US. Third paragraph: entirely about the US (not explicitly, but f.e. in the Netherlands, DST was only reintroduced after the 1977 crisis). Fourth: same. Fifth: mostly US ("Fortune 500"). Sixth: Western world. Seventh: Australia. Eighth: US again. So only two countries are specifically mentioned in this entire section, and Australia only briefly. Call it what you want, but I call this US-centric. And that is why I object.
• As a survivor, I do not recognise the term 'oil shock' and would prefer 'oil crisis', which was what we called it at the time. I fail to see how non-U.S. impact can be said to be covered equally; where are the 'European/African/Asian/Latin American/etc. responses' sections? The article is very US centric to my reading. So Object for now. Filiocht 08:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Object - 1973 oil crisis is the right place, but the article is still exceptionally US-centric. We had queues for oil in the UK too, you know. There was even an issue of petrol rationing coupons, although I don't think they were used ultimately . -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christmas

I am replacing this article on the list after some Scrooge (or careless editor) deleted it earlier today. This is a timely article which has had LOTS of contributors, and is currently much better than it has been during the past year. I've only done some copyediting and placing obscure material in footnotes. Would be nice to get this buffed up/O.K.'d for the Holiday season.Sfahey 17:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I would really like to support this nice well-illustrated article, but it's awfully Anglosphere-centric. The reader who clicks expectantly on the heading "Other areas" finds only the disappointing sentence "See List of winter festivals for other winter holidays, and Christmas around the world for information about Christmas in non-English speaking countries". In a supposedly general (=international, right?) section like "Christmas in the arts and media", the word the turns out to stand for "the American/British/Anglophone": "Dickens is sometimes credited with shaping the modern celebration of Christmas (tree, plum pudding, carols, etc.) and the movement to close businesses on Christmas day" ... "If Dickens shaped the wider traditions of Christmas, Thomas Nast and Clement Moore provided us with the popular images of Santa Claus. Nast's 19th century cartoons gave Santa his familiar form..." Aw, come on! There are special subsections about "UK media Christmas" and "U. S. media Christmas", those might be appropriate for the supposedly wider, but actually anglophone, traditions of plum pudding and the Coca-Cola Santa. And some of the info Christmas around the world could perhaps be summarized here? P. S. I felt full of Christmas spirit when I started writing this, from the nice images and all, but it's cooled now I've read the last post so far (18th October) on the talk page: I think it's a good idea to scrape together all the bits of information about the celebration of Christmas in non-English speaking countries that doesn't relate to the history of Christmas into a new page called "Christmas traditions around the world" or something. There we can list foreign names for Santa, Christmas decorations, etc., etc. and leave the Christmas and Santa pages devoted entirely to English speaking traditions and their histories. Is everyone cool with this plan? If there's consensus about scraping off the foreign stuff, I say the article needs to be moved, to Christmas in the English-speaking world, or something.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 20:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to the overwhelming US/UK-centrism pointed out by Bishonen, there is more wrong with this article. 1) Insufficient lead section. See Wikipedia:Lead section. 2) The three references mentioned clearly do not cover all of the contents of this article (being from 1902, 1908 and 1986). 3) I find the article to have very little information about the religious background of Christmas, and how the religious celebrate this. The least I would expect is a summary of the bible stories regarding the birth of Christ. Jeronimo 21:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Clumsy article, at best. Long way from here to perfect. jengod 22:04, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • gotta be specific. objections are invalid without something fixable. Alkivar 22:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The Christmas around the world information should be merged into this article (although even that page is quite incomplete), but the whole thing needs reorganization in my opinion. The religious stuff should come first, since Christmas is originally a religious holiday. Also needs info on Eastern Orthodox and other Christian traditions' customs. The language of the entire article needs to be toned down so it doesn't assume all its readers are from the UK or the US. Fishal 22:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment Wouldn't it make more sense to put this up for Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week first? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 06:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • No - WP:COTW is for non-existent articles and stubs, not articles that just need polishing - this should go to Wikipedia:Peer review. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I created CATW, and I agree that Christmas isn't ready to be the spotlight article. As I propose on the Christmas talk page, I think we should first split Christmas into Christmas (religious observance), Christmas (Anglophone traditions), and Christmas (Non-anglophone traditions) (aka CATW) and make the splitting up a project o' the week. --Carl 11:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, breaking things up would make it easier, but shouldn't an encyclopedia have an article called "Christmas"? I just buffed up the lead a bit, per someone's suggestion, and took the Anglo-American edge off some other places. This thing obviously still needs either a very heavy hand or a forgiving jury to get anywhere. BUT is it not true that most of the secular aspects of Christmas celebrations ARE (for better or worse) of English-speaking origin, albeit with influences from the Saint Nicholas tradition? If so, SOME parochialism is justified. Sfahey 04:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sfahey, I don't mean to ruin your Christmas yet again, but I think it's a feature of Christmas that every culture that celebrates it believes itself to have originated its secular traditions and celebrations. In other words, no, I don't think it is true. Germany is a strong contender, from what I hear. (Hmmm? No. I'm not German. I'm trying to be superhumanly objective here. Deep down I really believe the whole thing originated in Scandinavia. ;-))--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 01:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object - as others have said, this is too Anglo-centric. We probably need a family of Christmas articles, and this one should summarise the other articles. At the very least, it needs to summarise Christmas around the world rather than just referring to it. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object - Anglocentric and not Scroogey enough. Andre (talk) 22:28, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Habsburg Spain

just a good-looking article I stumbled accross. dab 13:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support: I think this is one of the best pages I have read on Wikipedia. Factual, accurate, well illustrated and well written. Giano 13:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Very reluctantly object. No references and some minor touches of POV (i.e. 'intrepid'). Perhaps too many pictures. Otherwise, I second Giano. This is...brilliant. Ambi 14:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No references. Was all this information written out of thin air with no look at any authoritative references or primary sources? Adding them now is dishonest unless they are actually used to add, confirm, and cite the material in the article. - Taxman 17:27, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Excellent addition of the references you used, much better than I could have hoped for, but please do continue to cite specific facts that may be contentious. For inline citations I prefer (Parker, 1972, pg 22-23) or similar, though unfortunately it seems there is no consensus on style for that. - Taxman 14:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Object. First, the "lead" jumps right into the story. In the next section, Ferdinand is "sent packing" and young Charles is introduced. When they "return" it is not clear that it is the same twosome. Many other awkward passages follow.Sfahey 17:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Sfahey and Taxman already mentioned problems with references and the lead section, and I agree with these. In addition: 1) The term "Habsburg Spain" only appears in the title of this article, and it is not clear from the lead section, nor the article, what "Habsburg" means (I know, but the average reader may not). 2) Some of the passages dealing with the revolt in Netherlands seem a bit simplistic and hence not fully correct. I suspect similar things may be true for other parts of the article. 3) The lead section makes a brief references to "cultural efflorescence", but the article does not go into detail on this topic. 4) The article is mostly chronological, but some sections cover the entire period, and would probably best be moved to the bottom, clearly separating them from the history sections. 5) The years in the titles of the sections are misleading. For example, "The trouble with the Dutch (1571-1598)" suggests the trouble ended in 1598, but the Eighty Years' War continued until 1648. Jeronimo 22:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The errors in the article are mine alone, so, I apologize. I added my sources for the original article (the list is quite exhaustive of those I used) at the end of the page. The fact that they were missing in the first place was a gross oversight, and again I apologize. I will go over and place direct citations where I can, though I am not so sure where I need to; there are some quotes from Olivares that I will cite, and some statistics in the later sections for which I will do the same. In dealing with the Dutch revolt, I in fact began with a longer explanation of the war's causes, but someone else pointed out to me that this was a history of Spain rather than the Eighty Years' War, and so I was advised to pare it down, with which I mostly agree. The cultural aspect of the period is left out intentionally; as stated in the introductory paragraph, "For information on Spanish art and culture in the period, see Spanish Golden Age," as the Dutch article divides the Dutch Golden Age from the main social/political history, though perhaps an overview would be appropriate in this article. "The trouble with the Dutch" has been retitled, though somewhat regretfully, since I thought it was a rather catchy title. At any rate, thank you for noticing the article; I had been hoping that some people would come hash through my habitually atrocious POV problems, so the attention might help improve its quality. Adam Faanes 05:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I see the note to see Spanish Golden Age, but it seems to me at least that some of that should be summarized in this article. It doesn't need to cover every detail, but all of the important topics should at least be summarized, with a link to Spanish Golden Age as the main article. - Taxman 14:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the references. However, most of my objections still remain. I'll see if I can fix some of the inaccuracies I spotted. Jeronimo 18:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now. This is a good article, but not quite there yet. I think the coverage is adequate for an encyclopeadia article, but the writing needs editing for style (for instance, the work Spain appears 8 times in the lead section) and POV. Supprised not to find Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II among the references. Filiocht 08:56, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment maybe it was premature to nominate the article. But I still think it a remarkable feat of Adam's to quietly produce such a piece in just a couple of edits. Also, it seems our FA standards are rising all the time. I have seen FAs decidedly below the quality of this one. Anyway, I do not apologize for having drawn attention to this article, and I am sure it will be FA worthy by any standard pretty soon. dab 09:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, but most of those articles were promoted before the FAC process, so comparison to their substandard quality for the purposes of current nominations isn't relevant. See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates and that talk page for efforts to make sure all FA's meet the same basic standards. In any case, of course no apologies necessary for noticing and listing a mostly great article. - Taxman 14:00, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I believe this was nevertheless a good nomination, as attention has been drawn to the article's potential. It is already improving, and reads better as it goes along. I tried to explain how Spain "became" Habsburg, which was missing in the original. Several sections however still go into into excess detail on events in Europe that go far beyond "Hapsburg Spain". Sfahey 00:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abstain. It has great potential and I hope to be able to support it soon after above objections has been adressed. Please note ATM it is 44kb long, and probably needs to be split into subarticles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support, and this article is not too long at 44 kb. On the issue of length and splitting up a good linear article of this size into subarticles, please see the many cogent arguments made against such a procedure w r t John Vanbrugh, on this page recently, and also see the FAC talk page discussion which was sparked by it.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 20:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

University of Nottingham

(self-nomination) I have been working on this for some time, and thought I'd risk trying for featured article status. --Iceaxejuggler 13:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Multiple one- and two-sentence paragraphs show poor writing style. They need to be either expanded into a full idea worthy of a paragraph or merged with good style into other paragraphs covering related ground (to paraphrase Taxman below). Mark¹ 08:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Except for lists, I have now combined these into longer paragraphs. --Iceaxejuggler 10:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now - it all looks pretty good, but the list of campuses could be turned from a bullet point list into text, and some details could be summarised here from the halls of residence article. I'll support when these are done. As far as I can see, no other University is featured, so well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summer Hill, New South Wales

My objections helped shoot this article's last nomination down, but most of these have been picked up, and it really is the best example of this type of article that we have. I don't really agree with the author about the landmarks section, but nevertheless, it's featured-worthy. Ambi 12:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Multiple one sentence paragraphs show poor writing style. (Two is not good either :) They need to be either expanded into a full idea worthy of a paragraph or merged with good style into other paragraphs covering related ground. Also the notable people section is odd. Either they are not that notable or they a) would warrant an article of their own, or b) are worthy of at least a few sentences in a well formed paragraph instead of a list. - Taxman 23:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - excluding lists and list-lead-ins, there are now no single sentence paragraphs. The Notable Citizens section is based on a similar section in the Marshall, Texas feature article. I can kill it if you like, but it does make the area more human by including a very quick blurb about previous notable inhabitants. I've deleted the least notable person (Max Wurcker), and if you'd like I can also delete Dr Henry Hinder who is a bit marginal, but the rest are noteworthy. All the best, -- Nickj 01:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Good work on much of that. But 1) for some there are lists were there is no need for them. Especially the transportation and politics sections have no good reason not to be rewritten as prose. 2) The section on local landmarks is in an odd half list, half paragraph form, with bold headings. Overall it seems quite jarring to me. In addition the St Patrick's church note is still one sentence, and the Chinese temple is two. Those both still fall under the one and two sentence paragraph problem above. 3) I happen to like all the pictures and find them very good, but they present a serious problem in readability especially in the landmarks section. Perhaps some could be moved to a subarticle that is listed in the see also section. 4) I don't know anything specific about whether those people are notable, but as noted above, the fact that they typically have only one sentence fragment each makes it hard for me to believe they are. If they are, please expand what is said about them and at least create stub articles. If they are not worth stub and eventually full articles, don't keep them as empty wikilinks, even if you want to keep a few sentences about each here. Having the section is not a problem in and of itself to me if it is well done. - Taxman 03:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

• • • • 1) Left message for copyedit guru Ambi - "Help me Ambi, you're my only hope!" (with apologies to Star Wars) 2) will come back to later 3) I've tried scattering the pictures throughout the article, let me know if you think it works any better now. 4) The notable citizens section has been updated so that either the links are gone (where it's less likely articles will be written), or stubs have been added (where it's more likely that others will expand them); Also Dr Henry Hinder has been deleted. All the best, -- Nickj 02:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jackson 5

Not a self-nom, though I've made some recent edits. Tuf-Kat 02:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Weak object, while I know each member has their own page. I think the article in question here should at least contain maybe a 2-3 line bio in the member section. Or at least why they quit the group. Just for completenesses sake. Also I'm rather curious with so many members why it was called the "Jackson 5" i dont really get the straight answer from the history. make these changes and you get my support. Alkivar 04:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. Brief bios added, along with an explanation of the number. Tuf-Kat 06:59, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. It seems to be overly short - about half the article consists of various lists (compare Bob Dylan). It'd be nice to see the lead section trimmed a bit, too - things like the (rather tenuous) Dashboard Confessional link could probably go somewhere else.
  • Lead section shortened. Tuf-Kat
• Object. Lead is too long and doesn't include the names of the members. Also includes POV language about a brother being less talented at dancing than the other. I'm pretty sure this article could be expanded as well. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:42, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Lead shortened, members included. As absurd as it is, the article no longer claims Marlon was less talented at dancing than Michael. Tuf-Kat 14:55, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • still object. More can be said of the individual members in the members section. Why not summarize the existing articles on them? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • Because there are existing articles on them. If someone wants to know more about one of the brothers, there's a handy link right there. Tuf-Kat 15:35, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • All but Michael are most important for being in this group, so this article should include a reasonable amount of information about each, more than one or two sentences. The two that are redlinks should be unlinked if they are not notable enough for their own article. Also, the statement about Michael being the more talented dancer can be put back in if you can find someone else reputable that said it that you can cite. If you cite a reasonably consensus held opinion, it is not POV. - Taxman 13:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
          • The two redlinked articles do deserve articles of their own. Adding more biographical info on the individuals here would make the article more off-topic -- this is an article on a group, famous as a group, and individuals have their own articles. WRT to Michael being a more talented dancer, I have removed the claim; there is no one to cite because no one bothers comparing Michael and Marlon because Michael is one of the world's most renowned entertainers and Marlon is not. Wikipedia does not need to acknowledge POVs that could theoretically be held, only actual opinions which notable people believe in. In any case, I have removed the claim so it doesn't matter. Tuf-Kat 16:33, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Kardashev scale

(self-nomination) I put this through peer review with no response. I believe it needs some more work, nothing very major, but I do not have the time right now to do it. Basically, I would like an opinion as to if this is to featured article specifications--in that does it need more work. My gripes and grievances are listed on the to-do list on the article's talk page- please look at it, in the "copy" of what I originally posted on peer review. I know this is nonstandard, but basically, I want to know if no one responded on peer review because the article was up to spec, or because they were not interested. Well on to the discussion.

[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF]] 01:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revised by --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF]] 00:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) so it did not take up so much of the page.

Please check the article's talk page.

• Object - no lead image (hardly any images at all); the lead is far too long and detailed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Are you objecting on the idea that the first section really should be split into 5 (I think it should, see the talk page)? Or are you objecting because there is too much information? --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF]] 00:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Images added and then removed, I can't win! --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF]] 17:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The "hypothetical futures" section seems to be original research. 2) The "Current values" table and calculations report ten or even thirteen significant digits, which conveys false precision. 3) The calculations after the table need to be explained better. 4) Overall the article seems to be a mix of science, science fiction and unfalsifiable speculation. Maybe the science and the fiction should be split into separate articles. PRiis 20:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory

(self-nomination) An early suburb of Canberra, Australia's capital city. Created as an example suburb for WikiProject Canberra. Martyman 01:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Wow! Fantastic! Support. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great article on a suburb which is actually moderately interesting, even though limited in its scope. It's an interesting suburb I guess, and definately a good article. Psychobabble 07:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Certainly not bad, but needs work. 1) Copyedit needed. I'm not a native English speaker, but I picked out (and fixed) minor things already. A native speaker would probably find much more. 2) I miss an explanation of the name Yarralumla. 3) There are many brief sections. Some could be expanded, others be merged (e.g. Major Roads with Geography). Especially the "Notable Places" section needs expansion, given there are "main articles" quoted while the text here is only two or three sentences. 4) Some non-digital references or further reading would be very welcome. 5) The table of suburbs at the bottom is a bit ugly, and should probably be made into a proper footer. Jeronimo 08:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 1) More copyediting has now taken place. I would appreciate it if anyone else could do some more copyediting on it. 2) The name is now further explained in the article. 3) Some expansion has taken place. Many of the notable places where spun off into their own articles when the section started getting too big. It seems strange to have more than a short summary on this page for each one when the details are listed on a seperate page. 4) I have now listed some non-digital further reading, but can't list anything as a reference if I didn't use it as such. 5) The locator table has now been replaced with a newer neater version. This is a standard suburb locator table used in most Australian suburb articles.
• Object. Jeronimo has outlined most of my concerns, although I disagree with him on the fate of the footer, which is part of most Australian suburb articles. In addition to his comments - a) the lead section could do with a bit of work (it's not so much length as that it doesn't summarise the content of the article), b) the notable places section is too long - this isn't WikiTravel. It might be an idea to merge all the paragraphs into one section - I don't think summary style works well there, c) the suburb amenities section needs a good copyedit, and could be split up and merged with some others - the Summer Hill article does a much better job of covering this ground, d) it'd be nice to see the references properly styled, e) the politics section could be slightly expanded, I think. Ambi 08:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

(Self-nomination) This is about Sir Bernard Williams, the British moral philosopher, who died last year. Slim 22:35, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

• It doesn't bode well that I had to go in and add his full name and date of birth; that should be taken care of long before a featured nomination. Also, shrink the picture. But this isn't an objection. Everyking 00:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that Everyking. We were actually editing at the same time. I had the dates lower down in the article, but I've gone back and have re-written the intro and also added a few more details. Slim 00:52, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Object: the lead section is inadequate, giving no idea of the content of his philosophy (we don't need a deep explanation, but some pigeon-holes would be nice). Some of the writing is overly Mills and Boon (He was a lean, attractive, energetic man, his deep sun tan shown off to its best advantage by the baggy white suits he often wore). Mark¹ 02:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. I'll rewrite the lead. As for the Mills and Boon bits, they are all absolutely true. :-) Slim 04:03, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Mark, I have rewritten the lead, added a bit more detail, and a few more links. That sentence (lean and attractive) is still there though, because I have grown somewhat attached to it.  :-) Slim 05:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Comments – This is well-written and referenced. I like the large photo. But it needs some tuning.
  1. The caption doesn't work for me: "He was a lean, attractive, energetic man, his deep sun tan shown off to its best advantage by the baggy white suits he often wore." It echoes the main text. Readers can judge for themselves whether he was lean and attractive. The reference to white suits jars with the photo of a dark suit.
  2. This sentence doesn't work for me: " He abhorred scientific and evolutionary reductionism, once calling reductionists 'the ones I really do dislike,' because, he said, they are morally unimaginative." "Dislike" is so much milder than "abhor."
  3. Need to say which war in "missing war service by only a couple of years".
  4. This statement appears to need more support: "There is no doubting the enormous influence of his approach." A quote from someone else should do the job.
  5. "He died on June 10, 2003 while …" needs a comma after "2003".
  6. This needs to be fixed: "{South America|South American]]"
  7. I don't know what this means: "congratulatory first".
  8. It should be put in the "Philosophers" category. Maurreen 07:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added the cat, and fixed some spelling+grammar. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:56, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I tried to strike out all my comments, but I'm doing something wrong. Maurreen 08:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Contains POV language. Don't know enough to fix it. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:56, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Properly fixed and well-referenced. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with MGM on the POV language. Take the first sentence for example, " arguably the most erudite of his age." or the caption under the first image "He was a lean, attractive, energetic man, his deep sun tan shown off to its best advantage by the baggy white suits he often wore." Also, we have no references (only external links). None of the images has source information, and the Williams and Nietzsche pictures are probably copyrighted (because of the addition to the Nietzsche picture). Support. Jeronimo 12:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

To address the objections:

(1) I re-wrote the lead again, getting rid of "arguably the most erudite of his age" and used "arguably the most influential of his age," which I believe no moral philosopher would argue with. It's hard to find a quote for this, because it's taken as read by people who've written about him. (It's like trying to find a quote saying Einstein was clever.) Some philosophers would say he was THE most influential; others would say he was ONE of the most influential. No one would say he was not one of the most influential.

Found a quote from The Times to use instead.

(2) Maurreen, I think I dealt with all your points. Used "rejected" instead of "abhorred." It was the Second World War. Explained congratulatory first. Fixed the typos. Someone else added the categories and missing comma in the date. Got rid of deep sun tan and baggy white suits, and that he was attractive. Got rid of "enormous influence of his approach," as I couldn't find a specific quote for it. Added a quote about his being a feminist.

(3) Mark and Jeronimo, I think this version is less Mills and Boon-eque.

(4) Jeronimo, I don't know what you mean by references. I've supplied a fairly comprehensive bibliography. Do you mean actual footnotes throughout the text? Footnote are not normally used in philosophy entries in encyclopedias so far as I know. It would take me weeks to footnote everything in this article. I have a copy of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy here (calls itself a dictionary, but is what we normally think of an encyclopedia), and there are no footnotes in entries, though they do supply a bibliography. Where I quote someone, however, I do supply a reference.

References added

(5) Jeronimo, the Williams photograph has been released for public use; and the copyright on the Kant and Nietzsche photographs has expired. Because you mentioned being concerned about the writing on the Nietzsche photo, I used instead the photo of him from his own Wikipedia entry, which has no writing on it.

Copyright information added to image pages

(6) Also, some of you didn't like the large photograph of Williams. Someone else reduced it, so it's now quite a bit smaller.

(7) Mgm, you said it contains POV language but you don't know enough to fix it. I've taken out some of the POV language. If you still have concerns, do you have specific objections that I can address?

Thank you, everyone, for the input, which is much appreciated. Slim 19:30, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Object (again, same general idea as before). Some of the writing is still too gushing, particularly the paragraph that starts When he left for America; assuming there's a source for this material, quoting the source would be fine. Also, I don't know what His time as a fighter pilot did not harm his image with members of the opposite sex means: is the suggestion that he pulled Shirley Williams because he was in the RAF? Mark¹ 08:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) Please format the external links used as references according to the guidlines at Wikipedia:Cite sources. You created the references section, is it fair to say you have consulted all of those for material in the article? Also, I've never seen inline citations use the title of the work, only the primary author's last name. Is using the work standard? Is the bibliography section simply a list of his works? It might help to make it clearer to state that explicitly. It appears you have done great work referencing the article, thank you, keep doing that. 2) The lead section is too long. It should be 4 paragraphs max, and no one or two sentence paragraphs. - Taxman 20:54, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Not exactly a self-nomination, though I've been one of a regular group of people who have done extensive work on the Doctor Who set of pages over the last half year or so. -khaosworks 02:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are anons allowed to nominate? If so, then I'm putting this marvellously comprehensive article forward. --195.11.216.59 17:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Well I've suggested that Khaosworks pushes for this to be a FAC, and I think it should be too. Support. violet/riga (t) 17:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: could perhaps do with some more references - there must be more available violet/riga (t) 23:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Reply: I could put in more references, but none that directly contributed to the information above. The bulk of the references are in the sub-page History of Doctor Who. -khaosworks 03:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Maybe some of the fansites in the external links section need to be cleaned out, but the article seems otherwise well-researched, comprehensive and understandable, even to a non-fan like me. Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Excellent work, gives a great overview of the program without ever sinking to the level of fan trivia. Support for sure. Shane King 03:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. The "Viewership" section needs a copyedit, and the removal of some convoluted/injokey material. It'd be nice to see it get a good copyedit all over - it's not quite brilliant prose, although it is nearly there. Ambi 08:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've attempted a once over copyedit. If you could point to something specific that should be changed, that'd be great. -khaosworks 12:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• It's fine work, I'm happy to support. Everyking 10:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Nice article. Support. -- Arwel 14:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - Chrism 12:38, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderfully thorough. —αγδεε(τ) 09:00, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Television

I think this article is very in-depth. It includes a comprehensive history of the medium, technical details, and how broadcast practices vary from country to country. Denelson83 03:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. In short: this article is a mess. It should be decided what is to be told in this article, and in what structure. Some technical details are in the history section, or in the tv set section and vice versa. In detail: 1) No lead section. 2) The top image is horrible and unnecessary. It should be very easy to make picture of your own tv and put it there. 3) The history section is good, but could use a copyedit. Still, it has little recent history (widescreen, digital). These are mentioned in the "New developments" section, which should be integrated. There is also a US/UK bias in here, and there are no pictures of old tv's. 4) The technology section is vague and incomplete. It does not at all become clear how televisions work, and we only learn some stuff about the screen dimensions. I would expect a far more extensive explanation here, with a least a diagram to illustrate. 5) "Tv standards" is not a section. 6) The article also writes a bit about television programmes, but I think these would fit better in a separate article. The current "section" (3 sentences) on advertising is pathetic, and while there is a long section on networks this is insuffiencent and should be at television network or so. 7) The rest of the article is lists - which should be moved to other articles - or single section paragraphs - which should be expanded to full sections, or embedded in other sections. 8) There are no references, although there are many links and further reading. Jeronimo 07:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. What he said, especially about the pictures. Generally this article feels like it was written by a whole bunch of people over a long period of time. Which I'm sure it has, but it shouldn't be so obvious, especially if it wants to be a featured article. Also, the section on video connections should be removed wholesale, or perhaps put in a seperate article. Oh, yeah, the section on harmful effects needs much better references than a few online news sources, I'm talking journal articles or reputable books. Also I don't think I'd support an article on TV unless it either talked in a fair bit of detail about TV's influence on culture and society or did so briefly with a link to a full article. Psychobabble 08:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I have similar concerns. I think this is a good basis for a featured article but needs more work. Perhaps Wikipedia:Peer review is a better place to go with this one? I went out and found a decent PD image of television watching to replace that diagrammatic monstrosity, so that's fixed (and somebody else added a couple others lower down), but it still needs reorganization, major infills, and some polishing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thursday October Christian

This article is now the most complete on the web about this subject. I have drawn together virtually all of the extant facts regarding this fascinating individual. GeorgeStepanek 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. It's been on VFD as the subject may not be notable. If it survives there, the article is nowhere near long enough and has no proper headings. It reads more like a list of what other people have said about him. Why isn't his date of death in the opening para? Readers have to struggle through the article to find it hidden. Dbiv 01:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, the article is short, but there may be no more to be written. Further expansion would of course be great if possible, but I strongly support hard work on more obscure historical topics like this. Everyking 02:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: It's far too small, and more importantly, far too slight. This is a figure from a partially literate generation with extremely poor history available. The most important thing about him is his parentage and the fact that he had to mate with an older woman. Beyond that, there is very little to say about a man like him. If these are all of the facts on the individual, then there simply isn't enough to say about him. Geogre 03:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This is far, far too short. Surely, there is more information on this person especially since several books mention him. I also object to the VFD (and will comment there). Zerbey 03:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Since it's on VfD, some people obviously have problems with it. Also, it's too short and therefore unlikely to be a comprehensive article on the subject. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Nice VfD rescue, yes. Good article, yes. Worthwhile to have articles on "more obscure historical topics?" Yes. Featured article? Sorry, you gotta be kidding. Maybe you've dug up everything there is to dig up from secondary sources, but if so there just isn't enough known about this fellow. And to me the contemporary Pitcairn islanders like Steve Christian are far more "fascinating" (in a repulsive way). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • In my view, we ought to consider an article featured when it has become about the best and most comprehensive we can reasonably expect it to be, short of perfection. Can this really become much better and more comprehensive? I hope it can, but I have my doubts. Everyking 10:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Googie

An interesting article about an unusual type of architecture that everyone knows, even if they don't realize that it has a name (think Jetsons. I am promised that more pictures are forthcoming. Certainly worthy of people's attention. Danny 00:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• An interesting article, indeed, but not remotely in the ballpark of featured status. Compare Palladian architecture. Ambi 00:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I agree; compare it also to the Googie Architecture Online site that it references to see how much more comprehensive it could be. Still, the topic is interesting and the article is a good start. —Steven G. Johnson 00:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object waaaay too early for this to be considered for FAC, has minimal information. Articles for FAC consideration should be comprehensive, this does not have that feeling. Alkivar 00:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Not comprehensive yet, but a good start. Try to compare to other architecture articles and expand. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:12, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: This is not a bad page, and its an interesting and promising article, but it needs a lot more information. A longer lead, then definitions or the rules of the form, or was it a free style of an era - that sort of thing. Then more examples, and if possible illustrations and plans, of exponent architects and their work. Was it domestic, civic, monumental or merely a gimmick? Why was it not given credence in its own lifetime? Is it confined to USA or known by an alternative name elsewhere? Why is it so called? It would be great to see this bought up to featured standard, suggest the nominator withdraws it for a couple of weeks, and addresses and expands a few points Giano 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have just made a small re-write to the lead section, but above comments still stand Giano 14:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The very first thing I wanted to know when I glanced at the article was "who coined the names Googie and/or Populuxe, what is their derivation, and what are they supposed to evoke?" The article doesn't say. Compare Art Deco... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Stall This is premature. The entry is still just a sketch. Great images are needed, and they are all around us. --Wetman 00:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dragon Rouge

In my opinion, it is a very intersting topic and there has much work done in very short time. Please have a look at it, it is worth it to be at wikipedia'S front page!

• Object. Lead section too short. No references. Some instances of POV (e.g. calling the critical press "tabloid"). The whole section about opposition is poorly balanced. Again, references are needed. I live in Sweden but have never heard of this movement, despite the claim of "fame" in Sweden. Link to some of the "tabloid" articles. See also links to several articles that have already been mentioned. Do 500 members really make it the "leading magical organization" in northern Europe? Says who? Alchemy is listed in see also. Why? Does the movement have any official religious texts? The section The Initiatoric Draconian Magic is not clear on what each step actually constitutes; what does a follower have to do to achieve each step? How is the movement financed? What do the different elements in the "official logo" symbolise? In short: this article has some way to go before featured status. — David Remahl 13:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. "Initiatoric Draconian Magic" section is unintelligible to a reader with no prior knowledge of this group. The section also needs to be formatted properly. "Opposing Views" is POV. Section headers shouldn't capitalize every word. Rhobite 17:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Lead needs expansion. See also section needs to be more carefully linked (magic is a disambiguation) and info on why these "see-also links" are related needs to be included. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 17:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Impossible to understand for people unfamiliar with the subject. Needs references, for example in regard to Swedish fame. Haven't heard of it, and a find a worldwide organization with only 500 members quite small. I doubt it's as famous as the author would like it to be. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:10, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. is this for real? article reads more like a very bad joke. Are we sure this actually exists? Can we get soem verifyable sources. Perhaps a list of famous members? Some reason why this is even worthy of inclusion on Wiki? Alkivar 00:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: Lead is almost non existent, but even if it were not, the content of the article is insubstantial. There are no references. At various times I've lived all over Europe and never heard of it. It may exist. It may be notable; but it is not featured article material. Giano 08:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Duran Duran

I just stumbled on this — it seemed so good (and surprisingly chockful of references) that I was surprised it's not a featured article yet. Johnleemk | Talk 09:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support Tuf-Kat 17:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support, but it needs more consistent year linking - I see four years listed in the lead with links, and then several linked later in the article. Other than that, looks good. Spangineer 00:00, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that's four years listed in the lead without links. Spangineer 00:02, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

• • Fixed. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 02:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. How can you have an article about a group without a single picture of them other than one blurry photograph of one member? I realize that copyright obstacles may make this difficult, but it still is a glaring hole... —Steven G. Johnson 00:50, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've been trying for six months to get a picture with appropriate permissions -- it's turning out to be very difficult! (Pictures of this band are apparently still worth money to the photographers.) I have one promising lead to write to yet. Can press kit/press release photos be used, and if so, how should they be tagged? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 02:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • IANAL, but a fair use claim on some photo sounds reasonable in this case. Ambi 03:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • All right, several fair use press kit photos and a magazine cover included; I'll keep hunting for fully GFDL pictures though. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 10:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Can they be captioned please? Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Done, according to the guidelines. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 06:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support when it gets a picture of the whole band, preferably from about 1984. This is worthy as an example to others taking a lead on popular music-related articles as to the standard to aim at. Dbiv 00:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep, that's a good'un. Dbiv 20:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I'm beginning to see how articles that have glaring examples of bad writing in them (like Celtic tiger) get featured. This has glaring examples of bad writing. There's a sentence with the phrase "needless to say" twice in it, a large number of sentences enclosed in brackets which should be either taken out or made into proper sentences, a few misplaced phrases (such as the one referencing NME, and their "very controversial"... early release of a video) and some POV writing (in the Nineties section only, the rest is refreshingly good). And can we source the "famous" quote about So Red the Rose? Also I think the structure could use a re-working, the heading dividers under Nineties and Eighties are good, but not inclusive of all the text under the heading. Putting year dates, even if they are approximate, on the events under the headings in the heading itself would be a very good idea. Otherwise things like mentioning that someone got married just seem like non-sequiters. It's mostly good, but it really needs a polish. Given the number of supports this has got, maybe I'm just being too picky, but I though featured articles were meant to be brilliant prose. Psychobabble 08:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Sadly, brilliant prose seems to have been disposed of. I often wish we had retained that name. Filiocht 10:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've been working to build this towards FA candidacy, but knew it wasn't quite ready for prime-time yet; still trying to weave together several different contributors' works (including lots of trivia about marriages and pop rivals). I've tried to address your concerns, but I'm not sure what to do about the NME Top 100 albums phrase -- it's not chronological, but it seems worth noting, and it's much more about the Rio album than about the year. Do you suggest deleting it, or moving it down to the 2000s section, or what? And what is the objection to "very controversial"? It was definitely a tempest in a teapot, but there were articles about it in the LA Times, Rolling Stone, and more. If it's just the "very", consider it gone. I'd be really happy for someone else to come give the article a good copyedit; after a while one becomes blind to one's own mistakes, and I don't care whether the brilliant prose is mine or yours! [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 10:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've polished the whole thing up a bit -- can you please re-read and let me know if your concerns have been addressed?
• Should the lengthy list of "musicians influenced" be pared down, prosified, or moved to another page? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 10:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I think they should be moved unless it's possible to really turn them into prose. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Moved to talk page; will work in a paragraph on some of the more important bands mentioned here. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 06:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vatican City

I've come across this one too - seems good to me. jguk 21:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The "Transportation" and "Communications" sections need to be de-CIAfied (i.e. converted into prose) since encyclopedia articles should not be almanacs or factbooks. --Jiang 09:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object strongly. This article needs far more content. Only the history and politics sections are somewhat reasonable, but they could use some expansion too. The Transportation and Communication articles (from the CIA book) are not in the country template, and should be moved to separate articles (again, according to the template). Furthermore we need pictures. It shouldn't be to hard to get some pictures of the St. Peter, a pope, and the Swiss Guards. Jeronimo 07:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The Vatican City is so small that Transportation and Communication do not deserve their own articles. The template does not need to be strictly followed. --Jiang 02:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe they don't deserve their own article, but the information certainly doesn't belong in this article as it stands. Jeronimo 08:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pope

--jguk 21:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. It's long enough and detailed enough but the article could do with better organisation. It seems that the paragraphs are in random order. With such a complicated subject some subclauses are inevitable but to have the very first sentence include a subclause in brackets which is longer than the part outside the brackets is an example of how the article is in need of some copyediting. Dbiv 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Internet

--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: What exactly is the difference between Internet and the World Wide Web featured on November 1? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:13, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • The World Wide Web is just one application of the Internet. There is a world of difference between the two terms. The Internet is 35 years old or something like that. The World Wide Web was created in the early 1990s. — David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The image in the lead section of Internet is rather misleading, contributing to the misconception that the Internet == the WWW — it should really be a topological map of the structure of the Internet, not a map of the hyperlink structure of the WWW surrounding Wikipedia. 2) The history section could be expanded using some info from the main history article. 3) The role of the various core protocols such for example as IP and DNS should be expanded. 4) Censorship should be dealt with. By oppressive regimes and so-called voluntary censorship by censorware. 5) The Security section is lacking. Should mention some historically notable worm outbreaks. 6) The way that the Internet is decentralised, and delegates complexity to the edges of the network should be mentioned. Advantages and disadvantages. 7) The systems that form the backend of the Internet should be described in greater detail. Are there any potential vulnerabilities or single-points-of-failure? — 8) On top of all of this; references?David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I agree mostly with David Remahl. Some additional comments: 1) The section on "Child abuse" is vague. What is the connection? Has child abuse increased because of the internet? Or only the number of convictions, perhaps with thanks to the internet? A (scientific) reference would also be useful here, since there may not be a relation at all. 2) There are no references, just a bunch of links. I would very much like some offline references or further reading as well. 3) The "See also" list needs to be cleaned up. Some articles are linked from within the article, others are more relevant to WWW than to Internet in general, others are contained within the Category scheme. Jeronimo 12:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object on similar reasons. Also, The section on viruses seems to suggest they are natural entities. Not malicious code actually introduced into a system by programmers.--ZayZayEM 09:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP

--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The article does present a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, but it looks more like a PC World feature rundown than anything substantive. The later sections on criticisms etc. are detailed but need better organization, and there should be more information about the key differences between XP and predecessors. This article is good, but not (yet) great. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is its previous FAC nomination. Rhobite 04:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Support: It presents a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, and is very comparable if not better than most operation system articles on the Wiki, by my quick check of the 'pedia, and based on edits I have made to other Windows articles. Overall I think this an article worthy of note. PPGMD 04:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object, it is not complete enough on the technologies that power Windows XP and what Windows XP has borrowed from other OSs. It also seems a bit pro-micrososft and the writting is not well focused or organized. If these issues are rectified, I would happily support it. -Exigentsky 01:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • These are very general complaints. Could you please be more specific about what technologies you'd like to see mentioned? And I'm not sure that the "borrowing" issue is relevant, since (a) all OSes copy each other and (b) we already have Comparison of operating systems and (c) Windows XP is already very large. Rhobite 05:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that chart, in that case forget it. However, I think there should be more talk about Win2k features that are now in XP (which people do not know so well because Win2k was mostly for business.) NTFS is one such example, there should be a wiki link to the NTFS article and a brief explanation. Also, maybe a section on the future of the OS, how Indigo and Avalon will run on it for example. -Exigentsky 01:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

-- Alterego 3:56, 26 Nov 2004; self-nomination
Outlines the proper usage and dynamics of the MBTI. A unique resource not found elsewhere and unparalleled on the Internet, both in thoroughness, resources, and neutrality. Politely and neutrally describes the often-heated differences between the MBTI and Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Received very few suggested corrections on Peer Review. Includes custom-made images, complex tables, and authoritative citations.

• Object. First there's a few facts that even I (with limited understanding of Psychology) realise are missing, such as the unusual tale of the development of the test (a particularly strong shortcoming with no pages written on its developers) and what it means when you score a '0' (or nearly a 0) on one of the attributes. Actually it doesn't seem to have much of a description on the numerical score system at all, which seems fairly important to me, seeing as that's how the results are reported to the people who take the test. In addition the paragraphs under "type dynamic and table type" are full of jargon and is written in a way that I find hard to understand. I have had the MBTI types explained to me in terms that make sense, why not pitch the explanation at the level of organisational psychology explanations rather than in technical terms. And I'm sure there's a reason, but why are only 8 of the 16 categories given detailed explanations (under "descriptions of function-attributes")? If there is a reason, it should be explained because the tables attached to the section show all 16 types. It's got some good points (like the tables), but it's not quite there, I think. Psychobabble 21:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is possible to include a section on the development of the test, if that was viewed as important. I have perused around many other subjects, a few of which briefly mention their developments (notably not Microsoft Windows). It could be an entire article, or merely a couple of sentences (as is currently used). The unique history consists mostly of the fact that she and her family created the first version by writing likely items on note cards and then consulting with psychometricians from Educational Testing Services (sp). She considered other fields such as anthropology, biology, etc.. as unnecessary in the development in an indicator based on the premise that everyone knows people, therefore it should be the layman that describes them and not the doctor. I'm not sure what facts you are aware of, but it doesn't mean anything if you have a PCI score of 0. Especially on Form M, this is quite literally near impossible due to Item Response Theory. Because I am aware of the tests workings and structure I scored 0 on intuition and extroversion on my last taking. It means nothing. The "numerical score system" has been described. The article talks about the PCI score and emphasize that the "score system" you speak of is firstly nearly non-existant and secondly does not matter at all. It only matters what side of the line you fall on due to midpoint discrimination. There is a link to Psychometrics which touches on some of the key concepts used in the test's development. The jargon may be a key point here. I don't believe I have used any esoteric terms without describing them explicitly. The "fuction-attitudes" (not function-attributes) correctly point out a fact not found elsewhere on the internet: that the MBTI is highly dynamic and is very hard to properly understand. There is more than just Sensing/Intuition Thinking/Feeling. The first letter of the acronym tells you which attitude S/I T/F is in (e.g. if it is introverted or extroverted) and the last letter, J/P, tells you which is dominant in the personality. Understandably it was explained to you in the way that it would be explained to a lay client, and I took this into consideration. However, this is an encyclopedia and this information needs to be documented. This is the way the indicator actually is. When you are initially given the test you are not shown the dynamic qualities of type. The main interest is simply in figuring out which acronym best suits you so that you can move on to the description. Regarding the descriptions of the 16 types - we face a copyright issue here. I point out in the article that licensed psychologists with years of experience in interviewing and access to ~ a million tests taken write the descriptions. Many of those found on the internet were written for the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, a system in many ways incompatable with the MBTI. The best WP can do is link to the brief descriptions provided by CAPT, which is done. Not including inaccurate and custom made descriptions further and accurately emphasizes the dynamic activity of myersian typology, something which is very unique. You do not find it in this extremety in jungian typology or keirsey typology, which is often a source of oversimplification and confusion. Am taking your advice and will come up with a way to make the jargon more user friendly. Thank you. -- Alterego 07:00, 27 Nov 2004

Wow long reply. I'll only address the development point. I think mentioning the fact that one of the most widely used psychometric tests was developed by two women with no formal knowledge of psychology is worth mentioning even if in passing, as an interesting and salient fact. there doesn't need to be an essay on it. Psychobabble 01:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. All it really does is discuss the types, although it does that reasonably well. Briefly mentions skepticism about the MBTI, although this could stand a better discussion (the article is pretty NPOV in tone, but not in terms of balancing the content volume). But above all, what is glaringly absent from this article is any discussion of how the MBTI is actually used in the real world - what kinds of people use it, what they use it for, and what they do with the results. The article needs to address MBTI in contexts like pedagogy and employment screening, consider whether particular MBTI types suggest certain things socially or professionally, and deal with the possibility of cultural biases affecting the test. --Michael Snow 01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much. You will see that I have revamped the Skeptical view section and will carry out the rest of your suggestions. --[User:Alterego|Alterego]] 5:16 12/1/2004

British House of Commons

-- Emsworth 01:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now - an excellent start, and I want to support, but there are lots of details that could and should be added, such as: (i) introduction of radio and television broadcasting of proceedings; (ii) times and dates when the House usually sits (and emergency sessions); (iii) State Opening (Black Rod, the debates on the Queen's Speech); (iv) debating tactics and procedures such as points of order and programme motions (the "guillotine"); (v) the recent modernisation of procedures (e.g. the end of the hat for points of order during votes and changes in sitting times); (vi) other (in)famous disruptions of proceedings such as Michael Heseltine wielding the mace and the absailing lesbians; (vii) recent proposals in increase security (e.g. barriers to prevent strangers throwing items into the chamber); (viii) geography of the chamber (e.g., why the chamber has rows of seats down the sides (it used to meet in a chapel); where the Clerks sit; that and why there are lines on the carpet). Also, some sections seem long enough to deserve sub-sections (particularly history). The page is also rather long already (38k), and adding this sort of detail will expand it even more: it may be worth moving the longer sections, such as history, to their own "main articles" and summarising the main articles here. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is a lot to be written about the House of Commons. However, I feel that one must be more selective: only the more important details need to be included. The days on which the House sits, emergency sessions, the tradition of Black Rod knocking on the door, points of order, the guillotine, modernisation of procedure, and the geography of the chamber are all important, and information on these has been added/expanded. I do not feel, however, that security arrangements and the like warrant additional discussion (but I will add Heseltine's famous mace wielding incident). Radio and television information, as well as information on debates on the Address-in-Reply to the Queen's Speech, relate to Parliament as a whole, and would fit in the Parliament article rather than this article. As to subsections, I feel that they would cause the Table of Contents to become overwhelmingly large. As to splitting information, I do not feel that it is necessary here; the present 40k size is not too large, especially for a topic that is this important. Thus, I hope that I have taken the suggestions of objections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, and that I have addressed objections 1, 6, and 7. -- Emsworth 17:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • There is indeed a lot to be written: hence my suggestion of expansion and spawning of subsidiary articles. However, I'm glad you have taken in many of my points. I still think it is worth mentioning the intrusion of the broadcast media, if only because most people will never actually visit the Houses of Parliament but may have seen or heard parts of debates being broadcast: I think television is really a House of Commons rather than a Parliament issue because (if I remember correctly) the timetable and details differ between the Houses - the Lords were televised first as a guineapig; it may also be worth mentioning new Parliamentary practices, such as "doughnutting" the speaker. My mention of debating tactics was really directed at the rather ineffective and often boisterous style of Parliamentary debate, with an atmosphere that can resemble a rather poor school or univerisity debating society (cheap points scored through points of order; ineffectual debate airing the issues but getting little done). The new proposed security arrangements are topical, given recent disruptions that were not effectively prevented by the screens in the Strangers' Gallery; I still can't see mention of Tarzan's mace wielding. In addition to the abolition of the hat, the "I spy strangers" tactic went in 1998 too. However, if you are still strongly opposed to my remaining objections then I will beg leave withdraw. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I think the current composition of the House should be moved to a separate article (perhaps included in another existing one). The information about the current composition is just about as relevant as any composition of the house in history, and these aren't listed either. The article does a great job of telling a general, encyclopaedic, story; this part doesn't belong in there IMO. Jeronimo 13:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The current composition section only shows at a glance what the present status of the parties is. It does not list all the Members of the House. I feel that this information is certainly relevant, and does not require a separate article. -- Emsworth 17:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Can we get a colour picture of the House? Johnleemk | Talk 13:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support-- minor objections above noted but they are all easily correctable. 172 19:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Modernist poetry in English

My first ever (anon) edit was creating this page. Recently, Ive expanded it and others have chipped in (long way of saying self-nom). I think it's a reasonable overview of a complex subject. Filiocht 12:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, has everything, some of Wikipedia's best work indeed. The entire credit for this elegant article should go where it belongs, to Filiocht. (Disclosure: I did some minor copyediting.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 15:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Jeronimo 18:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. (I did author a short paragraph.) Geogre 14:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support: A beautifully written page on a very difficult, varied and exhaustive subject Giano 17:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as always. I think Filiocht deserves a special award for his amazing ability to come up with articles like this on even on the most challenging subjects. Ambi 03:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but basically I just write about stuff I'm interested in and have been living with for the last 35 years or so. Filiocht 08:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely page. Goes past "overview" into some depth, which is great. Good job! [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 22:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Wow great work, had everything I was expecting to see, pictures, references, information on the impact, development and legacy. My only nit is that the lead section is not all that well structured for someone not already familiar with the subject. The first paragraph spends more time telling us what Imagists are than telling us what modernism is. The first paragraph of the section 'Modernist poetry' seems to do a much better job of telling what modernism is. Can you refocus the first paragraph to ease us into the subject? Support, after this one nit is fixed. - Taxman 04:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Better now? Filiocht 08:34, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Well it is a little non-standard and the sentence structure of that first paragraph is awfully complicated (It's all one also), and doesn't ease the reader in, but it does explain the topic. The rest of the article is excellent, so I won't object on that. - Taxman 15:39, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I've split that paragraph into three sentences to try to clarify. I can't see a way of working the article title in any earlier than the 2nd para, unfortunately. Filiocht 15:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, better, but can you find simpler terms for "versification" and a simpler way of expressing the idea in the third sentence? Specifically, what do you mean by "dislocation of the 'I'"? Especially the dislocation part. There are still multiple clauses in that sentence, which is fine for later in an article, but a lead section, especially the first paragraph, needs a gentler introduction to the material. I'm assuming it is clearer than day to you, but to someone not familiar with the subject it still takes some significant deciphering. - Taxman 20:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have, somewhat reluctantly, further simplified this paragraph. Hope it's OK now. There is a limit to the degree to which these concepts can be simplified, just as there is in physics or medicine, say. Filiocht 08:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like it, I think it is much better. Hopefully someone else will weigh in. - Taxman 14:10, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

John Holmes

Self-nom. A short article, but the best anyone can find on the Internet. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'd support, except I really wanted it to be about the other one. -- GWO 12:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Don't get me wrong - it is a good article, but it's just too short to be comprehensive. I write articles this length all the time. Maybe a bit of offline research would be useful. Ambi 12:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The fact there is nothing better on the internet says more about the internet than about this article: it's very far from being a featured article. The article is lacking on sufficient detail on all fronts: personal life, career, the book he wrote, context etc. The available text has some silly content as well, such as the prize of his book today ($150) and "opposed to Andrew Jackson (an "Anti-Jackson").". Also, the images have no source information. Judging by the text and sources, this is little more than a summary of all that could be found about him on the web, rather than a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article about the man, which should involve use of further sources than just the web. Jeronimo 12:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object - Too short--Evil Monkey 20:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thought of the porn star before clicking the link? →Raul654 08:58, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

No. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

No *cough*. I'm up there, at the top. (I guess no one would be saying "too short" if it were about the other John Holmes) -- GWO

Yeah, I thought about the accused murderer too. (That's why he's famous, right? We don't watch his movies, right?) Geogre 14:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object: Same objections as others. At the very least, in terms of content, we need to know his principles. What did he fight for? What against? Not being a Democrat at that time had a specific meaning (alluded to by the link), but what did that mean to him? How did it represent his state? What about the book? What did it advocate? (Incidentally, $150 isn't all that much in the bibliophile world. I say that not to denigrate, but to say that it's not a remarkable enough price to warrant a mention in the article.) Geogre 14:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vitamin C

Seems to me as a very nice and complete article, including the chemical, biological, and historical aspects. Donar Reiskoffer 15:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Well written, a fine example of a wikipedia article --Jarv 17:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• It might be a good idea to mention beriberi and scurvy earlier in the article (Where it says vitamin C prevents disease). Other than that, support. Great article. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 18:54, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - looks good: thorough, interesting, useful, and easy to read. Spangineer 20:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - only issue is that the image of the Goat has no image tag. Is from the USDA website but can't find any copyright info--Evil Monkey 22:06, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. Needs more references, and relies on list form a little too much. Great article otherwise. The table of fruit-to-vitamin-c content is also very large - could this be made smaller? Ambi 01:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor Object, I agree, the table on the Fruit -> Vitamin-C content definately needs shrinking, and is a classic example of when a table is unneccesary. Could be done in 1 table with 6 columns, not 3 tables with 2. Not to mention there are around 5-10 entries with same content that dont need their own rows.Alkivar 20:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The table used to be a 6 column one, I changed it to a two column table and split it into three parts. Using a 6 column table for two field data is a bad idea for many reasons, including the fact that the data then is stored in a different order from the way it is presented and interpreted. It makes it hard to modify: for example, inserting one entry near the top forces you to shift the contents of each row that follows, whereas with the three two-column tables you only have to move the ones at the top and the bottom for each table to adjust their heights. The way things are formatted right now, it is even a trivial operation to split the data into four tables whereas changing the 6-column table into an 8-column one requires a bit of markup-fighting. And the problem is not only with editing: you also get the data in the wrong order if you copy it as text in your browser from the 6-column table. Fredrik | talk 20:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Are all of those foods necessary? I know I haven't heard of a number of them (like Lychee and Loganberry), and others are definitely not common. It's definitely interesting information, but cutting a dozen or two out would help the problem, in my opinion. Spangineer 00:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs more and better (less bias) references - the one vanity press? reference is dubious and inadequate. Seems a bit heavy on advocacy and short on science. I just edited the section on harmful effects - fixed a number of errors, whole article needs careful copyedit. -Vsmith 02:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Please be more specific on what problems you see. Obviously others have tried copyediting and have not seen or been able to fix what you have seen. - Taxman 04:22, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
• I have made numerous edits to this page over the last year. Pleased to see it getting so much attention and improvement. I have plans to further update the advocacy section as its poorly written and to include a Claimed beneficial effects of Vitamin c section to balance the harmful effects one. (which I started) Lumos3 13:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Should Footnotes and References be merged?? Should some of history be moved to scurvy instead?--ZayZayEM 08:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Genghis Khan

This is a perfect complete and un-biased article on Genghis Khan and his life that most people are very curious about. I think his life and achievements will be very academic. I think Wikipedia users would definitely enjoy it on front page. Let's show it! (nominated by an anon →Raul654 08:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC))

• Oppose. Only two inline references, which I think hardly covers all the material in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There isn't much "all the material" on the topic of Genghis Khan per se. This is all we got and it is good. Can you suggest some more "material"? Try Google-ing "Genghis Khan" and compare the articles out there with this Wikipedia one.
    • The issue is not the content; the issue is that the article insufficiently cites third-party sources; only two references are provided, each for specific parts of the article; the rest of the article's content has no sources. For why we need references, see Wikipedia:Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I don't like seeing a hideous infobox taking up half the width of the page at the very beginning of the article. Remove it, or at least shrink it. Everyking 11:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. As mentioned before, the references are severely lacking, the modest infobox does not bother me, but the lead section could use some work, it is not too readable nor does it do a great job summarising the article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 13:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. GeneralPatton 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. A list of website homepages as sources is not suffiencent for a featured article. Thousands of books and articles have been written about Genghis Khan—Go cite some! —Neutrality^talk]] 03:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can you? Talk is cheap.
• Object. 1) I find the article to be rather short for a person this important, but I find it hard to indicate what exactly is missing. However, most topics can be probably be treated with more depth. 2) As others have pointed out, we need references. Also, some books and articles are definitely needed, if only as further reading. 3) There are several uncredited claims and vague sentences. E.g. "Asia is certainly quite different today than it would have been without the brief Mongol Empire.", "Some people argue ", "He is often associated", "He was one of the most charismatic leaders in the world", "probably was the founding father". The "Values of Genghis Khan" section is full of this kind of statements. 4) See also contains mostly terms that were already treated in the article. 5) The infobox is non-standard, and doesn't give much information. Also, I find it a bit strange to see his Mongolian names in Cyrillic; I'd much rather see his name in the real Mongolian script (not the communist-enforced Cyrillic). 6) Given his importance, and the fact that he has been dead for centuries, there must be more illustrations to add. Jeronimo 08:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I would expect at least a mention of The Secret History of the Mongols (a.k.a. The History and Life of Chinggis Khan, which, BTW, could certainly use an article). -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. I agree that references section needs to be expanded. Also most of the 'see also' should be incorporated into the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. While its big and certainly informative, it is lacking genuine references, and uses too many "some sources", "other sources", "some people" ambiguous phrasing.--ZayZayEM 08:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

• Suport Interesting subject Martyman 05:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. This looks rather good, but the "Reaction" section is a bit poor, as it lists only a single reaction, and no source is mentioned for the reaction. Also, several links in the External links section are already outdated, as is often the case with newssites. These should be cleaned up (there is currently a lot of duplication in the links as well, so it seems unnecessary to have so many). Jeronimo 07:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. The article is very nice. It's hard not to be impressed by the development of this article in the 2 days following the first publishing of the discovery. The following is not actionable, so not an objection, but I don't know how wise it is to feature an article about such a recent and controversial discovery before it has been given proper peer review etc. Regrettably, my knowledge in the field is limited so I don't have anything to add about the article contents. — David Remahl 08:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. this is an article to be proud of. I had read about the discovery in the news, and I thought I would insert a short note on the matter on WP, and lo and behold, a full-fledged article was in place already. That it is a new discocery is duly noted in the intro. The taxonomy seems a little too definite, the possibility of a classification as a subspecies, H. erectus floresiensis could be noted more prominently. dab 12:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Note: It sounds like the objections and concerns above wouldn't be very difficult to fix, but I know absolutely nothing about the topic outside of this article, so it would be good if anyone with a bit of knowledge about such things could take a shot. Ambi 12:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. GeneralPatton 18:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. I weeded out a couple of dead ext. news links & added another Loom blog link to reaction or controversial work. -Vsmith 01:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Suport Fantastic article on a new discovery --ZayZayEM 07:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Good article. Andre (talk) 22:33, Dec 3, 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)

All these points have been addressed in the article in response to your useful comments. Ydorb 20:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, none of my other objections are critical. 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)
  • There should be at least some disambiguation for the computer game which is found at Medal of Honor (computer game)--Enceladus 02:19, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • When I made the comment there was disambiguation text at the top of the article, which is sensible and I have no problem with. But I can't see why someone interested in the the Medal of Honor medal should "also see" the Medal of Honor computer game. Geoff/Gsl 05:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object. No information about Medal of Honor impostors (see [4] [5]) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: that is just too arcane a sidesubject to have. This is an article on the "medal of honor" itself. Some comments on those actually awarded it are appropriate, but no need to devote any time to those who have not been awarded it. jguk 23:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If you feel it's too arcane to be included in the article, then at least they should be a companion article with a summary and wikilink at the main one. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I left dicussion info about MOH Imposters. There is information in the article about federal crimes regarding MOH imposters and the penalities for wearing it. Putting up a list of MOH imposters, however, has some problems with the idea. See Talk:Medal of Honor for more info -Husnock 26 Nov 04
• Support GeneralPatton 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support--Evil Monkey 22:07, Nov 24, 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)

• I have wikified a lot of topics throughout. Are there any more that you think would be useful to wikify? The separate supply and demand articles, especially the demand article are so bad they need to be rewritten. That of course does not affect this article. - Taxman 19:42, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• I also wikified some links, they look better now. I will wait a little more though, I need to think a little more about wheter this article is complete.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:47, 23 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)

• The problem with this is that it makes the intro significantly more difficult to understand for the layperson. I'm not sure the extra accuracy is worth that cost. - Taxman 19:42, Nov 23, 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

Great topic, good explaination! Mfecane 04:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - great article, explains everything I already forgot from my microeconomics class a couple years ago. Spangineer 17:07, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Support -- though I'd like to see the Supply and demand#History of supply and demand section expanded. 172 19:11, 30 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)

• Neutral My specific objections have ben largely addressed by a lengthy re-write and a large improvement in organisation. I don't know enough about the subject to be able to support it, though - it could have factual errors or omissions which I am in no position to analysie. Psychobabble 02:14, 24 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)</s?

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 [6], changing 'history' for any other subject. Dbiv 14:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also dispute the term "reading" is widely enough used as to be acceptable. I've certainly never heard it in the US. If most of the English speaking world would not understand a phrase then it does not matter whether it is British or American English or whatever, it should be exchanged for a more well known term. Or put the more well known in parenthesis. This is also the case for a number of other phrases in that section. What does "called" mean in that context. What is a barrister? It should be noted inline, not forcing the reader to read the linked article. If there are that many in one paragraph, I'm assuming there are many more throughout the article. Clarity is more important than using British colloquialisms. - Taxman 18:04, Nov 24, 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) This is much better now, but still needs more information on the man, what made him tick etc. Giano 17:29, 23 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)

Have attempted to improve the written style of this article. However, reverts by DBiv have ensured that while the facts are there the English and vocabulary remain basic to say the least.213.122.195.196 13:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have done no reverts. We evidently disagree on what constitutes the best prose and written style. I found your edits flowed rather badly and lacked some necessary punctuation; they also tended to introduce new concepts: for example, did Macmillan retain Maudling in 1957 because he 'recognised the potential of a rising star'? Or did Butler persuade Macmillan to retain his ally? I don't know, which is why the article did not speculate. I'm afraid I also thought your edits included a number of clichés. Dbiv 15:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support Good article. But it would be better to recast the Bar/barrister bit so it can be understood by an international audience. jguk 15:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Support--ZayZayEM 07:06, 3 Dec 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)
  • There are still only 2 print references, neither particularly relevant to most of the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 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)
  • I trust that this objection has been addressed - the Chinese unicode has moved lower doen, but some Sanskrit is there (quite properly, I think). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 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)
      • This objection has been addressed, I think: I can't see any "trivia" there now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 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)
  • removed it myself. reluctant support as long as nobody re-introduces it without references. dab 10:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting article about widespread and longtime use of what is now a reviled symbol. A2Kafir 17:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - could still do with more proper references. --ZayZayEM 04:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support - I also agree that it should have more references --Alex Krupp 06:19, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Object: Missing source info, copyright tags, or insufficiently justified copyright tags, on some images: Image:Swastikapistols.jpg, Image:Whirling log.jpg, Image:ASEA logo pre 1933.jpg, Image:Lotta Svärd.jpg, Image:Swastika.jpg. —Steven G. Johnson 01:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh dear - in extremis, I suppose these could be deleted? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support! Interesting and well written. Exigentsky
• Comment: maybe we should start over? The article has been substantially rewritten since the vote started. dab 15:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Is there a procedure for that? Fishal 22:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • well, we could argue that there are unaddressed objections, so the article failed to reach FA consensus for now, but rather than wait a couple of weeks, we could just archive this discussion and re-add it to the top of this page immediately (as it seems consensus is just around the corner, really). I don't think there is really an official procedure for this: it's my suggestion, and if others agree, just do it. dab 09:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, the article has changed so much since its nomination, it seems to be experiencing growing pains. I propose taking it off this list and re-nominating it once all the new matrerial is sorted out better. Fishal 04:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • agree. there is no hurry. dab 20:33, 3 Dec 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

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))
• Negligence

I suggest a photo of a mother back turned to a child near a stove. Its a type of negligence, could easily be staged for a photo if one cant be found. Alkivar 05:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe a photo of you staging the photo could be used as another example:) jguk 22:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about a photo of your mother. Just in general. Sorry, couldn't resist it. Andre (talk) 23:22, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good choice: this is an article about the legal concept of negligence, not of the general idea of carelessness. It is extremely unlikely that any court would consider such a situation to be legal negligence (it happens every day in most family households), or indeed that legal action would result from it. I would much prefer the idea of a disclaimer, as suggested on the article talk page. Mark¹ 04:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why not just take a photo of a product warning label? It's very relevant and I'm sure someone can find one. Maybe we could even construct a collage of them? Psychobabble 07:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe a more typical instance related to torts would be a photograph of a wet floor, with or without a yellow warning horse. Something like this may already be available in a public domain source such as an attorney general's website. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zowie. I just realized the perfect image for this article is the Gare Montparnasse locomotive accident, which is in several copyrighted posters but originates in 109-year-old photographs (there seem to be more than one available, based on ladders, people, etc.). Somewhere one of these msut be available free, right? Or if not, this is along the right {cough} track. --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, yes -- File:Montparnassetrain .jpg Already.

I have added an illustrative image to the top of the article, I do wonder when and how this article got to featured status. The lead section is way too short and there are no references at all. It should probably be listed on WP:FARC -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 19:28, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've added Image:Montparnassetrain .jpg too. It is now on WP:FARC. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 30 Nov 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.