Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2003 and before

Korean name edit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

Korean name. Nominated by Taku 05:09, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Added by Kingturtle on 08:28, 5 October 2003

Heavy metal music edit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

Heavy metal music - strikes me as in-depth, comprehensive, and good at explaining the significance of a genre that sometimes doesn't get much respect. Smerdis of Tlön 04:34, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Added by Kingturtle on 08:28, 5 October 2003

Sperm Whale edit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

Sperm Whale. I liked researching this. I might (read 'am') be biased too! Pete 13:03, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
- I second. Needs a final proofread though. JDG
  - Nothing is ever final around here :) However, User:Wiwaxia has cast an critical copyediting eye over the article and made several substantial improvements. Pete 14:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Lollapalooza edit

Recreated from original FAC here.

Lollapalooza - Great article. --mav

16:10, 12 October 2003

Law of Demeter edit

(Page created from original nomination here.) 08:28, 5 October 2003

Law of Demeter. Nominated by User:TakuyaMurata. RickK 03:44, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Miles Davis edit

FAC created from original nomination here.

Miles Davis -- I like it, but I wrote it. Funro research too, some records there I haven't heard in ages -- GWO

09:16, 21 October 2003

Created FAC from original nomination here - clear descriptions of the sounds, understandable by laymen (non-linguists). Shows how the language spread. Uses public figures to illustrate the varieties of speech. 169.207.90.173 10:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC) -- It was thrilling to learn that the rhotic accent was in fact the accent of 1600-era English, and which survives as the standard Midwestern accent of the US. 169.207.85.74 13:32, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov edit

Garry Kasparov -- fun for anyone. comprehensive up the wazoo. Kingturtle 05:50, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Headlines and a TOC, please.—Eloquence 06:55, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
  - I have addressed this objection. I support adding this article whether the headings I added are kept or not. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:26, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  - Lots of info, but not "brilliant prose." moink 23:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    - This has already been added, if you want to remove it, provide some more explanation, remove it from Wikipedia:Brilliant prose and add it to #Recently removed articles, and reason for removal on this page.—Eloquence 23:11, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
    - Comments along these lines have been made before... Maybe we could have a Wikipedia:Great articles page which could replace the BP page to de-emphasize the "prose" and re-emphasize that we write encyclopedia articles? If this is done, we should wait til after the refresh on administrative grounds. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:40, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      - I (unsuccessfully) tried to get some feedback for a possible page rename on the wikien-l mailing list last Friday
      - I would agree with that. It seems people nominate things for this page based on content, not on whether or not it's well written. And of course, it makes sense to recognize good content, but it's disheartening to see some of these listed as "brilliant prose" when they're pretty humdrum. moink 23:05, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:10, 7 July 2007.

Joshua A. Norton edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joshua A. Norton

This article was a former featured article (promoted January 19, 2004) that appeared on Main Page on April 3, 2004. It was sent to WP:FAR and on October 7, 2006, the consensus was to demote the article. The problems addressed at FAR were the lack of in-line citations, prose issues, and an excess of trivia (there's now an entire article: Emperor Norton in popular culture). I think my work and the work done by Paul.h (talk · contribs) back in September 2006 have addressed the concerns of the FAR, and I think it's back to FA standards. I thank all users in advance for whatever comments they may have at this FAC. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: if featured, re-categorize to re-promoted at bottom of the WP:FFA page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the heads-up, SandyGeorgia. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I loved this article when I first read it a few years ago and love it even more now. Kudos. --mav 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see maybe a bit more of the stuff in the pop culture article explained in the main one. The "Posthumous recognition" section hints at his popularity in literature in the 19th century and mentions the bridge thing, but there's an overall lack of information about any 20th century popularity. Are readers going to come away with the notion that he is anything more than an old dead guy? Will they understand his modern-day importance, if any? For example, is the Principia Discordia possibly noteworthy here? --- RockMFR 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a mention about José Sarria, but it was removed by another editor who thought it was irrelevant to the section. I'll add it back. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I have added some more. Tell me what you think of it now. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've cut this edit way back to include just a bit more on popular culture. Remember this article was demoted because "It degenerates into a list and trivia by the end of the article, including a ridiculous section on the dead Norton posting to Usenet via a spiritual medium!" Personally, I think the amount of trivia was fine in the current article, but I'm willing to experiment with the short paragraph I just added. --Paul 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but when the article was delisted, it was because we had this. I really don't think the section I had was too problematic. It mentioned some 20th and 21st century works and Jose Sarria (who basically revitalized the interest in Emperor Norton). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think it might be good to list a few more specifics. Calling him "an inspiration to eccentrics everywhere" seems even worse than what was there before - this is far too generic to be of any use, especially considering that it is probably not true. --- RockMFR 18:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "...an inspiration to eccentrics everywhere" has been changed per your suggestion. Also, Discordianism is now included and linked as suggested above, plus the same paragraph has a link to the Emperor Norton in popular culture article. I disagree about adding more than this, as most of the stuff in the popular culture article has very little or nothing to do with Norton and is mostly quite obscure with nothing rising to the level of notoriety of Mark Twain's or Robert Louis Stevenson's use of Norton as an inspiration. Finally, there is the clear example of how lists of trivia took over the article when lists of trivia were included. Starting a new list now, after they have all been removed is just an invitation to a maintenance headache. No information has been lost, it is all in the popular culture article.--Paul 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Support - The article is well-referenced and well written, ~~but there are two details I think should be cited. I have added two citation requests~~.--Bryson 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am satisfied with the referencing of the article.--Bryson 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First citation request complete; second one removed because it is already addressed in reference #18. I didn't want to over-reference the lead, so I tried not to source every itsy-bitsy detail there. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - you've made a nice job of cleaning it up. The caption for the bridge photo could be a little more imaginative though, and some explanation of how his banknotes came to be printed would be good (they are rather too official looking to have been produced with a printing set in his room). Yomangani ^talk 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - much improved and well referenced. I agree some peripheral detail would be nice but there's plenty of flesh on the bones! Malla nox 00:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality stuff. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have the time to meticulously review it, but a careful glance reveals that this is well-written, nicely balanced and quality article. Support. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think footnote #2 (There are a number of disputed claims regarding Norton's date of birth. Many scholarly sources pinpoint Norton being born sometime in 1819, while a few sources stating that he was born on 4 February 1819.) is inadequate. It needs to mention the sources specifically. Also, the note gives no clue as to why we think the 1819 date is the preferred one, used in the lead and info box.--Paul 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[1] might help (it's a scanned version of the article with the 4 Feb 1819 date). And 1819 is given on his headstone for what it is worth. Yomangani ^talk 23:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the birth date uncertainty is covered in the opening "Early life" section (including the ref I gave above), so you could just drop that footnote from the lead. This suggests 1818 for what it is worth, but it seems to be self-certifying so I wouldn't put too much faith in it. Yomangani ^talk 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I basically repeated some of the stuff I had in the "Early life" section when I just expanded on Ref #2. I think it's a bit more explanatory now. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is much more clear now. Thanks for the additions.--Paul 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. Rebecca 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Phoenix from the ashes, this appears to have risen again as a featured-quality article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun and well-written article Dinojerm 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely referenced, well-written, and all around good article. Cbrown1023 talk 17:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work, guys! --Hemlock Martinis 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

Jim Henson edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonardo da Vinci

Humphrey Bogart edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture

Milgram experiment edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Psychosis edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Menstrual cycle edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Tuberculosis edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Telephone exchange edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Typewriter edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Spam (electronic) edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Computer security edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Search engine edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Quantum computer edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Nuclear weapon edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Markup language edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Fountain pen edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Electronic amplifier edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Application programming interface edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Algorithm edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Rainbow edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Quantum mechanics edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Platypus edit

Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Periodic table edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Paradox edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

LSD edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Free will edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Comet edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Cladistics edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science

Behistun Inscription edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

Byzantine Empire edit

Was added to Brilliant prose by Larry Sanger on 26 May 2001, 08:00:45. I currently see no record of it having ever been demoted since.

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

History of Germany edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

History of Scotland edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

History of the Netherlands edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

Peloponnesian War edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

Christianity edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

End times edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

Greek mythology edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion

Tea edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Spacecraft propulsion edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Leet edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Hebrew calendar edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Freemasonry edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Anno Domini edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Summer Olympic Games edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Montreal Canadiens edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Bodyline edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Propaganda edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Gough Whitlam edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Copyright edit

See Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Others

Aztalan State Park edit

Recreated FAC from original nomination here.

Aztalan State Park: I put in an article on an area park which is a midwest Native American town going back over a millennium, making it pretty unique. Included some minor bits that were the result of my own firsthand observation. And if I only had a digital camera.... -- John Owens 23:14 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. I haven't checked the facts, though. --Eloquence 23:31 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- As a non-contributor to the article, I second the nomination. A well-written, informative article. Pete 10:31 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Chariot racing edit

Chariot racing - of course I am biased, but I am proud of this anyway :) Adam Bishop
- I'll second. Great work! -- Jim Regan 04:02 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Excellent! --Menchi 21:47, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)
- Very good ! -- May I suggest to add "Chariot racing in films" (Ben Hur for instance).
  - Good idea...but aside from the Ben Hurs and Gladiator, what else are there? (I can't think of any, that I have seen anyway.) Adam Bishop 00:17, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

From original nomination. Was promoted by Cimon Avaro 22:43, 28 August 2003

John Major edit

(Page recreated from original nomination here)

The prose in this informative article seems to flow very naturally considering it has had 20 or more different contributors. No glaring omissions spring to mind either. (Full disclosure: I added one sentence to the article in one minor edit sometime ago, however the credit for this article belongs to several major contributors, I am not one of these). Pete 18:17, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Bathing machine edit

Recreated FAC from original nomination here.

Bathing machine -- Never knew this existed before (you silly Britons!). Nice read! --mav
- Seconded. --Eloquence 23:06 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- In agreement. --Polaris999 08:04 19 Jul 2003 (UTC

Damascus steel edit

Recreating FAC from original nom here.

Damascus steel and pattern welding -- lovely. -- The Anome 13:07 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- **Second both. Not just nice articles, but also nicely hammered out. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:30 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Pattern welding edit

Recreating FAC from original nom here.

Damascus steel and pattern welding -- lovely. -- The Anome 13:07 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- **Second both. Not just nice articles, but also nicely hammered out. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:30 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Schizophrenia edit

Schizophrenia became a Featured Article before the current voting system was in place. It got added to Wikipedia:Featured articles (then called "brilliant prose") on 21 August 2003, with the nomination:

Schizophrenia - this article has been polished to a shine as expert editors have at last arrived (full disclosure: I've made a couple of very minor edits to this article, but the credit for this article belongs to the many other major contributors)-- The Anome 07:44 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I'll second this. It's getting there. =-) Alex.tan 18:39 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

White Rose edit

Recreated from original FAC here.

White Rose - i found it very well written and it gives information about an important topic: not all germans where nazis... Muriel Gottrop 14:43 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Project MKULTRA edit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

MKULTRA - excellent example for how a public domain text can grow into a decent article. Controversial subject, yet the article sticks to the facts. --Eloquence 23:02 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage edit

Created FAC from original nom here.

Same-sex marriage and linked pages - seems fairly complete and accurate to me. --Eloquence 22:56 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Galileo Galilei edit

Discussion copied from here.

Galileo Galilei - very easy to read. very informative. thorough, yet not dull. Kingturtle 05:08, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Can't second (contributor), but will say this: User:Dandrake, who has done a lot of work on this one, is the son of Galilei biographer Stillman Drake, and very knowledgeable about the subject.—Eloquence 06:55, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
  - Reading between the lines, I think you are fishing for a seconder :). I am happy to oblige as it looks like a very good page. Pete 08:21, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Article promoted by Iseeaboar 03:14, 4 November 2003

The quote by Andrew Dickson White seriously distorts the position of the Church and particularly of Cardinal Bellarmine, whom he caricatures as "by far the most terrible champion" of anti-scientific dogmatism who "insisted on making science conform to Scripture." On the contrary, Bellarmine went out of his way to conciliate Galileo. His Letter to Fr Foscarini, which was intended primarily for Galileo, said: "If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me." Galileo merely replied that it was pointless giving proofs because his opponents would not be able to understand them. Bellarmine's attitude was actually more scientific, as the term is understood today, than Galileo's.

- Stephen Hitchings (211.30.198.140) 01:49, April 13, 2005

Bob Dylan edit

See original promotion of article on 20:52, 8 Oct 2003. Article originally nominated by User:Gareth Owen on October 8, 2003, see nomination.