Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2006

Gospel of Judas

It has a previous FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gospel of Judas/archive1. It failed that FAC because the Gospel of Judas was too much of a current event at the time. It is not now a current event. Clinkophonist 22:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Needs more citations, especially in the Responses and reactions section--Peter Andersen 07:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. It could use some more images too, though I doubt there would be much of a variety. The writing is not "brilliant" in some places: During the second and third centuries AD, various semi-Christian and non-Christian groups composed texts which are loosely labelled as New Testament Apocrypha, usually but not always in the names of apostles, patriarchs or other persons mentioned in the Old Testament, New Testament or older Jewish apocryphal literature — some of this is confusing. The centuries should be reworded properly and the text needs to be split since this has essentially become a run-on sentence. There are some other issues as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[1]] and [[2]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs)

• It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. In this article, there is only link: '2006'. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

National Hockey League

The NHL article has improved over the past six months or so. Lists have been covered to prose, the text has been changed to summary style, images are GFDL (except for the logo which has a fair use rationale). it is well referenced. It has a peer review from a couple weeks ago (Wikipedia:Peer review/National Hockey League/archive1). I've also pre-run AndyZ javascript checker (at User:Jeff3000/Sandbox2, and fixed most of the problems, but can't seem to find why it's ouputting the remaining errors. -- Jeff3000 02:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object A good article, but I have a few issues with it. Jeronimo 06:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think a primer on the rules of ice hockey is necessary in the "Game" section - just include a few brief explanations in the text where potentially unclear or required. Some parts of the section may also be moved to "Rules".
  • I miss a bit on which teams have been the most successful, similar to the first paragraph of the "Players" section.
  • More is needed on the popularity of the league, especially historically. The "Television" and "Labor issues" sections (latter featuring a bit on attendance) have information on recent seasons, but little historical information. Also missing is information the popularity relative to the other major sports leagues in the US (NFL, NBA, MLB) and popularity outside of North America.
  • The televsion section is way too detailed. More is said about TV coverage for the past seasons than about play - most of it are numbers as well. I would propose to rename the section to "Popularity" (or so), using also content from my previous comment. The detailed stuff in the current TV section could be moved off to a separate article.
  • Comment: Good suggestion about the Teams section, I'll try to write some stuff, and put it in the article. The rules section has been shortened, see below. I'll also try to make a historical popularity section. This of course will take time, so I'll have to apply for FA later on. -- Jeff3000 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The info about successful teams has been added. -- Jeff3000 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object The rules of a sport need not be regurgitated in an article about a competition, unless the rules are specific to that competition. In this case, things like the difference in size between NHL and international rinks are useful distinctions, but things like the objective of the game and icing are common to any ice hockey competition. Oldelpaso 11:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If we look at the different sections that talk about rules/hockey per paragraph:
    • Rules section:
      • 1st paragraph: Just an introductory paragraph saying rules mostly follow IIHF rules except for some, this paragraph is needed.
      • 2nd paragraph: Offside, mostly talks about NHL rule changes which were are specific to how the NHL has/is operated.
      • 3rd paragraph: Icing, while the first few sentence explain Icing, the last sentence gives details as how the NHL rule about no substitions after an Icing which is NHL specific. Also the NHL icing rule is different than the IIHF icing since it is a touch icing. Thus most of the paragrpah is needed to either explain the differences and as background to those differences. Explaining the icing differences without explaining icing would be confusing to the general reader.
      • 4th paragraph: This paragraph could be shortened, but is still needed in the summary style. Specifically major fighting penalties do not exist in the IIHF.
    • Rink section
      • 1st paragraph: Details the difference in the hockey rink compared to the IIHF rink size
      • 2nd paragraph: Outlines the trapezoid area which does not exist in the IIHF.
    • Game section
      • 1st and 2nd paragraph: These paragraphs could be further shortened, but are needed in the summary style. Explanation of what the NHL plays is crucial to the NHL.
      • 3rd and 4th paragraphs: Decribes specific NHL rules regarding win/losses, and most specifically how ties are handled.

So in general, I believe most of the content is warrented as it is NHL specific. I will try shortening the first two paragraphs of the of the Game section and the 4th paragraph of the Rules section. -- Jeff3000 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Ok I've shortened the Game section, and tried to make the Rules section more specific to the NHL, and differences between it, and the IIHF. -- Jeff3000 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A citation spot check performed on this article turned up two problemmatic footnotes out of four sampled. (Results are here.) Please go through and make sure all citations lead to information supporting the footnoted statement. --Robth^Talk 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (These problems now fixed; objection withdrawn --Robth^Talk 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment of the two problems, I have fixed one. The second problem is twofold, one that the ISBN for the editor went to the wrong book, but I don't have that problem see [3]; as for the page numbers, I don't have the book anymore to annotate the references with page numebers. -- Jeff3000 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Using Amazon's electronic book sight, I have added page numbers to all of the references from McFarlane's book. -- Jeff3000 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[4]] and [[5]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs)

37th Chess Olympiad

This article deserves to be featured, I think. It greatly covers the last chess olympiad in detail. It is followed by the Wiki's style manual. Crzycheetah 06:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. 90% of this article is tables and lists - hardly any text. Several of these are relevant (e.g. the overall top 10s), but most of the minor ones would be better of in a separate article on the results of the Olympiad or so. The lead section is non-extant, nor is it clear how a tournament with 130+ nations can be decided in 13 rounds.Jeronimo 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with above; article is full of tables and comparatively little textual information. Also the lead is very short. Dbertman 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[6]] and [[7]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning.
• Support per above. - Abscissa 09:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. In this article, there is only link: '2010'. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

This article is a perfect example of a well written, comprehensible, and neutral article. It incorporates quotations and pictures smoothly into the text, and provides refrences for everything. It is an of an appropriate length, yet still gives all the information that is required. It also complies with the style manual, and has an appropriate table of contents length. Overall, this article is informative, neutral, and very well written. Thetruthbelow 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 46KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style.

NOTE: This article has 51KB of prose as of 15 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs)

• Support Sounds good to me. Ptmccain 16:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.

Done --CTSWyneken 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.

Done, removed all "The" articles from subheadings.Ptmccain 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

Done--CTSWyneken 00:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]

Done--CTSWyneken 11:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy _t 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very well written, very informative, long, inline citations included. (Wikimachine 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

• Support, provisionally. It's mostly well written—congrats. But you could get someone else to go through it and polish it. Here's a snake that needs to be chopped up: "Luther was born to Hans and Margarethe Luther, née Ziegler [10], on 10 November 1483, in Eisleben, Germany, and was baptized the next day, on the feast day of St. Martin of Tours, after whom he was named." Seven commas, too.

Done by Ptmccain. --CTSWyneken 19:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A few random problems I spotted at the top:

• • Influenced the doctrine and culture of traditions—category problem.
  • "can not"—this should be "cannot"; it's a translation of a quote, so it can be fixed.
  • "His family moved to Mansfeld in 1484, where his father first worked in, then operated, copper mines." Did he work in and then operate every day? It's just a little unclear, but it's a minor point.
  • "Having risen from the peasantry, Hans Luther was determined to see his eldest son serve as a lawyer." I'd be happier not implying that lawyers serve anyone but themselves. What about "become a lawyer"?

Done by Ptmccain. --CTSWyneken 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• • "In this way, Martin would bring further honor to the family. "Further"?
  • "... sent to schools in Mansfeld and Magdeburg, where he attended a school.... He then attended school in Eisenach." Can you avoid the repetition?

I'm concerned that most readers won't realise that a "hymn" is just the words; the sentence talks of congregational singing. Did Luther write the music too? (I think that he did, so this could be explicit—it's unexpected that he should have been a composer as well.)

The "Early life" section is short, and comprises three paragraphs, two of which are stubby. Can you do a structural audit of the whole text to ensure optimal cohesion and flow? Tony 10:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, with work for us to do yet, per Tony and the 'bot. --CTSWyneken 11:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support a well-written article and not a vandal's target. (unlike the Diet of Worms article) Anonymous__Anonymous 11:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Suppport, with reservations. Well written and supported, but I find it hard to understand Luther without more context. The article has a brief mention of Zwingli and a few other contemporary dissenters, but no disucssion of prior dissenters. It notes actions of certain anabaptists and has him reacting to their radicalism without any explication of the substance of the dispute (was it just the violence or was there any substance or social explanation?). Similarly, the article doesn't mention Calvin at all, and has no substantive discussion of the Counter-Reformation and the reaction to his work, yet the Calvinist and Catholic reactions to Luther are among the most important topics in European history. I think a "legacy" or "influence" section and an "historical background" or "context" discussion would be useful, even if they are short and primarily create bridges to other articles. This is an excellent biography as such, but doesn't take full advantage of Wikipedia's ability to weave an article about an isolated topic into the whole. Still, worthy of FA status. Sam 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article has been written through the joint effort of many Wikipedians, and represents the "blood, sweat, and tears" that go into making this the best online source of encyclopedic information on the web.--Drboisclair 02:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry to appear to be high-handed, but at a later stage, I'll not want to be able to pick out problem sentences at random. If that is still possible, I'll change to Object. This is what my eyes first came across:

"Soon terms like penance and righteousness took on new meaning for Luther, and he became convinced that the Church had lost sight of several of the central truths of Christianity taught in Scripture — the most important of them being the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith alone. [22]"

• • Perhaps it's a stylistic matter, but many writers would agree that "Soon, terms such as ..." is preferable at the start.
  • If they "took on a new meaning", why not tell us more about it; this appears to be important to understanding the man, yet it's vague. Is the text largely copied from another source? (I don't mean to accuse; I'm just trying to determine the circumstances of the writing of the text—it may help us to improve it.)
  • "in Scripture"—I suppose that we need the upper-case S (do we?), but why is it "the Scriptures" above? Consider using the same terminology.
  • There are a few instances of "began to ..." that I don't like; it indicates a starting point, and begs for a year. It also begs the question of whether this new state of affairs continued right through his life. Better wording required?

So there's serious work to do before this is "compelling, even brilliant" prose. Tony 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: thanks, Tony! Your comments are appreciated. When time permits, if no one gets there first, I'll tend to your points. --CTSWyneken 10:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nicely written, lots of references. Looks good to me. NuncAutNunquam 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. ToC is rather long and should be more then one level (use 2nd and 3rd level headings). No references: notes should be retitled references and bibliography further reading. See also is very long, merge with text and remove section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  Please Note The Notes section has been renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthbelow (talk • contribs)

Comment: Thanks of the suggestions, Piotrus! We've been struggling with the TOC since yesterday and will keep in mind your suggestion for subsections. Do you have a page that fits your criteria that you'd recommend we study? --CTSWyneken 10:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my userpage: in top left section you will find a list of FAs I have worked on. The newest one are usually better then the old, and I hope they give you some ideas (especially the biographies).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose – A> needs to be written in sumamry form. B> ToC placement is odd C> Images squeeze the text in between, reduce the presence of so many images. D> Heading not according to MoS: Monastic and Academic Life -->: Monastic and academic life E> Left aligned images cause the headings to be pushed to the right. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object; summary style please. And use subsections, not level two sections for everything. The TOC is huge, and poorly placed. Some sections are short and need to be merged into other sections (Small and Large Catechisms, Peasants' War, Theology of Grace, etc.). The supplementary sections (starting with the inexplicable "Bibliography" section) are extremely non-standard. Also, images per Nichalp (some people still use 800x600). --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Please Note I have fixed the layout of the page, including the TOC. For all that opposed because of this reason, please inspect the page now. Thetruthbelow 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• SuppportObject on layout. The TOC comes after the first (Early life) section and the TOC forces some sections to the right. Also, the Luther seal should not be split by the line on the left. Rlevse 17:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For those working on this, I'd suggest a review of Wikipedia:Section#Floating the TOC. Frankly, the thing looks horrible right now, and should not float into the first section. I would suggest deleting the TOC codes and working with the default. Sam 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We're in a no-win situation with that one, folks. If we go to the default code, we end up with a ton of white space. It is very difficult to fill that space. I don't like it that way, I do not like it this way, either. So, any suggestions? --CTSWyneken 18:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object; no offense, but while the doctrinal side and major historical events of his life are meticulously, and even brilliantly detailed, the man himself is described in such sanctified terminology and bowdlerizing his earthy character in toto, that the image of the person is not only un-recognizable, but indeed false. I am sorry if that is a blunt statement, but it cannot be put more nicely. I respectfully submit that (coming as I do from a country with an Evangelical Lutheran state church) Finnish or German Lutherans are much more comfortable with a human Luther of Flesh and Bone, than American Lutherans. While this is is the English Language wikipedia, I seriously question whether that is good enough justification to let a bowdlerized, stylized image of Luther suffice here. In my view such particularism should not fly, at least in matters of content. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 10:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• P.S. I specifically refer to for example this line from the German version of the same article: Auch Luthers Predigten und Schriften waren in einer kräftigen und volksnahen Sprache verfasst, wobei er vulgäre Ausdrücke nicht verschmähte. Bekannt wurden viele deftige Zitate wie: „Aus einem glücklichen Arsch kommt ein fröhlicher Furz.“ - references to even such subtle hints (he was really much more earthy even than that) at the human Luther behind the religious figure, have been systematically excised from the article no matter how many times and how carefully worded, not to offend. I really must put the foot down here. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 10:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for yout comment. However, I do not see what you would find necessary to change in the article. We have cited the article thoroughly. The dilemma ahead of us is that the article is already overlong for an encyclopedia presentation. Why is it necessary to detail aspects of Luther's personality, such as his vulgarity? After all, we see nothing of the kind in article printed in physica; encyclopedias, nor are their similar details in articles like: Henry VIII of England, Erasmus and his contemporaries. (The latter does not even detail the humanist's anti-semitism). So why, in our context, is this needed? --CTSWyneken 14:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Shortening the TOC would help. Rlevse 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Part of the problem before was that with short headings (generally a good thing) and only one level to your TOC (generally a bad thing), the white space was just enormous. With two levels and at least one longer heading, there will be less white space now. But I'd be tempted to move one of the photos you'd like to have larger to run side-by-side with the TOC. It probably means getting rid of the Luther seal, but that could be stuck down at the end to decorate the lengthy notes, bibliography, etc. If you're looking to shorten the TOC, you can do it by moving some of the sections at the end out of the TOC, using bulleting instead of a heading that appears in the TOC (I did this, for example, to the references section of Franklin D. Roosevelt to address the same complaint during the FA process). Sam 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment THe current main page FA, Absinthe, has the TOC and spacing very similar to the way yours is right now. I think it'd be fine. Rlevse 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Exactly the point. Thanks! The problem with moving it down is that we have an editor that really likes it where it is. I've got to admit, is is quite attractive. I tried the reduce to bullets trick, but that eliminated second level headings, which folk did not like. Yes, I agree that its probably OK, but it still bothers me. It says, "fill me! fill me!" I keep thinking, this is to be a feature article. It should be the best. But every technique I know, going back to HTML 1.0 results in funny spacing. I'm at a loss as to how to fill it. Does anyone know how to create some sort of info box that wouldn't look bad, fit like a glove, provide good information and the coding tricks to put it there? --CTSWyneken 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a solution. In books, these things go on separate pages so they don't much up the works, but here, there is no way around that list with dead white space on the side. But, it is a part of every Wikipedia article, so everyone knows where to look or where to scroll on by. But embedding it makes it all worse, since then it gets in the way of the actual article. Sam 19:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In my impression this english version of the Wikipedia Texts about Luther is not better than the german one. And the german Version was not able to become a featured article despite there have been four candidate runs in the last year. The reason is clear for the german version: it ist lacking essential parts in theology, the chapter about music and liturgy is rudimentary and the important eucharistic controversy is not so well documented. This is also true for the english version. Shurely I will not object in this case, because i cannot contribute to this article. But the deficites should be obvious to the authors. Greetings -- Andreas Werle 00:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Andy; to declare object or support, you don't have to be able to contribute. Tony 04:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support -- I think the header "Luther's Excommunication" should be renamed so that it doesn't imply that he actually was excommunicated. "Widening breach" is not clear enough in its meaning. The Diet of Worms section should explain what the Diet of Worms actually was (just in a sentence). Lastly, the large scale structure is too linear; there needs to be more leveling in the TOC. I'd like to see the whole thing divided into "Biography" and "Views" or something similar. The article gets very dense at the end and doesn't flow. Otherwise, this is a great article; an achievement worthy of the prestigious FA status. -- Rmrfstar 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, as per Cimon Avaro. This article verges on hagiography; it has been an uphill battle to get even the tiniest amount of negative material into the article, so as to provide even a modicum of balance. Even now, any source which says the slightest negative thing about Luther is downgraded or denigrated in some way, e.g. [8] [9], and attempts are made to remove their words altogether, based on clearly false policy claims, e.g. [10], while falsely pumping up the credentials of Lutheran theologians who support Luther, e.g. [11]. In this case, attempts are made to pump up the qualifications of Luther supporter Uwe Siemon-Netto, a journalist and theologian who did a PhD in sociology, to make them appear equivalent to that of critical historians such as Robert Michael, Professor Emeritus of European History at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, who in 1997 received the American Historical Associations James Harvey Robinson Prize for the most outstanding contribution to the teaching and learning of history, and Paul Johnson, who has written 16 works of history, many of them best-sellers. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This can be seen two ways, Jay. It appears from this side as an attempt to downgrade scholars who have done doctoral level work, studied Martin Luther and his works in-depth and deserve to be accorded respect. Instead, it appears they are attacked because they do not have the "correct" opinion on a single issue. In this article, a Catholic scholar was even questioned, apparently because he said something nice about Martin Luther. I would rather simply accept all of the scholars mentioned on that issue, introduce them neutrally and let the reader decide. This has been said repeatedly. The comments about Johnson and Michael were stated only show where things go when the qualifications of credentialed scholars are questioned. But it appears that others do not wish it to be so.

You and others are welcome to introduce other negative characteristics of Luther's legacy. The reason this has not been done is that the Luther and the Jews issue is constantly raised and efforts made to represent only one side of the debates involved. The article is incomplete in many respects because so many Bytes have been taken up on it. I'd urge neutral editors to read several encyclopedia articles to see how they portray the man, what is included and what is not. I suspect you will find little different from what is included in such essays and what we have placed here. --CTSWyneken 23:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the judgment as to sources generally based on whether they are in peer reviewed journals or published by reputable presses, preferrably academic? I think the article would be better off without detailed description of the qualifications of any source; if qualifications beyond the publisher or journal are needed to lend credibility, another source should be found. Sam 03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To comment on the academic titles: elsewhere we routinely remove PBUH and honorifics. In science we shouldn't need browbeating with academic titles, and if we want to convince the audience that someone's views are valid we present evidence that they are widely accepted. Dr Zak 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Object per Cimon Avaro and Jayjg. I'm surprised to see this nomination. Martin Luther has been the subject of some of the most POV editing I've witnessed in the 20 months I've been at Wikipedia. It has been edited largely by three employees of the Lutheran church — User:CTSWyneken, User:Drboisclair, and User:Ptmccain — who have fought hard to keep out or minimize any criticism of Luther, and there have been some serious attempts to bully editors who add criticism, with the result that the article can't be trusted to be a comprehensive description of Luther's life and work. Talk:Martin Luther and related talk pages became completely toxic, with endless, spurious arguments and wikilawyering about policies that none of them understood; Ptmccain e-mailed me with what he believed was my real name (based on what he read on an attack site) and then posted a reference to his e-mail on Talk:Martin Luther in an attempt to intimidate me [12]; the same user was blocked three times in 18 days for 3RR [13]; engaged in vandalism when thwarted [14] [15] [16]; and when I requested two citations for Martin Luther, [17] he responded with a WP:POINT by going to articles I had created or edited and randomly requesting citations, [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] including one for the sentence: "The terms extermination camp (German: Vernichtungslager) or death camp (German: Totenlager) specifically refer to the camps whose primary function was genocide." [24] There's a lot more of the same behavior, but these highlights are examples of their response to the insertion of criticism.

Even today, as this nomination is being considered, Ptmccain and CTSWyneken are coooperating to stop historians Robert Michael and Paul Johnson from being called by their normal titles unless their favorite source, a Lutheran writer called Uwe Siemon-Netto, who works with these users, is called a historian too. [25] But Siemon-Netto is a journalist who took a degree in theology or sociology and who now, like them, works for the Lutheran church. He has no degrees in history, has never published any history, and there are no credible third-party sources who say he's a historian. Even his own Wikipedia article, which was written by CTSWyneken, doesn't call him a historian. Ptmccain deleted that Robert Michael, who is very critical of Luther, is "Professor Emeritus of European History at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth," and reduced it to "historian," and Paul Johnson, who has published 16 works of history, many of them bestsellers, was downgraded from "historian" to "journalist" (which he also is), with the edit summary "shorter and more accurate descriptions of people." [26] CTSWyneken is engaged in similar editing. [27] [28]

As for the article itself, it contains sentences like: "[Luther] insisted that the impious and even beasts eating and drinking the consecrated elements eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, but the "unworthy" eat and drink it to their judgment," which is meaningless. The text is full of that kind of writing, but they won't allow it to be copy edited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Slim, I believe that you are being unfair here to make a judgment on Christian theology by calling it meaningless. This is the clear teaching of the New Testament that is being spoken of here about the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ. I do not think that you would take it too kindly if we were to comment on teachings of the Talmud in an uninformed way.--Drboisclair 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not the religious aspect that I described as meaningless, Drb, and I apologize for giving that impression. It is the writing. Perhaps it's a quote, but then it needs to be in quotation marks. In the absence of those, I have to assume it was written by a Wikipedian, and if so, I have trouble working out what it means exactly, and I have to guess how it should be parsed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point here. Emendation is in order with irrelevant matter deleted. Thank you for pointing that out. As it stands it would confuse a reader.--Drboisclair 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the passage in question, please see Martin Luther#Eucharistic views and controversies. I hope that this helps some.--Drboisclair 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's much better, thank you. I removed "with equal clarity" to make it more neutral. I've also put up a query on the talk page about the use of "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" throughout the article, even when not in quotes, because people who are not Christians don't believe he was Christ. It's a bit like adding PBUH after the name of the prophet. That would constitute another objection from me, unless there's a "When in Rome" guideline somewhere in relation to religious articles.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Dear Slim: I'd appreciate civility from you. What has my status or those of other editors have to do with the article?

It would help the article if you would, rather than attack, compare the article against encyclopedia articles and provide tell us: what is covered in them that is not covered in our article? What is in our article that is not in them? If something is not in our article, then, please make a case for including it. --CTSWyneken 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment was civil. Featured articles are supposed to be "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable," according to the FAC page. (a) The article isn't well written. I gave an example above. (b) It isn't comprehensive, as someone pointed out earlier: you've left out, for example, how crude Luther was, and he is famous for it. (c) I can't trust the factual accuracy because I've watched you try to keep out any criticism. (d) Ditto for neutral. (e) It isn't stable. You're edit warring on it even now so that Paul Johnson isn't called a "historian," despite his 16 published history books, but so that your source, Uwe Siemon-Netto is called one — someone who works with you, has written no works of history, has no degree in history, is not called a historian by a single third-party source that we can find (except of course Wikipedia, [29] because you added it to the article), and who doesn't even call himself a historian. [30] And Ptmccain has just been reported for his fourth 3RR violation on that page. [31] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, attacking me and others is not civil, no matter what you think of us. Second, you have a right to your opinion on the fitness of the article for feature status. Third, I have to date not found an encyclopedia article that mentions that Luther was crude -- or others from his time for that matter. Fourth, Uwe Siemon-Netto does not work with me at all. He works at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, not Fort Wayne. I have never met the man. You are also attacking a scholar you do not know and have not noticed that we have quoted from a book of history written by him. Also notice that I did not add the title "historian" to the Siemon-Netto article. Please check your facts. Fifth, if you do not trust the accuracy of the article, why not compare it to an encyclopedia article. You added a citation to the article from one. In fact, every fact tag you placed in the article I have tracked down a source for. You are welcome to check these, too.

You may have the last word now, because the only way we can move on is if I do not reply. So, please, live up to your own standards. --CTSWyneken 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, by "status", do you mean employment? As in, when you explained in On the Jews and Their Lies (on 04:01, 14 June 2006 UTC) that your full time paid "position" within the Lutheran Church included writing Wikipedia articles related to Martin Luther?--Doright 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This does seem to require an explanation. CTSWyneken wrote: "For your information, in any case, my position is tasked with the generation of electronic resources, which does take in projects such as wikipedia." [32] It appears to imply that editing Wikipedia is regarded as part of CTSW's job. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

CTS, why must you find another encyclopedia article that says he was crude? You know he was extraordinarily crude. There are good sources for it. It's a very interesting aspect of the man, and makes him come alive, in fact. But you are censoring it, calling it "not necessary." (Your problem is that you want to defend him, and therefore see the charge of being crude as criticism, but it really isn't. It makes him human and it would probably be the most interesting section on the page.) I didn't say you had added the word "historian" to Netto's page. I said even his own article doesn't say that about him, and he doesn't self-describe as one either. But you have added it to other articles, [33] [34] even though no sources back you up. The behavior of the main editors on the page is directly relevant to whether this article can be regarded as comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral, which is why I've described it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's calm down everybody. While I don't agree with everything CTS said, that is no cause to start attacking. Let's all remember that everyone is working their hardest on this article before we start attacking. Thank you. Shalom--Thetrutbelow 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No-one's attacking and everybody's calm. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That good, I must have misinterpreted some of the above conversation. Thanks Slim! Shalom--Thetrutbelow 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nye kampskrifter

Samtidig forfattede han også små lejlighedsskrifter, som Om munkeløftet. Med dem indledede han en lang række kampskrifter, hvor han ofte kritiserer katolsk lære og katolske skikke. Han kritiserede også det, som man skulle mene stod ham særlig nær personlig: munkestanden, cølibatet, messeofferet, den præstelige tjeneste, osv. Hans svar på kritik fra Latomus af Leuven, Hieronymus Emser og fra det teologiske fakultet ved universitetet i Paris, har ofte en grov karakter, hvor de får tørt på. Hans kommentar til den nyudsendte pavelige skærtorsdagsbullen «In coena Domini» på folkeligt tysk, spiller på utilsløret folkelig humor og krydser også grænserne for, hvad man opfattede som religiøst anstændigt. Den ligefremme form og tone i disse skrifter, som takket være bogtrykkerkunsten fik hurtig spredning, bidrog til at skærpe den almindelige atmosfære, men Luther forsvarer sin stil bla. i indledningen Om den trælbundne vilje.

The above is from the Danish wikipedia article on Luther. The corresponding information does not appear to exist in the English language version. I do not agree that adding it to the English version would be irrelevant or out of place. To give a proper like for like comparison, please read Philipp Melanchthon. That article has a remarkably three dimensional view of the works and the person of the man considered. The evaluations of his character, whether lauding, or critically examining, do not detract from the article, but greatly enhance it, and present the man in a sympathetic light, as a real human being. That is all I would wish for in the Luther article, and while it is not present, the article is a torso. If someone would undertake to translate the information present in the Danish Article into the Featured Article Candidate, I would freely drop the major objection I have.

Additionally, I would like to take the opportunity to completely dissociate myself from the whole debate of how prominently Luthers anti-semitism is presented. That is not my objection at all. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 10:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, but emphatically not per Cimon Avaro, Jayjg and SlimVirgin. Much has been made of Luther's antisemitism. Admittedly I'm a simple chemist and a total layman. Wikipedians should be used to defending their views against laymen. The article devotes one paragraph to the development of Luther's views of the Jews and three his late work On the Jews and their Lies. This seems out of proportion. We should see the development of Luther's view on the subject, the reception of of his views by his contemporaries, and how his views fit into the context of antijudaism in the Late Middle Ages. This must include "On the Jews". de.wikipedia has a much more balanced view. Dr Zak 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've checked two encyclopedia articles, one in Collier's, the other in Funk and Wagnalls. The former does not take up Luther's relationship to the Jews at all, the latter makes a two sentence mention. I am not against the longer treatment in the later article, but have opposed the paragraph in the intro. It is there at the insistance of SlimVirgin, JayG, Doright and others. --CTSWyneken 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cimon avaro, Andreas Werle, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and Dr Zak.

--Doright 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A glimmer of the magnitude of just one aspect of the POV problems already identified can be seen in edits in the last few hours.

For example:

• (1) sourced material is again deleted,
• (2) the anti-Semitic Person category is again removed and to top it off,
• (3) the POV flag itself is unilaterally deleted in an attempt to deny that POV concerns even exist. [[35]].

Just as ontogeny (in some ways) recapitulate phylogeny, this example of whitewashing disputes recapitulates the whitewashing of the Martin Luther article itself. Disdain for the well documented POV concerns identified by highly respected and experienced editors on this page (plus the Luther and its sub-article pages) is then typified by the edit summary for the above diff. "No justifiable reason for this flag." --Doright 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Per CTS. Guys, this article is a perfect example of what an FA is. Shalom--Thetruthbelow 16:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Only 1 vote per editor--Doright 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Who do you think voted more than once? It strikes me that posting things like this without looking does not assume good faith, and is part of the reason this entire page is simply painful to read (and it has been done on both sides). As I read it, the complaints here are over (i) the failure to describe Luther's vulgarity and (ii) disagreements over how the section on Luther's anti-semitic attitudes should read. Are there any other issues with the article? If not, I'd suggest someone who wants the part on vulgarity inserted propose a couple of interesting sentences, and that there be an attempt to find a good historian on the site without an axe to grind to review and rewrite the antisemitism section. Then objections get withdrawn and the article moves forward. Or is the fight you relish? Enough already, guys! Sam 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you check the name of the nominator? I presume that the nominator is assumed to support their own nomination. Is this correct? Please review [here] and report back to us how many of the 43 nominated articles have a separate Support vote submitted by the nominator. (BTW a quick glance suggests it might be zero). --Doright 22:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, your own post is a nice example of what you complain about. It is personal attack rhetoric, self-contradictory and attempts to reduce a systemic problem with the article to a catfight. The concern simply states that only 1 vote be counted per editor. The concern arises only because of the unusual circumstance of the nominator placing a separate vote (and at some distance from the location of their nomination).

Additionally, you remarkably claim to know what I have not looked at. Through what device are you able to know this? Then you claim that by virtue of this special knowledge you can conclude that one "does not assume good faith." This all seems a bit odd to me. One can't help wonder about the explanatory power of [Projection].

--Doright 22:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment was that he had not voted, and it seemed you had not looked for his vote. Nominators often do vote. My broader comment was that there are ways to solve this other than what everyone here has been doing, and it would benefit the article to see someone avail themselves of those ways. I hear "broader systemic problems" but every complaint I read relates to the question of how to describe and discuss the section on Luther's anti-semiticism. Get a third party editor in, someone who can draft with input from both sides. It's a suggestion. Take it. Leave it. Your choice. Sam 23:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Cimon avaro, Jayjg, SlimVirgin. Tone of article is far too reverential. (P.S. regret my tardiness but just became aware of this vote -- not even sure if this is still active.)--Mantanmoreland 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Earless Water Rat

I think this article is comprehensive and good enough to be a FA. It contains about all information that has ever been published on the subject - which isn't that much - and it cites its sources throughout the article. There are no freely licensed pictures of this animal as far as I know, so I couldn't include one. Ucucha 12:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if it will interest anyone, this is very clearly a self-nomination. I translated it from the Dutch nl:Moncktonbeverrat, to which I'm the only substantial editor. Ucucha 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I feel sorry for this (as this directly isn't a reason to oppose), but I have to oppose this nomination. The problem I have is with red-links. Agreed that it is not a criteria, but in this article, not having articles on topics mentioned in critical places (including the lead) clearly hampers understanding of the subject, thus compromising on comprehensiveness. If it is not possible to have articles on those topics, they can be mentioned in short in the article itself, though I would prefer the former. I also find that the history section is very small. The references can also be standardised using one of the cite templates. Dash usage should be standardized per WP:DASH. The article doesn't mention how was the name of the species arrived at (taxonomy). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. A guideline for FACs is that they need a picture on the top right corner of the article about the topic. While there may not be free ones, are there Fair Use pictures? A picture of the rat is more or less needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There are two images I know of. The first one is in Flannery's Mammals of New Guinea, the second in the article about the second specimen found (Tate 1951b; see the references section of the article for exact references). The Tate article is also at [36]. I don't know what exactly are the guidelines for fair use, but this one should be used if possible, since I won't be able to scan the Flannery image. Also, I don't know if fair use would apply at all, since the article was written by a Dutch person (myself), so Dutch copyright law (which is far more restrictive with "fair use"-like things) would apply. However, I'm not sure about this. Ucucha 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The first one is from the American Natural History Museum, right? Wouldn't that be PD, as it's a governmental organization? Anyone else know? I'm not good with images. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Probably it is not PD; another article (1981) has Copyright (C) American Museum of Natural History on it. Ucucha 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Whoops, I was getting confused with the National Museum of Natural History. OK, nevermind. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't support the FA status of an article that doesn't have a picture of the thing it's describing. Also, the redlinks are a real problem here; I have no problem with one or two in an article (heck, everything is a work in progress here, right?), but this amount really detracts from the comprehensiveness. I haven't thoroughly looked through the article, so I may have other concerns, but I cannot support until at least these initial concerns are met. Matt Deres 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although I have myself opposed the article, I think it relevant to discuss that according to the rules, there is no need for FAs to have pictures of what they discuss. For example, Eric A. Havelock & Matthew Brettingham (both FA) don't have a picture of the person. However, you are still free to argue that having a photograph is necessary for this specific article, like I opposed it for red-links that lead to loss of comprehensiveness. Just an observation. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Understood, however my argument wasn't based on the violation of a specific must-have-picture rule, but simply that FAs are the best articles we have to offer. I would oppose both the FAs you mentioned for the same reason, unless no picture existed for Brettingham (in which case I'd oppose for lack of proper citations :-). To my mind, an article on a tangible thing isn't complete unless a picture is present and an article can't be a FA unless it's complete. You're certainly right to note the distinction, though. Matt Deres 03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Not having a picture is still a problem, along with copious red links. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the editors have misunderstood our concerns. We (as others seem to have agreed with me) feel that not having enough information about the topics mentioned in the article makes the article difficult to understand. Removing red-links (by removing wikilinking) wasn't what we asked for. It simply makes the task difficult for the reader and even editors who may wish to expand the articles on the topic. If you can, please address the core issue. PS: I know that its none of the editors fault that articles on topics don't exist, but I am reporting the problem I faced. While trying to make sense of the article for reviewing FAC, I was left confused as relevant articles to guide me were missing. Removing wiki-links where they should exist is simply going backwards. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Too many red links, and no picture. Agree with other comments here. EuroSong ^talk 14:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - apart from the reasons listed above the prose needs work. Lead is comprised of short choppy sentences that don't flow together. Characteristics section should probably come before the Relationships section so that the beginning of the article is in plain english before an overly technical section is delved into. Needs a see also ( and external links ) section if possible. I do like the distribution map - Peripitus (Talk) 06:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pokémon

This is the main Pokémon article. I'd like to thank all of its editors for getting it good enough to be featured status. I reviewd the article, and think that it has great information, and good enough for featured status, please write your comments, regards Poke Master (Talk • Contribs) 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong object Needs more references - it even still has Template:citation needed on it. No citations at all in the many entire sections. Also pushing the limits of WP:article size. Intro should probably be shortened. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Object per above, as much as I'd like this article to become featured, it's not even a GA yet.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. Much of this information needs to be moved to sub-articles (most of which already exist), the Criticism section is poorly cited and weaselriffic, and the prose is less than brilliant. This still needs work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Object per above. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Object Putting this article on FA status is not the way to help to get it to FA status. Alvin6226 ^talk 00:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Time_to_vote_for_a_new_monitor_of_FAs and Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#I_am_opening_a_discussion_on_the_featured_article_director_position at the featured article talk page for my reasoning.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs) .

• Oppose, bad grammar (going from the bottom up, the first words, "potential objectional content" should be "potentially objectionable content", to start!), dense prose with long spans without any kind of illustration, too much emphasis on lists and unverifiable details (e.g. "Another theory is that Pokémon is based in the future, as technology is fairly advanced and Earth is seen in basically all of the movies." Source?), stubby sections, and lack of references are just the cherry on the top of the cake. While Article size is a good

guideline for most topics, for this one, it may be a good idea to ignore it (as it isn't policy) if sections need further expansion, as they do in this case. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above. Also, it is my opinion that an article should not be nominated until all [citation needed]s are met. Honestly, and in no offense to anyone, this nomination was very premature.

-Cormacalian 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. In this article, there is only link: '1996'. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cars (film)

The article states its sources, and is written well. There are several images to intestify the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KdogDS (talk • contribs) 10:21, June 24, 2006.

• Oppose I don't feel it's ready. The plot section is too long; this should be a synopsis, not a retelling of the story. The grid with the characters is a bit long; does an encyclopedia need a listing of every cameo in this film? There are also several one sentence paragraphs throught the article. (Full disclosure: I helped create the Critical Response section and formatted many of the refs before this article was nominated.) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose:

Too early as this article looks underdeveloped. A peer review or going through a GA would have really helped here in giving this article a push. Here are some of particulars.

• This article needs a section regarding either the background, production,or development, etc. By moving from Plot, straight to the Critical Reception then to the secondary sections at the end... makes this article look a little empty.
• 2 pictures of the same Cars Logo, is redundent, and neither may even be necessary. What encyclopedic value do they have?
• Eliminate Crew Section (Mix into the Infobox if you haven't done that already).
• Needs a good old fashion copyedit run (Do this after the major structural changes).
• I like how you matched the cars with the cast, but only keep notable cast members from the film in that section. (Don't list everyone).
• If that's all there is to say for the Soundtrack section, I'd just cut that section out.
• And watch out for trivia overkill, as the later part of the article seems rather thin. Can you merge Route 66 and Morales with other parts of the article?
• Keep everything nice and referenced. It keeps things from turning into original research

Those are the major ones that jump out at me. If anything is not clear, feel free to ask questions. With all that said though, at only 15 days after the film's release, this article is pretty good. You guys did a great job.--P-Chan 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Way too early for this article. I agree with P-Chan that a peer review would be a great step. I personally think there's too much trivia, and it's poorly organized. It needs to be incorporated better into the prose of the article, with some of it perhaps being broken off into another article (such as, just as an example, Film references in Cars). The Morals section, as well, seems out of place; it seems vaguely POV to come out and say "This is what the film teaches"; those elements could be better off incorporated into the plot summary or something similar. Powers 18:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. a film currently on general release therefore inherently non-stable. wait until at least the dvd release to get a sense of perspective on it. Zzzzz 00:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object: As much as I loved seeing it two weeks ago, and as much as I'd like to see it featured, this is definitely not the time to get it featured. It won't even stand a chance at WP:GAC (it's also there right now). Speaking of the latter, why not go look at the page about The Care Bears Movie for ideas? --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object for the following reasons:

1. The article requires a copy-edit as some of the prose is not "brilliant".
2. There are not enough references to satisfy the verifiability guideline. Additionally, the quotes do not have sources.
3. There is no information about its production and the studio techniques featured to create the film.
4. Images do not have proper licensing information.
5. The trivia sections should be merged with the rest of the article appropriately.
6. The first paragraph of the article is a run-on sentence; also, is there need — or is it actually notable — to indicate that it will be released the same day as Superman in the United Kingdom?

—Eternal Equinox | talk 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Good film, article not ready for FA (per Zzzzz). --DanielNuyu 00:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The film is enjoyable, but the prose in this article is far from brilliant and there are far too many NPOV statements.—BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 07:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[37]] and [[38]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs) .
  • Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Powers 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all oppose reasons. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII

I would like to nominate this article for the following reasons;

1) It is already on the Good Articles section

2) Length is at a considerable length

3) It is well known and very popular

4) In my opinion, it is well written meets the neutral POV and is factually correct with the citations

5) Not the target of vandalism (not as much as the popular articles)

6) Edit wars are non-existant.

(Feel free to add any more reasons why this should be on the featured. Thank you!) Please comment and if you oppose, please state why so it could be fixed. -ScotchMB 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Lots of uncited claims in the Sales and critical reception section. --Peter Andersen 13:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Support It is time for this to be on the featured-68.160.209.234 14:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose This article is coming along, but it hardly seems ready - Nominator claims that all citations check out, yet a quick glance turns up at least one (citation needed) {{fact}} box, with many other statements still needing a reference as well. The constant opening and closing of spoiler tags are a serious problem; from what I've seen only one is needed for these types of articles. This nomination was made in haste; a little more work could have resolved the simpler issues, allowing for more sophisticated concerns to be voiced here. Kil ^(talk) 16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. Too many lists, should be converted into prose, also, other user's concerns about references are vaild. Given the fact that this game is quite possibly the most well-known non-Mario video game of the last fifteen years, the article does not seem comprehensive. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Object per others. Prose and quality of writing needs work, amongst other things. — Wackymacs 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Object - List need to be converted into prose. Lead is insufficient. The first sentence after the lead contains a link to a dab page (RPG - didn't check for others past there...) Too many small spoiler sections. Writing is often clunky, for example: "The game was also noteworthy in that it..." and "Another notable aspect of the game comes at the end of its first disc. There it features a scene in which..." These sentences contain a lot of weasel and filler text.

This game is an important one in CVG history, but that alone is not reason to feature an article. Pagrashtak 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Update - while doing some reference checking, I discovered that the sentence "Producer Hironobu Sakaguchi allowed Aeris to die as an expression of grief after his mother died during the production of Final Fantasy III." is a direct copy from IMDB. I hope there are not any further copyvios in the article. A tip of the hat to the editor who was bold enough to put a link to the plagiarized source at the end of the setence, though. Pagrashtak 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• SupportI see nothing wrong. The prose seems fine to me, and in this type of article lists are fine. Good Job. Tobyk777 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article --DragonWR12LB 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Great article but there are several spots lacking sources, particularly the "sales and critical recpetion section." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per others. Final Fantasy X is a much better article. --Sean WI 18:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer

I have been working on this article on and off for six months. Now it has probably more citations in it than nearly any other article on Wikipedia, and all the citations are to verifiable books and articles by distinguished lawyers and law professors. Some other users helpfully dug up some old public domain art for illustrations. And I've carefully balanced the article to take a worldwide view of a very complex subject. I think it's more than ready for featured article status. This is a self-nomination. --Coolcaesar 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment First sentence- "to give legal advice who advises clients in legal matters" shouldn't 'who advises' be 'to'? Many paras seem short. See WP:GTL--for sequence of see also, ext links, refs,etcRlevse 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Lead is too short, see WP:LEAD. Most sub-sections are too short as well, either need expanding or merging. — Wackymacs 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The point of keeping the paragraphs short is to keep what are very difficult concepts as simple and distinct as possible for non-lawyers. Merging many of the subsections (particularly under "Responsibilities") would only make things more confusing. The difficulty with the whole topic is that the American English language term "lawyer" does not translate well into other languages (or even other dialects of English) because of its narrow meaning in American English. But as I've pointed out at Talk:Lawyer, narrowing the article to the strict technical meaning in American English (my own dialect, by the way) and transferring most content to Jurist would be (1) even more confusing to non-lawyers and (2) offensive to many legal professionals outside of the United States, who call themselves lawyers because they don't speak English very well. The result would be massive edit wars probably requiring permanent semi-protection of the article. To avoid that scenario, I've taken a broad view of what a lawyer is instead (and many of the essays in the books I used as sources used a similarly broad view of what is a lawyer). --Coolcaesar 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Although there is some coverage of history scattered throughout the article, there needs to be a history section outlining the history of the profession with special care for taking a worldwide view (as the nom says). This may just require the reorganization of existing material, but I suspect there are gaps which will be more obvious if the history were consolidated. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Such a history would be impossible to write because the history of the legal professions in each country is so radically different (and I use the plural since most countries have several legal professions, not one). There are no books that even try to analyze the history of the legal professions worldwide (yes, I checked thoroughly on all major catalogs including WorldCat). To do such research myself from primary or secondary sources would be a monumental undertaking worthy of a book in itself (since many necessary sources are available only in Europe, Asia, or Africa), and would constitute original research in violation of the no original research policy.
  • The only research available is sociological research like Rick Abel's (the guy who is so heavily cited in the article) which covers the profession as it exists at present or very close to the present. Using a lot of my spare time, I've already rewritten the article at a highly superficial level in order to take a worldwide view of what a lawyer is at present — relying heavily upon the pioneering work of Richard Abel and a more recent book by Lawrence Friedman. Yet I had tangents for weird exceptions in practically every section. Also, keep in mind that such an analysis of the present situation is possible only because the various legal professions in each country have begun to study each other over the past two decades, so that there was an article in this month's issue of ABA Journal about the possibility of a future global legal profession.
  • Prior to 1970, the concept of a global legal profession was unimaginable because every country had its own extremely weird way of handling legal affairs. For example, as you probably noticed in the article, I mentioned that France merged its profession in 1990-91. But I left out a lot of details from Anne Boigeol's two essays about all the different types of legal professions in France and their long history. There were advocates, procurators, notaries, conseil juridiques, agents d'affaires, and so on. And that's only one country!
  • The fact is, the article barely scratches the surface of what a lawyer is today, and it's already very long. All sources I have seen (including nearly all those books already cited in the Lawyer article) agree that the complexity arises from the fact that the word "lawyer" did not exist in most languages until very, very recently. Rather, everyone used more specific terms like advocate, procurator, notary, clerk, scrivener, etc., and each type handled their own little corner of the legal profession. Only North American English fully developed the concept of a lawyer as a general-purpose legal professional licensed to do both transactions and litigation. It's kind of like how English has the word "yes," which doesn't translate well into many other languages because they have separate words for "true," "I agree," "correct," "I want to do that," and "go ahead".
  • To put in the history of the profession in two or three countries would make the article very long; to put in the history of the legal professions in five or six countries would make the article so long that no sane person would read it. I hope this makes the situation clear. --Coolcaesar 02:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I acknowledge that a lesser editor might slip into original research, I refuse to believe that it is impossible to discuss the history of the "lawyer" profession without delving into OR. As for lenght, this is a non-starter (see: Wikipedia: Summary style). We in fact have featured articles on Wikipedia for which no books exist directly on the subject; I believe there is a award for creating one, but I digress. I'm not asking you to write a book; just to consolidate the information that it already in the article and to track down some basic history type information like when lawyer's began to exist as a profession (note: this article does not have to cover the history of law, just the History of Lawyers). This could help you: Sadakat Kadri, The Trial: A History from Socrates to O.J. Simpson, HarperCollins 2005. ISBN 0007111215 savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is exactly that there is (historically) no such thing as a lawyer. The word has no precise meaning in the United Kingdom, nor did it historically in most countries. The idea that there is a category of persons called lawyers is really peculiarly North American. In my own jurisdiction you have three quite distinct strands of legal professional (though the idea of lawyer may be wider -- who knows?) (as well as many minor kinds and more recent developments): attorneys at law (who stand in for a party legally); advocates (who address a court -- developing out of counters and later serjeants); and notaries (whose job is different yet again). Nowadays almost all notaries are also barristers or solicitors, which simplifies things a bit, but this is a strong and ancient distinction. French legal history is quite radically different, and so on. I don't think you have the first idea what a horridly complicated thing it would be to try to do. It would take me several paragraphs just to give a thumbnail sketch of England and Wales and that's only one part of the United Kingdom. Personally I doubted whether lawyer was even a sensible article, but I think its been kicked into some useful shape that is not too POV. Still, it (like a lot of legal articles on wikipedia) has to resist the strong US POV of most lawyers who post. Really "lawyer" isn't a useful category if you don't have rules that require lawyers to do things. Francis Davey 16:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Webster

(Self-nom) Well, I've worked on it the past week or so and I think its a good article. I applied for peer review status but I only got an automated bot (all of whom's suggestions I acted upon). So here I am. I hope you find it acceptable.TonyJoe 18:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Peer Review started yesterday. You should have waited at least a week to get the suggestions before bringing the article for FAC. Talking about merits to be an FA, it clearly isn't neutral. I am pointing a few examples:
  • "Though poor and uneducated, Ebenezer Webster, who was widely respected and trusted throughout the community, was made a judge on the local court in 1791, a position which carried a salary of four hundred dollars."
  • "Seeing great promise in his son’s prodigious memory and strong budding intellect and knowing the regret of never having been educated himself, the Elder Webster resolved to use his new found windfall to educate young Daniel."
• Look for such examples throughout the text. They are even in the lead but sometimes claims substantiated in the sections thereafter are exempted. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reponse:Honestly after a day and only an automated bot I couldn't be sure that the Peer review would come to anything valuble looking toward the bottom of the list with articles like United Buddy Bears having no comments (having been submited on June 4th and others like Merv Griffin as well; either up or down, FAC is more likely to recieve comment while PR seems to be at times up in the air, hence Webster's presence here.

As for Neutrality... Ebenezer was poor and widely respected, else getting the position he received was a not impossible and was a big deal. Daniel Webster also did have a prodigious memory his entire life— he never referenced a sheet of paper during any of his many orations. I don't see these facts as violating any neutrailty whatsover. If you'd like I guess I could reference my sources in these claims if that's not going into too much detail but claims of his memory and intellect wouldn't be found to be objectional by even the most ardent Webster critic, contemporary or otherwise. I don't think the claims are stated with any sort of awe toward Webster or his dad, they just state as fact that webster had a great mind and people liked his dad so they gave him a job.TonyJoe 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Explaining: If you found that the article was good enough, you should have first closed the Peer Review before bringing it here. Coming back to objections, I had purposely italised words/phrases to point out POVs, etc. Explaining in words, how do we know that Ebenezer Webster was "widely respected throughout the community". Why is the sentence dramatised by stating with "Though poor and uneducated...". How do we know that he regretted never being educated himself and it was a deciding criteria for Daniel's education? Hope you understand the problems I am pointing out. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Once more: Not seeing a requirement that Peer Reviews be closed before a nomination, I didn't think it mattered either way. As for "widely respected throughout the community" and his regret at being uneducated, the latter has always been cited under page seven of the biography ("his thoughts at once toward that education which he had missed, and he determined that he would give to his children what he had irretrievably lost himself) since its insertion into the article (a citation which followed two other claims of being educated and bullied at Exeter) and the latter ("widely respected") has since been deleted as it was uncited though its source is found on page five of the same biography ("His neighbors trusted him. They gave him every office in their gift, and finally he was made judge of the local court."); perhaps merely having their "trust" and "giving him every office in their gift" is not enough to declare respect so I axed it.

There is a definite requirement that peer review be closed before FAC. See WP:PR for list of instructions and rules. I have archived the PR myself. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the so called "dramatization" of "though poor and uneducated," I admit it to be a bit superfluous (though it helps in establishing Webster's life long money problems) but its hardly an indication of a lack of neutrality, do I have to provide a reference for something a small as his family being very poor? If its required I will but it seems neither controvertial nor critical enough for such a measure.

Also, I've also added a direct quote on Webster's memory. TonyJoe 20:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've gone through the article and attempted to further address some of Ambuj Saxenal's concerns and removed statements like "eloquently defended" and "equal skill". I hope that this is the end of this problem?TonyJoe 03:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think Ambuj Saxena is referring to weasel words - see WP:AWT. Andy _t 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, reports of Webster's memory are now specifically cited (attributed to JFK), as are claims of his being one of America's greatest orators (in the legacy section and that's always been so). Claims of his father's respectibility have been removed. I do believe any of these minor pov problems have been dealt with, having been removed or cited, unless anyone has spotted more... :TonyJoe 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. From what I know, if there are sentences that carry POV, they must be attributed in text. I will let others review it and if they don't agree with me, I will strike out my comments. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings

I have been working on this for quite a while, it is perfectly stable with the only major edits recently being updates on the rankings, and edits made in accordance with the articles peer review. It is thorough breakdown of the history of the rankings, how they work and their criticisms. When it was peer reviewed all of the issues that arose were tackled accordingly, and I think that now it is a very concise article on its subject. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support Philc _T^E_C^I 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Neutral - While the current content of the article is commendable. I do ,not think is wise to have an article that contains clear breaches of copyright in its history, as a featured article. Jooler 22:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you opposing due to copyvio material in a previous version of the article, not the current one? If so its unactionable. Also, it says on WP:CV that "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it." Oldelpaso 22:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Also it is debatable wether the text was actually copyvio, because you're claiming that copyvio is copying the content of the text and not the actual words, whereas, I'm pretty sure you can't copyright the meaning of the text at all, only the wording. So based on this and Oldelpaso's comment's i'd like your opposition to be discounted. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil let's 100% clear about this. That point at least is NOT debatable. it was a clear breach of copyright, no question whatsoever. If you had submitted that as a dissertation or whatever at University (as your own work) you would have been done for plagiarism. I am talking about previous versions yes. The {{copyvio}} tag says "Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation — it is best to write the article from scratch. An administrator will move your new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved". The question is though, is it wise to have copyright violations from an extremely litigious organization like FIFA in the history pages of a featured article, i.e. one that could appear on the front page? I'll withdraw my opposition and leave it for others to decide. Jooler 05:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but here is not the place to discuss this, and as Oldelpaso said, the copyvio can remain unless the holder requests it be removed from the history, but the point at hand is the current article. Philc _T^E_C^I 09:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm afraid that's not the way copyright works. Practically, FIFA is unlikely to object if the problem has been fixed. But, legally, it was simply wrong. If this is made into an FA, I hope it would be kept off the front page. If not for this issue, I'd be Neutral, since the listiness bothers me. Sam
  • Why has this article been branded as a result of sometihng that was in a past revision. I'm sorry but it seems to be idiocy to me, can someone explain to me, how a past revision effects the value of the current content of the article, if it really matters to some one we can have it deleted from the history. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to Ignore that Objection, on the grounds that (quote rules to objection) "If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.", thats right isn't it? Philc _T^E_C^I 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • commentTo be very clear, I have no other grounds than the copyright violation; the article itself, as it stands now, is fine and I am neutral as to it. I have explained to Philc why I view it as an ongoing problem, and will leave to others the task of determining how seriously they want to take the issue. Sam 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you should be taking this to The Wikimedia Foundation or to WP:AN if you are very concerned about the issue. Also wish to politely reiterate that featured articles do not necessarily mean they will be main page candidates. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think the copyvio situation is a problem. Like Oldelpaso said, if it becomes a problem (which I doubt it will be), it will be removed; that's what the policy is there for. --DanielNuyu 07:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. A fantastic article. --DanielNuyu 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Way too listy, this would be a better candidate for WP:FLC. — Wackymacs 10:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But it is not a list, FLC is for lists, i.e. articles that start with the words "List of", this article doesn't and is not a list, it is mainly prose, the only bullet points used are to explain mathematical procedure, which quite honestly I think would be illogical to have as prose. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The tables are counted as lists too, as most Featured lists are in table form. I just think this article fits FLC more than FAC. — Wackymacs 12:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • But the article is not a list, while lists are used to represent mathematical data, that doen't make it a list. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It may not be called a list, but it has lots of lists in it, both in bullet and table form. It would be better if they were made into prose, or if the article was renamed "List of FIFA World Rankings". Why do you constantly "argue" with those who Object instead of trying to improve the article based on suggestions and others thoughts? — Wackymacs 12:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Because I think your wrong, misenterpreting the guidlines as rules and trying to calssify something wrongly. The FA procedure shouldn't be a matter of opinion, it should be an absolute measure of what are the best articles on wikipedia. To help make my point, I have a collected a few FA articles that have far more copious use of the bullet points and tables than this article. Would you says these are too listy to be FAs?
          Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace
          Margin of error
          Trigonometric function
          Well? Philc _T^E_C^I 12:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I see you have chosen three very complex Mathematics topics, which often use lists. This isn't entirely opinion, to me the article violates FA criteria 2a as it does not have compelling and/or brilliant prose. — Wackymacs 12:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Fair enough, if thats how you feel, I'll respect that, but I chose mathematical topics because this is also a mathematical topic, in respect to calculating the rankings. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well, let me reiterate some of the above points. Firstly, this article is well written, factually accurate and neutral. Secondly, this article is NOT a list by itself. Moreover, the lists present in this article would be virtually impossible to transfer it into prose format. It also gives the reader a comprehensive view on the manner in which FIFA ranks international football teams. It also has a consice lead section as well as a proper system of hierarchical headings. A great article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Not a list (for an example of a football related list, look at FA Cup Final), great referencing, very comprihensive, and meets 2a. No problems. The Halo (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object; while I don't think this belongs on WP:FLC, many of the bullets should be converted to prose: "The major changes were as follows:", "At the end of each season two awards are given;", etc. Also, there should be more inline citations from "Basic calculation principles" on down (I see three, "covering" half the article). --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok I converted some of the bullets to prose, but all of the others cannot be done as prose, they are either a list with commas, or list in bullets, as it is listing criteria to a mathematical formula, how better to display a list, than as a list? whats the taboo with lists!? if you need to list something, why not use a list and list it!! What are inline citations? and I don't understand your last point. Hope you can continue to help. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Lists aren't optimal because they don't offer any explanation. So "The major changes were as follows:" doesn't give me any information on the major changes. It doesn't tell me why the changes were made, it doesn't tell me what the reaction was, it doesn't tell me why the changes were even considered major in the first place. All that information can't be covered in a list. As for inline citations, they are the superscript numbers that link to notes at the bottom of the page. See User:Spangineer/inline citations—they are important because they allow the reader to judge the quality of the information found in the article, and because they allow the reader to do further research. One of Wikipedia's goals is verifiability, and inline citations are an important part of that. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 13:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The article is well cited, and the list of changes is pretty self explanatory, eg, FIFA included Number of goals into the calculation, so that the number of goals would be included in their rank. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Strong Object The entire overview section reads almost word for word how FIFA.com explains it.seeUser:False Prophet/FIFA World Rankings overview vs. FIFA.com overview for a comparison. False Prophet 19:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment This article most likely has yet to be copyedited. When creating the page User:False Prophet/FIFA World Rankings overview vs. FIFA.com overview, I found a spelling error, and therefore strongly suggest this not be a FA. False Prophet 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
          • CommentThis article has been called out for copyright vio on three occasions by three different users. I do not think this articles PR was properly adressed. You can find the 3 different discussions on the following pages:

1. User Talk:Philc 0780#FIFA World Rankings-copy vio then User Talk:Jooler#FIFA Rankings

2. User Talk:Philc 0780#Why it still matters then User Talk:A Musing#Bullshit

3.User Talk:Philc 0780#Copyvio

Note: The discussion goes back and forth, so you may want to open both links for the first two in seperate windows. False Prophet 02:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• They're all the same occasion, not 3 seperate ones. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: It would be best if featured articles did not have a possible copyright violation tag in their overview section; math should be formatted as something other than text; the selection of the top twenty teams is a completely arbitrary number; and it would be best for this article top have some explanation of why FIFA uses different methods of ranking men's and women's teams. This may well one day be a great featured article, but in its current state it does not meet the criteria. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Philc, please look at the comparison article and you can see the fact that it isn't original text is completely unagruable. How old are you? I am a student, and I know that once you start Jr. High, teachers can see copyright vio's without even checking the papers sources. I am going to check to see if this is listed as a GA, and if it is, I will ask for a review.

• Comment: as the person doing most of the promotions at WP:FLC at the moment, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that this article does not fit the criteria for a list. Regarding the article itself, it needs more inline citations, less one-sentence paragraphs and an overall copyedit. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object what is the purpose of seeding? I know it's in a different article, but could a very brief explanation be given? Also, why is there a section for the seeding of the 2006 World Cup but not for the other years? Seems somewhat incomplete. Also, article seems a little disorganised: is there a way of merging the criticism section into the explanation of how the rankings actually work? The section seems somewhat disjointed at the moment. Also, the overview refers to an external site for previous years to 1999. I don' tthink that's too good, an explanation of the 1993 rankings is important to satisfy the comprehensiveness criteria of FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sesame Street

FAC: September 2004, October 2004, August 2005

PR: July 2005, September 2005, June 2006

Everything asked for in all of the PRs were done, as well as most suggestions from FAC. I haven't gotten much feedback this round on PR, so I'm listing it here, hoping it becomes featured. It is already a GA, and will be included on that 0.5 CD that's going to be released. Fire away. -- Zanimum 15:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object; I have concerns about the prose and citations:

• "Over 200 different individuals or groups have made appearances, not including repeat appearances." Last phrase is totally useless.

• It's gone now, but it was to distinguish between number of segments with celebrities, versus number of celebrities. Number of segments with celebrities is essentially double that number. -- Zanimum 14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The series took over from Captain Kangaroo in 1999". Huh?

• Reworded. -- z

• "The music from the series has been popular by most accounts". Wasting the reader's time. Try something like "The series's music has appeared on music charts around the world, including..."

• Agreed, done. The paragraph was a last minute addition, as there was little discussion of music until recently. -- z

• "Major funding for Sesame Street is provided by The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to local PBS stations from "Viewers Like You."" Is this a direct quote from the broadcast?

• Yes, it is a direct quote, as evidenced by the article Viewers Like You, which is linked to from the article. -- z

• You mean the whole thing is a quote, or just "Viewers Like You"? I knew that Viewers Like You was a quote, but wasn't sure if the whole thing was (it sounds rather familiar to me...) --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm 99% sure that that whole sentence is a quote, however I've used the quotation marks to denote the fact that VLY doesn't mean the reader of the article, or necessarily all viewers of the program, simply the group of donators PBS refers to by that term. Essentially, just as scientist and lawyers have their own terms, usually printed in italics, this is a term used by public broadcasters, part of their vocabulary. How would you suggest I rephrase the sentence? -- Zanimum 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The program fairs better" -- you mean fares.

• Thx. -- Zanimum 14:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The show lost test viewers' attention during the Street Scenes, meaning Muppets needed to be added, like sugar into medicine." Does this belong in an encyclopedia? And if we're making a claim like that, there better be a citation.

• Fixed. -- z

• The term "puppet" is probably preferable to "muppet" when referring to all of the fabric covered characters on the show, since the muppets were a separate group. Not sure though if Big Bird can be considered a "puppet".

• Puppets are a diverse group, not just things stuck on hands. Big Bird is a puppet. Even Jabba the Hutt is a puppet, despite requiring a crew of seven to work him. The puppets on Sesame Street are Muppets, as book covers featured the byline "Featuring Jim Henson's Muppets". Only recently did that disappear, as Sesame Workshop finally bought the copyright to the characters from the Jim Henson Company. The new characters are commissioned by Sesame Workshop from the Jim Henson Company, and thus they too should be considered Muppets. -- z

• Interesting. Well, as a long term Sesame Street watcher (albeit a decade ago), I definitely think of Kermit, Gonzo and Miss Piggy when I think of muppets and Ernie, Big Bird and Oscar when I think of Sesame Street. So I guess more discussion of this would be helpful, to make that distinction. And if "muppets" is the proper term, then the Overview section shouldn't start by saying "Sesame Street uses a combination of puppets..." without explaining what is meant. The word puppet appears elsewhere as well. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just further clarification, the byline actually does call them "Jim Henson's Sesame Street Muppets". Anyway to answer your question, does this sentence at the topic of the article not define the fact that they are one and the same: "Sesame Street is well known for the inclusion of the Muppet characters created by the puppeteer Jim Henson." To rephrase any of the sentences, say, call them "Muppet puppets" would be awkward. -- Zanimum 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The Muppets informs that while not all puppet characters on Sesame Street are Muppets, many of the older, more established puppets are.

* http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Muppet is a much more accurate and stable definition than our own. -- Zanimum 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• "In the 36 years the show has run, it is estimated 75 million Americans watched the series as a child, millions more as a parent." Citation please.

• Done. -- z

• No citations in the first part of the "Characters" section, where there's important discussion of the multiculturalism of the show. Furthermore, the history section has no citations, except for the inaugaration factoid.
• The "Overview" section should not exist--that's the point of a lead. Move other information to other sections.

Hope this helps. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• supportRichardkselby 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object
  • First the good stuff:
    • Sesame Street has a lot of good information in it.
    • The article has many reliable and cited sources.
  • The not so good:
    • The entire article is peppered with what I would politely call "flowery" language, but I could accurately call unsourced POV language. From the lead only (italics are mine):

      "legendary puppeteer Jim Henson"

      "long and illustrious history"

      "has captured the allegiance, esteem, and affections of millions of viewers worldwide"

      Similar language appears through the remainder of the article, but its highest density seems to be in the lead.

    • (subjective) Overall, the article does not seem to view the big picture of itself. There are stray facts (That Elmo was at President Clinton's inauguration. And? No context is included.), and the article feels like it jumps from section to section, with no idea how we're leading the reader from the beginning to the end of the article. —D-Rock 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed the language example you mentioned, willing to hear more. I'd like to hear more on how you think this article could be changed, to show the big picture, without POV slipping it. Tried to fix the Elmo fact, a leftover of the trivia section, tell me if it works. -- Zanimum 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: In a previous nomination (August 2005), I objected because I thought 15 fair use images were too many. Now it has 16 fair use images, and I still think it's too many. The image description pages do not have fair use rationales (another editor's objection from the same previous nomination, that has not been addressed). One of the fair use images is in the footnotes section. What could it be illustrating there? Please read the tag on the postage stamp image - it says, in part "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design". The image was important enough to use as the lead image, and yet the fact that a postage stamp was issued is not mentioned anywhere in the article. So is the image description a way of trying to create a possible fair use case? It doesn't work in any event - the article is not about the stamp and the image has to go. If these issues are dealt with, I will read the article. Rossrs 12:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Done, I believe. Please note that two of the images are not fair use, they are free. -- Zanimum 19:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: a few thoughts:
  • Opening: the wording needs tidying up: "In its history, Sesame Street has received more Emmy Awards than any other program, and has been watched by an estimated 75 million Americans watched the series as a child; millions more have watched around the world, or as parents. millions of viewers worldwide."
    • Tidyed. -- z
  • Overview: "In 1999, the series became the longest running children's program, taking the title from Captain Kangaroo." This sentence needs to state that the series is the longest running children's television program in the US. Without specifying the US, it reads as though it is the longest running children's program in the world, which is incorrect. Blue Peter in the UK, for example, has run from 1958 to the present day.
    • Corrected, and then some. Good spot, finding that. -- z
  • Overview: "The series's music has appeared on music charts around the world, including Ernie's "Rubber Duckie" song, which made #16 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1970, and higher positions in Germany." The wording is awkward in this sentence. Did the Rubber Duckie song attain a higher chart position in Germany, or did other songs attain higher chart positions in Germany?
    • Changed, sadly I don't know exactly what position it achieved. -- Zanimum 16:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regional variations of the show: "Some countries have actually created..." The sentence would read better without 'actually'.
    • Done plus a bit. -- z
  • Regional variations of the show: "Other countries include Bulgaria, Greece (on ERT, later on a private network), Poland and Mexico." What does this sentence refer to? If it refers to the locally produced adaptations, Poland and Mexico are already featured in the preceding list.
  • Done. -- z
  • Research: "Truglio states that the level of interaction between E&R, Content, and Production is "[i]ntimately·hand-in-hand. They are not creating anything without our knowledge, our guidance and our review. We are involved in content development across all media platforms."" A reference is needed for this quotation.
    • Done. -- z
  • Healthy Habits for Life: "According to people from Sesame Workshop, "Health has always been a part of our Sesame Street curriculum..." A reference is needed for this quotation.
    • Done. -- z
  • Merchandising and endorsement: "Tickle Me Elmo was the fastest selling toy of the 1996 season." In the US or worldwide? What does the '1996 season' refer to? The spring of 1996? The winter of 1996? The 1996 Christmas period? The 1996 season of Sesame Street? Is there a citation to support the statement?
    • I can't find any sources right now, surprisingly, so I've listed it as "one of the best selling". -- Zanimum 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merchandising and endorsement: "Today there is a live touring show, Sesame Street Live, which has toured since 1980." It may be worth mentioning the scale of the live tour - for example, the Sesame Street Live website shows that in 2005/6 the tour will visit over 150 cities in North America and have international tours in the Netherlands, Mexico and the Carribean.
    • Good point, I guess this is important enough to mention in the main article. -- z
  • Good luck with the article Jazriel 10:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the badly done rumors section. --Rob 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Care to expand on this comment? I do value the extra input. -- Z15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~
    • First, one should be very cautious about mentioning rumors at all. Do it right, or don't do it. If a rumor is known to be false, it should only be mentioned if its proven to be very famous (e.g. post-death Elvis sightings). The article mentions the "gay" rumor, then has the inherently non-reliable "snopes" as a source to debunk it. Best not to mention it, unless major (cited) notable sources have written about it and its impact/meaning. Also with the American HIV muppet thing, there is weasel words "Many conservatives and religious groups...". The article should say exactly who said exactly what, and there should be reliable sources cited to prove it. --Rob 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The gay roommates and HIV+ Muppet rumors are biggies, each over 200,000 Google hits for "ernie bert gay" and "AIDS muppet -"south africa"", which gets rid of legitimate results talking about Kami from the search. I've revised the gay rumor, to include more detail. Is this too long now? -- Zanimum 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Goldfish

I have expanded this article a lot, allowed a thorough peer review, and added many pictures. QuizQuick 00:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: One of the major issues from the old Peer Review and the old FA nomination have not been addressed... and that is the lack of any inline citations. (If you need any help on this, feel free to ask.) --P-Chan 00:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Starting Aquarium section needs to be wikified. --Banana04131 02:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The length and focus of sections is inconsistent, and inline citations need to be added as per P-Chan. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No references, no metric equivalents of measures in the body of the text, and the "Tips on Care" section should be renamed "Care" and made more encyclopedic and less like a how-to. Daniel Case 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you think the article overall is too short? QuizQuick 19:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Many sections, such as "Care", "Feeding" and the last half of "Edibility and cruelty" sound like a how-to manual, not an encyclopedia. Morgan695 19:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Functional programming

Self-nom. This article seems stable, deals with a complex topic in an accessible fashion, is well cited, and generally seems to follow the guidelines for "beautiful writing". LotLE×talk 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Still listed as "Articles with unsourced statements". --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not currently. I just fixed the one lingering "citation needed" by removing a superfluous claim. LotLE×talk 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support I am not knowledgable about the subject, but reviewed the links earlier and saw that they correlate with the data provided. I am impressed with the flow of the article which makes it relatively easy, especially for novices such as myself, to understand what is being presented. I might recommend trying to eliminate the multiple paragraph style by combining them if possible, but this may not even be necessary. I sent this through spell checker and it came out fine, one or two glitches. A pretty tight and well written article, overall.--MONGO 04:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Jeronimo 10:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article needs a good explanation of what functional programming is, with examples of how it looks and comparison to other programming paradigms - just a discussion of a few concepts is not sufficient.

    Hmmm... the difficulty with that is that the surface appearance of different languages is very different. If an example were given in Scheme, editors who prefer ML would object (and vice versa). Moreover, it really is important for this article to let readers know FP isn't about the fact the language uses these particular symbols or words, but is more structural. Still, I think I can figure out something along the lines. LotLE×talk

    Check. Tried adding a section to meet this goal. LotLE×talk 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

    Perhaps using some kind of pseudo code would be useful, leaving out specific syntax and keeping the language fans away. It may be easier said than done, though. Jeronimo 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We feel Python is a good choice since it is a real language, and is similar enough to pseudo code. Ideogram 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • The article says little about the actual use of functional programming. Why is it mostly used in academic circles, and how does it compare to educational languages (in other paradigms)?

    Answering such a "why" question is too much of an invitation to original research and/or POV, I believe. LotLE×talk

    Maybe it will be original research, but the article should at least discuss some of the relevance of functional programming. Also, some sources may have the kind of information needed - I read "Why Functional Programming Matters" a while ago; IIRC it may contain information of use here. Jeronimo 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • There is mention of some concepts being used in other programming paradigms - more information would be useful.

    OK, I agree on this. It's not really in "other paradigms" as it is in "languages that primarily use other paradigms. But that could stand expansion. LotLE×talk

  • A few images would be possible (though not required), especially in the history section where many persons and languages are mentioned.

    Agreed, locating them is the challenge. LotLE×talk

  • More explanation of terms used is necessary - wikilinks alone are not enough, even if the readers are somewhat familiar with the field. A few words are often enough.

    OK. LotLE×talk

  • The article mentions several important/common features of functional programming languages, but some of these aren't mentioned at all in the rest of the article, such as closures or continuations (there may be more).

    Any other specifics? I'll work on the two you mention. LotLE×talk

  • The comparison section needs more (inline) references.

    OK. LotLE×talk

  • The "flow" of the article is poor at times - each paragraph seems to have been written by a different person.

    I'm sure that is almost literally true. A lot of different people have worked on it, each with fairly different concerns. But you can't exactly throw out the contributions of editors (if they address points relevant to the article). LotLE×talk 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have worked very hard on the "flow" of the article. If you could be more specific it would help a great deal. Ideogram 17:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Two main points: the history section reads a bit like a list of "in 19xx language X was developed by Y at organization Z". I have no concrete suggestions for improvement now, however. Secondly, in "simulating state" consists of one or two sentence paragraphs.

We will work on expanding these paragraphs. Ideogram 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A minor point is that there were (when I posted my objection) many paragraphs starting with "Functional programming...", which is kind of repetitive. Jeronimo 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Programming language

Self-nom. Around the same time as becoming computer science collaboration of the week, this article has undergone some good reorganization and clarification to follow summary style and add precision in its writing. I think it's gotten to the point of providing an excellent overview of its topic. LotLE×talk 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Why are you nominating this? Its still got the COTW tag! Lead is way too short, and the article doesn't go into much detail for the subject(s) it covers - Also the refs/footnotes are very scarce. — Wackymacs 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An article must be stable if it is to be awarded the featured status, with it being an active COTW it is not stable. — Wackymacs 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We were hoping to provide a hub intro that is not too long with links to other main articles. If you prefer, we can integrate the material from the linked to articles here. Ideogram 14:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's officially out of COTW. We forgot to remove the tag. Ideogram 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wackymacs. Also, article seems to have unsourced statements. Pepsidrinka 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We have fixed the unsourced statements issue. Ideogram 22:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - At least let it finish its Collaboration first. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As Ideogram comments, the article is not now COTW; in fact, it had the tag a little while after it was not formally in the right week. The other comments are helpful, but let's treat the COTW thing as in the past. LotLE×talk 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i crossed out the comment, but i think the article needs a peer review before its going to be ready for FA status.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

King Crimson

Support Fairly concise, well-written, and a good overview on the band. User:Fractured_leader (added 3:10 UTC, June 20, 2006)

Object. Due to lack of in-line citations and references, and too many one-sentence paragraphs. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. per RyanGeril10, also no 'see also' section. Rlevse 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- there are a number of editors who argue that a "See also" section is an indication of an unfinished article, as a collection of wikilinks to subjects that should have been mentioned but are not. Jkelly 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Remove excessive links to solitary months and solitary years. Fixing this is easy with a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. bobblewik 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. FU images have no fair use rationales. feydey 13:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Beer

I made this a FA because I noticed that absinthe is a FA and beer is much more compreshensive. Richardkselby 00:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Richardkselby 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Many short sections, Lambic Beers only has two sentences and needs expanded. See WP:GTL on how to set up everything from 'See also' on down. The index is too long. Also, you made four errors in making the nomination, which I fixed, but that's not why I'm objecting. 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) PS...the World consumption needs a total rework.Rlevse 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too many section-stubs (e.g., Lambic beers, Beer around the world, World consumption), and the history section is too short. Pepsidrinka 01:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. One main objection, but it's a big one. Beer is full of uncited assertions. —D-Rock 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• CommentThis is a former FA. See the link on the talk page. Rlevse 10:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - too many short sections, not particularly well-referenced. Ronline ✉ 11:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It's not ready. Referencing is almost non-existant. Various sections need tidying up and developing. The article is taking shape, and possibly has the bare bones of a good structure, but now needs fleshing out. SilkTork 12:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• The TOC is overwhelming, many of hte sections are tiny, and it is severely under-referenced. Raul654 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• The biggest problem I can see is the lack of references - there's too few of them for such a sizeable article. Joffeloff 13:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The short sections are rather jarring a read, and there are other stragities - why is skunking mentioned in the intro, for example? May also be somewhat too focused on the States. WilyD 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Forth

• Previous nomination

Self-nom. This article has had major edits and restructuring since the last nomination, and most importantly now has citations, about one per section. Ideogram 07:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Getting there, but still has entire subsections without inline references. If you need to repeat a reference, you can use <ref name="name">reference</ref> the first appearance, and <ref name="name" /> after that. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is now exactly one subsection without inline references, not counting the Code examples section. If this is not satisfactory, please let me know. Ideogram 22:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel it could be better referenced. One per subsection is sort of a minimum... ideally, there should be a citation for every fact, which might be around one per paragraph, maybe more. I can help with this, if you aren't in a hurry. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be really great. I'm not good at looking up references. And yes, I can wait. Ideogram 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Peacock terms and POV problems with the article. I have noted them down for the first section in the article. Find and correct for all sections. See WP:PEACOCK and WP:WTA for details. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made a first pass at this. See what you think. Ideogram 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Improvements are satisfactory. Please take note of other suggestions. Also, try to get references for unsourced statements. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have obtained references for the unsourced statements.

• • Also, the cite templates are inconsistantly used. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe all the cites are consistent now, with one exception; there was a special issue of BYTE Magazine devoted to Forth, and I don't know how to cite a magazine. Right now it's using {{Harvard reference | Surname= | Given= | Authorlink= | Title=The Forth Language | Journal=BYTE Magazine | Volume=5 | Issue=8 | Year=1980 | Page= }} but it doesn't look right. Ideogram 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This article has just been awarded Good Article status. Ideogram 04:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object to title. Given that River Forth and Firth of Forth are quite well-known features of Scottish geography, I think the article should be at Forth (programming language). 87.122.53.184 15:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has been in existence since November of 2001, so this objection is coming rather late. That said, a disambiguation article already exists (and is pointed to by Forth). For that matter, Forth programming language (which uses the Wikipedia standard naming for programming language articles) already exists too, it just redirects to Forth. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Forth

I believe this is an excellent article, on a par with other featured articles in the same category such as C programming language and Java programming language.

This is a self-nomination. Ideogram 04:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In-line citations. --Osbus 14:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Is the book whose cover is on the top of the page has a significant history for the programing language, like the one in C programming language? If it's not, It should be removed. CG 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the most popular introduction to Forth for a time and the one most users are familiar with. Ideogram 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is User:Mhx really the copyright holder? Jkelly 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, no. I have fixed it to use an image with the proper copyright and fair use rationale. Ideogram 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you expand on the Fair use rationale a little, as the article isn't about the book? I'm not disputing that it may be fair use, but I suggest more explanation is needed. Jkelly 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on this myself. I was following the model of C programming language which isn't really about the book either. I don't know what to say; if this is a problem we can remove the image. Ideogram 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Added rationale. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ideogram 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The image isn't being described at all in the text- in fact, the words "Starting Forth " don't appear in the entire article. That makes the fair use assertion rather sub-par. Another, free-er image would be better. --Rory096 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've deleted the image. Ideogram 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This is a good effort, but most of the paragraphs are not cited using inline footnotes. — Wackymacs 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what this means. Can you give an example of what is required? C programming language has only three footnotes, and Java programming language has none. Ideogram 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard of WP:FOOTNOTEs has risen greatly - before, references were not even required to become a WP:FA. Nowadays, most voters on this page look for at least somewhere around 1 footnote per section minimum. Andy _t 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object; needs more inline citations (several per section please, or at least one per paragraph), and perhaps a reduction in the number of external links. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about the citations. Do you mean the External links section at the bottom? Can you give me some guidance as to what could be removed? Thanks. Ideogram 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say cut the communities, and reduce the number of implementation links drastically (does the average reader need all of them? There is google). Other redundant links can be removed too (only one on the history, for example). The idea is to provide links that are particularly useful and encyclopedic, not to include every good webpage that's related to the topic. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Google is that Forth hits the river, not the programming language, and phrases like "go forth" etc. This has been a common complaint amongst Forth advocates for years. The list is certainly encyclopedic in nature, and afiak is the only list of its kind. Alex 12:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how a list of implementations is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Not to mention that directories like dmoz.org already have reasonably comprehensive lists of implementations. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article now has many citations and has been substatially rewritten. If anyone is still watching this page, please read the article and comment. Ideogram 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Apple Computer

Very well written an informative. A very good timeline, and lots of great external links for further reading. - Mike(talk) 22:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object I'm working at the moment, but I've got to object to this since I've worked quite a bit on this

1. For starters the history section is nearly completely unreferenced (and I've called for some as well).
2. Criticism section has legitamate fact tags everywhere.
3. Lots of various POV issues mostly due to writing flair.
4. Corporate affairs is listy.
5. Little history of its stock (EDIT: This appears to be in the daughter article, although some of that also appears unreferenced... *sigh*)
6. Corporate culture has some rather dubious claims (and more fact tags)
7. Fair-use rationales needed for some images

That is probably not all of them :(. In short, I'd love to see this featured, but it isn't ready yet. RN 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  • Waaayyyy too mach uncited information through the article; 20+ [citation needed]s is unacceptable. Subjective, opinionated statements like "Apple was the first company to demonstrate that suits and hierarchy were not only unnecessary to success, they might actually be a hindrance to innovation" do not belong in any Wikipedia article, much less a Featured Article.
  • The lead section needs some serious love. It's too short. It doesn't reflect what the rest of the article covers (ample time for history, software, criticism, litigation). And does it need to include the street address of the corporate headquarters? It it really that important? Compare with Microsoft's lead section, which does a good job of summarising all the important points and offers the reader a concise overview of the company.
  • The history sections seem to miss out on 1992 and 1993 entirely. The fact that the section covering 2006 is as long as the entirety of the 1998 - 2005 section is a bit unusual.
  • The pictures through the history section are odd; two picturs of Apple's campus, but none of the company's most significant products? As an absolute minimum there should be a picture of the original Apple.
  • There are some redlinks which need resolution.
  • Does a non-Unicode character that doesn't render properly on non-Macintosh computers belong in a Featured Article? Probably not... Wikipedia has a global audience.
  • There are multiple links to Wikipedia sister projects.

A lot of the prose also suffers from a lack of coherence in places; the whole article needs a thorough scrubbing to tighten up the wording. The information presented is quite good, and has potential to be an FA, but not now. Warrens 23:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object for reasons stated above. I myself have looked at the article. (Wikimachine 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

• This is a premature nomination, and a great pity. Mjg, why not withdraw it and garner the Mac community to fix it before resubmitting? I don't think it will pass this time. Tony 08:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object for all the reasons above. Fix up the citation issues then nominate again. Until then, remove this nomination and find sources.

• Object per above. Premature. (At least we know what we have to do to change this situation.)--HereToHelp 00:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jang Yeong-sil

I would like to nominate this article as a featured article because I think that it meets all the criteria of a featured article defined by the Wikipedia community. This is self-nomination.

• Its vocabulary and grammar are proper and concise.
• It is not subject to edit wars and have earned several approbations from other Wikipedians.
• It does not neglect any details or facts about the life of the scientist Jang Yeongsil.
• It carries a box concerning pronunciation & has several pictures concerning to Jang Yeongsil's life or work.
• It is nearly entirely based on reference materials, not web sites.
• It has no prideful, scornful, or critical tones. It is neutral. The topic itself is a biography that does not meddle with politics and conflicts. The topic itself is very neutral.
• It follows the correct style manual as defined by the Wikipedia community.
• The images are of legal copyright status, and they all have links from which they originated.
• It does not contain any unnecessary details.
• It does not get off topic.
• It is of appropriate length.

(Wikimachine 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

• Object. For several reasons:

• Article is entirely too short, and therefore is most likely not comprehensive or overly informative.
• The lead section is not well defined, nor does it provide an adequate summary of the article.
• Many sections could be expanded as they are mostly short paragraphs consisting of a handful of sentences.
• Article lacks inline citations from reputable sources.
• There is a paucity of references. Wisdom89 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider. I was not aware of the fact that there had to be inline citations. I indicated them now. Additionally, there is not much information on the scientist from the first place because he was a Gwan-No (of servant class). This is what I and few others have gathered from searching tons of books and websites. Most of the sources that I could mention dismiss the scientist as a great historical figure without much information. (Wikimachine 23:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

• Object: A worthy topic, but why submit it without proper copy-editing? First, fix the numerous stubby paragraphs and sections so that it flows nicely. Then network to find a good copy-editor; quite a few hours' work required. The first thing I read was: "The date of Jang's birth (and also his death) is unknown". Why not: "The dates of Jang's birth and death are unknown." Let us know when it's fit to read, please. Tony 08:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• It could be improved by removing links to solitary months/years. This task is easier by a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion. Tony 02:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above. Lead is to short, external links should be transformed into inline citations, and the reference/non-working footnotes section needs a major overhaul.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - per above. It needs major expansion. -- Rmrfstar 09:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object — expand, provide citations and proper images. Unlikely to pass this FAC, but I encourage you to continue the work. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody, thank you very much for voting. That just means that this is closed, I guess. Is there a special procedure for closing this, or does this remain forever? Thanks. (Wikimachine 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Ammonia

This article's previous nomination was knocked down to a incomplete table but now everything is perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protarion (talk • contribs) 12:00, June 4, 2006

• Commentjust about sourcing I think its quite well sourced and considering the abundant information on Ammonia this aspect is quite good. User: Protarion
• Comment - I would love to support, but I am the person who nominated it for the Science Collaboration Of The Week, and thus helped clean up the page to close Featured Article status. Am I allowed to vote? Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 11:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as you really believe it to be up to standard, than no one will question your veracity. Judgesurreal777 16:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, many places don't have inline sources. Other than that, though, it looks pretty good. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - I'm sorry I wasn't aware of this article sooner. This is not at all to take away from the wonderful work that has been done on the article, but there are several areas which need work. First, stylistically there are several single sentence paragraphs/subheadings which are generally to be avoided. But more importantly, I would expect a featured article on ammonia to have at least some information about its crucial biologic roles in nitrogen and acid/base balance. The current article mentions them in passing under toxicity and biosynthesis, but I feel a dedicated section would be helpful. Also, some small discussion of urea cycle defects as a cause for human disease with resultant hyperammonemia would be nice. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal weekend for me to write the section - perhaps in a few days I can devote the amount of time needed. Sorry for the opposition, as you've done a great job! InvictaHOG 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've struck my opposition after adding a short section about the biology/biochemistry of ammonia. I will support once copy-edited with removal of those one sentence paragraphs and short subheadings! InvictaHOG 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Pretty much perfect in all areas and a wealth of information. Felixboy 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. But it could be improved.
  • • Some sections are short. (eg Handling and storage of ammonium compounds)
    • As InvictaHOG mentioned, it needs to have at least some information about its crucial biologic roles in nitrogen and acid/base balance.

Nice job on the article though.

Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object; sorry, we should not be using online Encarta as a major source. Find a good chemistry textbook and use that instead. Also, the TOC is rather large for an article of this length—combining level 3 sections in "Safety precautions" would be a good idea. Maybe incorporate Biosynthesis into the Synthesis and production section. Wording is also a little clumsy and informal. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The 6 references two Encarta are all on points which do not really relate to chemistry and are minor points of information, so it is not really a major source. --Protarion
    • They do, however, speak about key points like the origins, history and uses of ammonia. That's important background information that can likely be found in sources more reputable than Encarta. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support I came here to nominate it! Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I read it and can find no criterium that it fails to meet, and it looks very thorough. -- Rmrfstar 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. —Coat of Arms (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

support Richardkselby 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose needs inline citations for figures, such as the chart under "Laboratory use of ammonia solutions". Consider moving the bolded term into the lead (presumably it redirects to this title?). There should be a paragraph or two summary under all section headings, such as "Safety precautions". Tuf-Kat 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose opposition as I'm not sure I understand what is wanted :). If by "figures" you mean the molarity values which correpond to certain percentage concentrations, the reference is the CRC Handbook listed at the Bibliography section ('twas I who added most of the Safety material). Physchim62 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • By "figures", I mean essentially all numbers. The source needs to be cited using inline citations to make it clear which numbers come from which source. Tuf-Kat 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think people are missing the point of an encyclopedia. It covers everything you could want to know, referenced, neat, yeah, go ahead. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Smith

A very well written article, that includes many sources. It is the best article, out of all the offical bios.

• Comment: Haven't read through the entire thing, but right off the bat, I see that lead may cause some controversy. "Elliott Smith... deemed by many fans and peers to be one of his generation's most gifted songwriters". I think this may be a misrepresentation, as the article clearly states that it was his own record label that said that, in response to his death! Now, I don't mean to be bashing this person, nor am I saying that that statement is necessarily wrong, but it may be a little on the POV side. Can you substantiate this a little better? If you can't, it should be removed or changed. --P-Chan 03:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC). I'm now going to Object, as the point that my last comment was refering to should definetly be addressed next time this article goes up for an FA.--P-Chan 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Close, but the trivia section will have to be merged into other areas of the article, and the lead section should be expanded. However, it's much better than the aver musician article on wiki. With a bit of hard work, this can be made FA standard within the nom time. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Not bad, but a few problems. For starters, there's a few places where "citation needed" is inserted. The lead section could use a bit more text (not a blocking objection). Moving the full discography to a separate article is OK, but I would expect at least some of it to remain in the main article, a "Selected discography". Also I think we could do without the section of trivia and cultural references in their current (list) form. Jeronimo 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. In some ways, it's not badly written. However, it's not good enough yet. With just an hour's work by a good editor, it will satisfy the explicit requirement of this criterion. Here are examples from the top.
• Three stubby little paragraphs don't make a lead. The paragraphing throughout tends to be choppy. Our readers need smooth flow.
• Do I care that he was born at 12:59am?
• "who was allegedly abusive"—Begs for a reference, even though (I think) you're saying that it's in his lyrics.
• "the majority of the album"—grammar.
• "were in attendance"—can't this be simply "attended"? Someone distant from the writing process needs to go through it and weed out redundancies such as this. Here's another: "he had just written it earlier that day"—Which word can go?
• "the record contained a style"? Unidiomatic.
• "invited onstage"—unsure whether onstage is correct here as one word. Please check. Tony 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object

1. "The evidence surrounding his death is still inconclusive. [2]": the reference is two and a half years old. Can this be brought up to date?
2. "This time seems to have impacted Smith immensely": this is speculative interpretation, not encyclopedic writing.
3. "Some speculate it came from the name of a street in Portland, while others believe it to be an idea of his then-girlfriend, who derived it from the last name of her ex-boyfriend. [7]" Again, speculation.
4. "'It was weird because it was black, but when it got rolled on, it turned silver and started reflecting the sun up at you. I got incredibly sunburned, and I had no idea.'": If this has any place in an encyclopedia article, it needs a lot of explanation. Please remove this or explain why it is important.
5. "He was told that anything he requested would be fine, but, a chair would not be granted.": What does this tell us about Elliott Smith?
6. "Smith never voiced disappointment about his loss - if anything, he seemed relieved." Seemed to whom? Can we get a reference for this, or is it just a Wikipedian's assessment of the mood of the subject?
7. "He is also rumored to have recorded a version of "Hey Jude" for the film Royal Tenenbaums to be played during the opening scenes. However, the singer's version of the song was dropped and replaced by an instrumental. No recording or hard evidence of this version existing has yet surfaced.": rumors and speculation. Not encyclopedic.
8. "and proceeded to jump off a cliff.": does this mean something more than "and jumped off a cliff"?
9. "Nugent's book says that during this time, Smith hardly ever ate, subsisting primarily on ice cream (bizarrely, it was the only thing that he kept in his freezer).": did Nugent's book use the word "bizarrely" or is it the Wikipedia author's judgement? If it's a quote, it should be marked accordingly; if it's the Wikipedia author's description, it should be removed.
10. "the investigation into his death continues [2]": Again, this footnote is 2 1/2 years old; we need an update or closure.
11. "The producer also noted that the track "Ostriches & Chirping", a strange and short instrumental made from sampling and looping the noises made by a toy bird, had nothing to do with Smith and was something that McConnell had recorded by himself." Did the producer describe the instrumental as "strange" or is that the opinion of the Wikipedia author? If it's a quotation, it needs to be marked so; if it's a Wikipedian's opinion, it should be removed.
12. "Smith most likely did not intend for this song to be on the album." Is this Wikipedia's judgement? Or is there a source for this?

Fg2 15:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• As User:Tony1 said above, an hour's work could clear up the objections I raised. Fg2 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've been working on working in some of the suggested edits. Phasing out the "Trivia" section, making the intro a little more meaty, etc. Shamrox 01:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Feel free to strike out any of my objections as you address the issues. That can make it easier to gauge the progress toward featured status. Fg2 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Alright then, here's a few:

1. "'The evidence surrounding his death is still inconclusive. [2]': the reference is two and a half years old. Can this be brought up to date?" Literally no information has been released about the case since early 2004, which was the autopsy report (linked as a refrence for the article). Some fans have actually tried contacting the LAPD to get more information, but they're not telling anyone anything. So, nope, can't really be brought up to date.

If there's a published article saying that fans sought information but the LAPD released none, that would be the update I'm looking for. But if there's nothing, there's nothing. Fg2 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As far I know, there's no article with anything like that. I think I read about the fans going to the LAPD from friends or on messageboards, which is obviously not super-credible. Shamrox 22:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, maybe an "as of 2006" notice is the best that can be done. Fg2 22:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1. "'He was told that anything he requested would be fine, but, a chair would not be granted.': What does this tell us about Elliott Smith?" In a way, it speaks volumes about the guy. He was so nonchalant about being on the Oscars that he didn't even care to stand up to sing to the crowd. However, I removed the line because I felt it made the paragraph drag on.
2. "'Smith never voiced disappointment about his loss - if anything, he seemed relieved.' Seemed to whom? Can we get a reference for this, or is it just a Wikipedian's assessment of the mood of the subject?" Not speculation. Found a refrence, see article.
3. The "Hey Jude" ordeal - I removed it for the time being (to figure out where it would most aptly fit in the article), but Wes Anderson talked to Entertainment Weekly in December 2004: "For the opening sequence, Anderson wanted the Beatles' 'Hey Jude.' 'The timing was bad,' he says. 'George Harrison was dying and we just couldn't get the stuff cleared.' He then tapped Elliott Smith to record a cover of 'Jude,' but the troubled singer backed out. 'He was in a bad state and just wasn't able to,' says Anderson."
4. "'and proceeded to jump off a cliff.': does this mean something more than 'and jumped off a cliff'?" Don't know what you mean...the guy got really drunk and depressed, then threw himself off a cliff.

If it means "and jumped off a cliff" then let's say "and jumped off a cliff." It's simple and direct. That's all I meant by it. Fg2 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1. "'Nugent's book says that during this time, Smith hardly ever ate, subsisting primarily on ice cream (bizarrely, it was the only thing that he kept in his freezer).': did Nugent's book use the word 'bizarrely' or is it the Wikipedia author's judgement? If it's a quote, it should be marked accordingly; if it's the Wikipedia author's description, it should be removed." Noted and amended.
2. "'The producer also noted that the track 'Ostriches & Chirping', a strange and short instrumental made from sampling and looping the noises made by a toy bird, had nothing to do with Smith and was something that McConnell had recorded by himself.' Did the producer describe the instrumental as 'strange' or is that the opinion of the Wikipedia author? If it's a quotation, it needs to be marked so; if it's a Wikipedian's opinion, it should be removed." Amended.
3. "'Smith most likely did not intend for this song to be on the album.' Is this Wikipedia's judgement? Or is there a source for this?" Cited refrence.

Shamrox 18:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing these. They strengthen the article. Fg2 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• It could be improved by removing the links to solitary years (2004 and 2006). Hope that helps. bobblewik 23:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support: I like this article, we've done a lot of work on it recently and it's really become something great. However well referenced it may be, some of the prose could be better. There's also some kinda borderline case moments such as "many a fan cried sell-out" <- if we can't verify this somehow it has to go.

• On a less serious note, I think the Shutt biography footnotes could be condensed into one reference (like the Nugent reference) and then cited in brackets throughout, eg. "(Shutt, p.8)" - Phorque (talk · contribs) 12:42, 22 June 2006 (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 01:38, 29 September 2007.

---

Truthiness

Previous FAC

Since the article was last nominated for FA status last year, the article has been dramatically improved. I believe that this article is now worthy to be of such status. ISD 06:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support Subject obviously has had relevant cultural impact and coverage since Colbert popularized it. However, currently it seems to have too many sections that are arranged more in a time-line fashion than an article fashion. So, support on the grounds it is notable, but I wouldn't mind seeing a restructuring. The Clawed One 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Supporting on the grounds it's notable seems sketchy. If it wasn't, it shouldn't have an article at all... Featured articles are not about the subject, but about the article quality. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support This a great article, it has all the information anyone would need on Truthiness and has great citations. "Truthiness" should be used as a model for other word articles. Voot42 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• A few comments:

• First, the prose in the first few sentences of the "Origins" section sounds very stilted: "Stephen Colbert did this. He did this. He used the word here." I'd like to see it flow a little better in more compelling, coherent prose. (Should only require some minor restructuring).
• The Wikipedia section seems to exhibit to me the bias of authors writing about it in Wikipedia -- that is, I feel its authors are forgetting that not everyone is a Wikipedian. I see this particularly in the last sentence in that section, which deviates entirely from the subject at hand (truthiness) and simply discusses Colbert's history with Wikipedia, which is entirely irrelevant. I would say this of the entire closing paragraph, but if the elephants thing was directly linked to truthiness -- i.e., "You should change it because it makes it truthy" -- I suppose it is okay. (Was it linked in that way? Because there's nothing about elephants in the excerpted monologue, and no citation supporting the fact that "This lead [sic, fix] to Colbert encouraging his viewers to vandalise the Wikipedia.") In that continuing vein, concepts like an article being protected should either be explained better or wikilinked to the relevant sections of the article Wikipedia or the relevant policy page explaining that practice.
• The article's organization seems a bit off: only two main body sections. "Popularity and widespread use" seems like it's trying to take too big a bite out of the material. I would recommend splitting that material up into one section dealing with the history of the term, post-first-episode -- how it took off, its trajectory and media coverage, its getting Word of the Year, etc. -- and then another section on "Applications" or "Instances of use" or something -- like the James Frey controversy, Colbert at the WHCA dinner, and Colbert's further discussion of wikiality, all of which are really post-phenomenon events still relevant to the subject.

I don't have time now to give this a thorough reading-through, though I intend to later today or tomorrow. At any rate, I will give my overall impression, which is that I'm reluctant to support -- I'm not sure this article is ready yet. I realize that's not helpful to you trying to improve it, though, so when I come back, I will have specific objections that can be addressed, as per WP:FAC. Dylan 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is being improved in response to your comments. ISD 06:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support! I really like the new structure, it's much better than before. All concerns being addressed, I think this is ready. Good job. Dylan 14:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Thorough, well-written, and up to FA standards. Nice work. -- Wikipedical 02:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

Sequence profiling tool

The current article attempts to concisely present the concept of sequence profiling tools in Bioinformatics and their increasing relevance in holding the pyramid of sequence data in genetics/molecular biology. Surprisingly, no single source exists to describe and review such web based tools; the information contained herein is very valuable in providing an overview and their design. The article is not a compilation of the numerous bio-software that specialize in providing focused information or even public portals providing links to valuable databases.

I conceived the article and wrote a stub quite sometime back and have been helped occasionally in formatting and fixing. So, Yes! it’s a self-nomination - a vanity attempt Though small enough to start with, the definition I provided happened to be the only “web definition” in Google results page whenever one typed ‘What is sequence profiling tool’, making me realize that more intelligent minds were focusing their efforts in defining more important issues. It is then that I thought of making the contribution more comprehensive by clearly outlining the concepts and classifying the different kinds of sequence profiling tools and an example in each of them. This article is one such attempt.

I am not a wiki expert by any standards in terms of creative formatting, so I might need help in editing to begin with. Meanwhile, I have reasons to believe that the piece I compiled qualifies to be considered as a Wikipedia’s ‘feature article’. I hope the votes confirm this.

Nattu 04:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - All fair use images need fair use rationales. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rebut - All images are screenshots from public portals that are free for all researchers Nattu 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This needs work on tone, prose quality, referencing, and comprehensibiity; see What is a featured article?, and perhaps examine the style in which other FAs are written to see what you should be aiming for. Much work is still needed before this reaches featured status. --Robth^Talk_Cleanup? 05:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rebut - The tone, prose quality, referencing, and comprehensibiity have been gleaned from Bioinformatics and related sites. I am aware the prose might require copyediting and I need help Nattu 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - per above and the intro is too short and there are no references. Rlevse 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Sorry, its lead section must be expanded. Anonymous__Anonymous 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rebut - Lead section has been appropriately expanded. More amount is better included in Introduction which again has been expanded. Nattu 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - per Robth. 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rebut - refer response for Robth Nattu 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object, sourcing and notes is now a pre-req for any new featured article, no? gren グレン 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response - References and external links have been updated and restored Nattu 06:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• It would have been nicer not to have used the word Rebut here—this process shouldn't be a confrontation. Now, although it's quite well written, there are still some things that need polishing. For example,
  • "web based" must be hyphenated. I note several similar hyphenations in the same paragraph.
  • "one or more government entities"—which goverment is this?
  • "For example, a researcher might use the sequence alignment and search tool BLAST to identify homologs of their gene of interest"—if you pluralise "a researcher", the grammar will be correct. Pluralising is usually the best solution to the gender problem ("his/her"). Same with "the user".
  • I was howled down by colleagues for minimising the punctuation in ", e.g.," and ", i.e.,"; the full punctuation is still the accepted way. This looks a little awkward: "a traditional search engine e.g. a plain Google search".
  • "richly interactive screen views within each window"—just "in"?
  • "The query format is more flexible which includes"—grammar/punctuation.

Please don't just fix these examples and write Rebut. I'm indicating that a thorough run-through is required, preferably by someone who's new to the text. Tony 11:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Due apologies for the 'rebut' word. Thanks for suggesting the corrections. 'government-entities' refer to the NCBI at the NIH and other similar groups funded by the government. I agree with the edit by User:Opabinia regalis. I would be very happy for greater participation in the copyedits by other wikipedians. Nattu 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So ... you mean the US federal government? Not the NZ government? Tony 02:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Selena

Self-Nom Selena was a spanish singer who's life ended very short and since then she cult status in Hispanic countries and was one of the best-selling hispanic artists of all-time. I worked though the article and gravely expanded it, added plenty of refs, and it had a successful peer review I will welcome all comments to improve the article. Note I do need help copyediting the article as I'm poor on it. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. Looks good, but has a few minor issues. The article's naming of Selena (either as Selena or by her last name, Quintanillas) is inconsistent and feels haphazard. The tone is a bit off in spots, especially the death section. It's very close though, It can definitely be improved to FA status within the nom period. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the first comment, I'm not sure about the second. Can you clafify please. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh> I hate having to object on tone issues because it's so hard to make them clear. Give me a moment (or a day) and I'll put together a list of examples. By the way, thanks for fixing the naming issues so quickly. Good work. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well this is embarrassing... I reread the article more carefully, and discovered that instead of the article needing tone editing, I need more sleep. Sorry to have been such a bother. Support, and I'm going to bed... RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Seems good to me! — Wackymacs 07:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose langauge is too fanish and unprofessional, some examples

was considered a budding superstar, which jump started her career and landed her a contract, career took off, witnessed her big break, Selena's fans embraced the touching biography

• The phrasing and grammar also needs work

When she was six she started singing and by the age of nine, her father founded the singing group Selena y Los Dinos, which she fronted.

Meanwhile, Selena and her band continued to receive accolades; Billboard's Premio Lo Nuestro awarded them a total of six prestigious awards, including Best Latin artist and song of the year for "Como La Flor," and Coca-Cola released a commemorative bottle in her honor to celebrate their five-year relationship together.

• There are many more instances of the same kind of problems, I suggest you look for a disintereted third party for a good copyedit.--Peta 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I removed the buddling superstar comment, but I tried to find someone in IRC to try to help me copyedit but I couldn't find anyone. I see what I can do. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the fan language. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's still packed with it; spirited and professional onstage presence, catapulted her to stardom, helped made Selena a star, helping Selena to stardom, and so on.--Peta 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I removed as much as I can. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Note User:RN did the rest of the copyediting last week, article is fan language free. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'Still oppose - the fan langauge may be gone, but the grammar is still terrible, sentence structure needs some serious work.--Peta 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Some copyediting was done Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how to fix that, and no one will help. I need help on that before Tuesday when I leave for arm surgery. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This article needs adequate song samples (see Genesis (band), Mariah Carey and Kylie Minogue for examples). CG 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's something I don't know how to do sorry. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to upload .ogg formatted samples of some songs to Wikipedia and then link to them using the correct format (look at the code on those suggested articles). There is probably a WP page somewhere about this. — Wackymacs 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I uploaded one, I don't know if I did it right though, and I probaly going to upload another before the night is over. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I loaded the second one. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Song samples are not a criterion to be an FA, and are bad. There's no need to have more fair use content when you have plenty of media already. --Rory096 04:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a well written article to me. --digital_me^(t/c) 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• I want to support this but can't at the moment. There is overuse of passive voice and it just doesn't seem to flow well in some places. Maybe if I have time I'll try to tidy it... RN 09:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • OK - I did a whole-article pass, probably screwing everything up :D. It does come off as awfully glowing though.... EDIT: in case I don't find time to etc. I want to mention that this article is VERY good besides that point - it reads almost like a fitting tribute to the singer...RN 11:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too much fair use content. Song samples are unnecessary and long. --Rory096 04:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Too much fair use content is not a FA criterion. Plus it is necessary for a music article to contain some sounds to make it more understandable just like a painter article would require pictures of his paintings. In addition many featured articles have a lot of samples: Genesis (band) has 18, Kylie Minogue has 10 and Mariah Carey has 4. CG 05:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, FAs have to have "acceptable copyright status," which having too many fair use assertions may violate. It is not necessary to have samples, it is only helpful. Pointing to other articles that violate fair use doesn't make the point any less valid. --Rory096 05:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • There are 4 uses of copyrighted "fair use" material in the article, which is not excessive and they all have rationales. Song samples are useful for the reader, and thats what an encyclopedia must be. — Wackymacs 06:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
        • These samples have all good fair use rationals. And yes they are helpful and encyclopedic. CG 08:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
          • They are also unfree, while this is a free encyclopedia. Since the article was just fine without them, there's no need to have these, making the fair use rationales invalid. --Rory096 20:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Since when fair use content is prohibited in Wikipedia? You're making up policies. CG 12:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Rory, read Wikipedia:Fair use. — Wackymacs 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Of course fair use content is allowed in Wikipedia. However, when you have too much of it, it makes the fair use assertions less likely to hold up in court. Since there was plenty there before, there's no need to have these 2 extra 30 second song samples. --Rory096 04:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't see your reasonings, they don't even make sense. Why would the record company sue because of short song *samples*, they're not the full length songs, it isn't piracy. It isn't illegal. If you are so concerned, go find some free use pictures and stop complaining. — Wackymacs 06:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • We're taking their copyrighted work without permission and using it anyway! That's what fair use is! I shouldn't have to find free use pictures, as it was fine as it was, with 1 free use picture and 2 fair use. That's plenty! There's no need to have 2 song samples. --Rory096 21:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Wikipedia policies allows us to use fair use content as long as you provide a rationale. If you contest this policy, suggest an amendment in WP:FU not here. CG 08:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
                      • I believe I've made it clear that I'm not objecting to fair use content, just needlessly putting more than is necessary in. The article was perfectly fine without two long music samples. From Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." --Rory096 03:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
                        • the policy says, as you clearly quoted just now, that copyrighted work used should be as little as possible . - It seems getting free use content for Selena is not very possible, otherwise it would be there - we can't magic free use content up, you know. — Wackymacs 06:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
                          • The page was perfectly fine BEFORE anything was added because of comments in this FAC. Just because you can't get unlimited free content doesn't mean you can assert fair use on as much content as you want. --Rory096 04:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I like the article, but it didn't seem to tell me a whole lot about the progress of her actual career. I'd like to the "successes" section expanded some, and explain more of her significance, rather than it being a meandering discography. Rebecca 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try but I really can't expand it anymore without becoming too crufty, her significance was mostly after death. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me -- Tawker 21:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It's pretty good...could use a bit of touching up...but I can't quite put my finger on it....._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good to me. SushiGeek 01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Peugeot 205

This car is popular, and should be a main page article. I am willing to work on it to FAC standards. --Sunholm(talk) 11:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. List-y at points, no inline citations, needs some expansion (the one section consisting only of two external links definitely needs to grow); there are other issues, but these would be good to start with. This needs a lot of work; I recommend taking a look at WP:WIAFA and some recently promoted FAs to get an idea of what you should be aiming for. --Robth^Talk_Cleanup? 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. This article needs some serious work before it can be a FA. It is pretty short, without that much text. If the car is that popular, there should be more written about it that you can incorporate. You should also try a peer review before you submit it for FAC.

• The intro is missing a period at the end of the 2nd sentance.
• You need to cite sources for this. Who says its one of the most popular hot hatches of the era? Who says they are difficult to handle? Who says it is the 'king of the GTis' and who said the VW was? These (and many more) statements all need to be refernced. Your opinion isn't enough. There is not a single reference anywhere in the article. See WP:Cite
• 'Trim Level' should either be defined or create an article for it. At the very least cut the redlink.
• You need more than two outside links with no text in the special editions section.
• I can't find Image:Rallyevoor4ue.jpg at the webpage listed. Also, I don't know Dutch, so I can't find my way around the site to see if its on there somewhere else. Please provide a specific link. I'm also not sure if all rights are released or not. Please provide the Dutch and an English translation of the release.
• I cant find Image:Peugeot 205T16 RAC 1984.jpg at the webpage listed. Please provide a direct link to the promotional photo page.

Briancua 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to work on it to FAC standards.

Then for heaven's sake why list it here if you're tacitly admitting it's not up to snuff yet? Withdraw the nomination and spend more time working on it (like, as everyone else says, getting references included). Sorry to be testy but this is not the place to list articles you think could be featured, it's for articles the nominator thinks have reached that level. Until it has, you're wasting our time and yours. Daniel Case 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - I'd suggest a Peer review --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Daniel Case: why list it here prematurely? No loss of face to withdraw and submit it in fine state later. Tony 10:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• It could be improved by removing links to solitary years. This task is easier by a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. There is a 'units' tab too that ensures consistent use of spaces before unit symbols. Hope that helps. bobblewik 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - you're beginning in the wrong end, mate. You should work on it before listing it here. Joffeloff 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

ITunes

Partial self nom/support This article is well written, is of a good length, and has good pictures that are all within the copyright regulations. False Prophet 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment and oppose This article was placed in peer review yesterday. That is certainly not enough time to be reviewed adequately. I suggest that the article be moved back to Peer review since the article has a small chance of achieving featured status. Too many short, stubby paragraphs, images in gallery are copyrighted and have no fair use rationale, prose is not the best work of Wikipedia, among other things Joelito (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The version history section is sloppy, and there aren't enough inline citations. Letting the Peer review run its course would be a good idea before nominating here. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per RyanGerbil10, this is not ready yet. — Wackymacs 07:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above above. --DragonWR12LB 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object There is POV and POV editors. It is factually inaccurate: the blanket Vista "not yet officially supported" issue in the intro is inaccurate and the changes I make to enforce its accuracy keep getting reverted. Now perhaps I understand why! Mattjs 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The POV Vista issue immediately above has - after much heated discussion - finally been resolved factually (and seems to be staying that way): So I can and should finally recind my previously valid Object above! Regards, Mattjs 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tent pegging

I came across this article when doing research on cavalry traditions, and I was really impressed by it. It was an absorbing read, and afterwards, I felt I thoroughly understood a sport that I had never even heard of before, and I wanted to go out and try it immediately! I am nominating the article for five main reasons:

1. Highly rated by Wikipedians: Rated an A-Class article and appeared as a Main Page Did you know feature.
2. Exposed to wide scrutiny: Passed through two separate peer review processes (general peer review and military history peer review), and made all suggested improvements.
3. Thoroughly referenced: Impressive use of primary and secondary sources, from up-to-the-moment web pages to 200-year-old newpaper articles.
4. Compelling and disciplined prose: Engagingly written and concise, covering the subject thoroughly without over-writing or excessive run-on verbiage. It resists the common error of "prose bloat" and uses a minimum of words to convey a maximum of information.
5. The definitive resource: Unquestionably the most thorough and authoritative resource on the web about the sport, and (as far as I've been able to see) the most thorough and authoritative resource anywhere.

This is not a subject I know much about, but I think this is a great example of a "tiny, perfect" article, that covers the subject thoroughly, authoritatively, and interestingly.

UltimaThule 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article is way too short, and the lead must be two paragraphs. See WP:LEAD. — Wackymacs 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not say it must be two paragraphs, it says "one to four", depending on the article. Rlevse 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally FAs have two paragraph leads, its just a suggestion and the current lead is much too short anyway. The lead is meant to summarize the entire article. — Wackymacs 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but it does not say "must be two paragraphs".Rlevse 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive enough (what else can you say?), referenced with extreme prejudice, and clearly well-reviewed. WP:LEAD is just a guideline. Deltabeignet 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. WP:Lead is a guideline, but the lead must be much more than than three sentences in length, which is the current length of this article's lead section. However, in addition to that, the prose is choppy and should be unified into longer paragraphs. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• support I wouldn't call the article short; it's concise. Here, brevity really is the soul of wit. Also, I wouldn't call the prose choppy, but terse--in a good way. Reimelt 04:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, article/lead too short to be featured, in my opinion. Phoenix2 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I doubt there's much more to be said. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, It's a great article, and the only real criticism of it has been its brevity. However, Wikipedia guidelines for Feature Article Candidates clearly states, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to 'fix' the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Saying an article is too short doesn't fit that, unless you say why it's too short. What has been left out? What sections need more depth? I can't think of any, no one in either of the two peer review processes could think of any, and since none of the critics have specified any gaps in the article, it appears that they can't think of any either. Making an article longer just for the sake of making it longer without adding missing information doesn't improve an article; it actively diminishes an article. Neanderthalis 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Are you sure that all of those articles under the reference section have been used as references? (I'm wondering because the article is so short and most of it is cited already). Maybe you want to move some of those to a "Further reading" section.--P-Chan 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

All but two of the items listed in "References" were used in the citations, so the referenced works must have been used in making the article. My understanding of the wiki guidelines is that works cited in the notes (citations) have to be repeated in the References/Bibliography section, although I think this is a little redundant. I know that scholarly journals etc have this same requirement, but it does clutter up the screen IMHO. UltimaThule 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If you're not using an item as a reference, then it should not be in the reference section. Put it in as further reading, or delete it all together.--P-Chan 03:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Also, you're right. I think if you have each of the references in both the notes and references section, it ends up cluttering everything. I think you can get away with removing the repetition here.--P-Chan 02:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support A very short concise article, actually did not know anything on this subject until I read the article. I agree that fluff shouldn't be added just to make an article longer.--Oldwildbill 08:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support A great example of "good things come in small packages". I agree with Oldwildbill above. Size counts, but in reverse - if you can get more information in with fewer words, that's better than less information with more words. Typonaut 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, but object. History section could be expanded, as this discipline is quite ancient, and its role very important in medieval warfare and tournaments... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We Belong Together

The last nominations [39] [40] [41] had failed. It has been one and a half months since the most recent FAC listing, so I'd assume enough time has passed to nominate this one final time. I had intended to leave the Wikipedia project, but I just can't let go until We Belong Together finally reaches FA status. I hope this will be lucky number 4. Any suggestions are welcome. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. My only content oppose was the graph, which was replaced by a more accurate scatterplot. With that done, the article as it stands now is featured quality, and the wait before nominating again assures me that the nominator respects community will and isn't just trying to force the nom past. Very comprehensive article. -M^ask 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the personal debate to the FAC talk page. Tony 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(Note from FA director - The nominator waited a reasonable amount of time since the previous nomination, a has used the time to make substantial changes (presumably to address previous nominations). Thus, I'm content to let this nomination go forward Raul654 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Oppose. The copy of the article has not improved substantially. I see many of the actionable items from the last three nominations remain. In particular, I find the following howler disturbing:

"As Carey vocalises, rhythm and bass are elaborated into the background, which creates an understated, relaxed tempo denoted by a 4/4 time signature set in C major."

FYI time signatures don't "denote" anything except maybe how to dance to the song. They're just a devise used by composers to define the beat. It's not uncommon for an R&B tune to be in 4/4 and it's unnecessary to mention it in the article as if it had any significance other than time. The text tries to be compelling, but just ends up sounding overwrought. There's a fair bit of reaching here with the vocabulary. Just speak plainly and if the subject is interesting the prose will be compelling. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused at your objection. Could you explain why the blockquote sounds disturbing? If it is because of the content, there is a reference that can be verified. If this is not the case, then I'm confused. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is not uncommon for any song to be conducted in 4/4 time, so you're right, I will remove the redundancy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the 4/4 time signature indication and corrected the blockquote which you found to be disturbing. Is there any prose in particular that you don't find to be brilliant? —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it's even worse. "...relaxed tempo composed in C major."??? A tempo is not a key! There are similar bad phrasing that makes the prose inflated. If you want to copy edit this, here's a start: remove every superfluous adjective. Please do not post to my talk page on this. My oppose will stand. This needs a major re-write. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try and remain civil. I will continue to copy-edit the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Object—2a. Needs a thorough copy-edit.

• • Second sentence: "The song was primarily composed and written by Carey, Jermaine Dupri, Manuel Seal and Johnta Austin (though as many as ten songwriters are credited)". You say "primarily", so "though" is inappropriate, because it doesn't contradict the preceding information. Can you remove "as many as" and, later in the sentence, "initially"? Remove "it" from the next sentence. Remove "numerous" (or state how many).
  • What's a "singing approach"? More precise language is required.
  • "It was also a worldwide success, where it peaked at number-one"—what place do you mean by "where"? (Fuzzy grammar.)
  • "Carey had finished recording The Emancipation of Mimi by as early as November 2004"—it's unclear to the readers why you've marked the date ("as early as"); either explain in the context that this was unexpected or unusual, or replace by "in".

That's just the lead. The density of problems indicates that the entire article suffers from substandard prose. Please get someone to fix it—one to two hours' work by a good copy-editor. Tony 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide one or two more examples? I have read-through this article so much that my eyes tend to just jump from sentence to sentence without really observing the text. In addition, I have copy-edited the article so much that I cannot locate anymore content — to me anyway — that requires further editing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why you need "strategic distance" from the text (see, for example, User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a). Can you find another editor to do it? Tony 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've tidied a lot of the prose. Comments? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've conducted another major copy-edit. What do you think? —Eternal Equinox | talk 04:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Keep working at it, and try to find one or more collaborators. To pick up where I left off, let's look at the very next sentence.
  • "However, at that point, "It's Like That", "We Belong Together" and "Shake It Off" (which would eventually become the album's most successful records) were yet to be conceived." Why not remove "at that point"?
    • Fixed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My US dictionary says that hip hop is hyphenated.
    • See below. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In a music article, we need to describe the music/performance in a way that is accessible to the non-expert (see The perfect article). Music is my area of expertise, yet I've no idea what you mean by "facile, verbose approach" as a contrast with her signature "melismatic" style. There's a lot of in-house talk all at once ("phrase-splitting"?), which is not going to help in conveying a useful idea of the music to readers at large. We need to back up such technical terms with links or brief explanations within parentheses, or in a separate sentence. I'm unsure how to do it—you know the topic ....
    • I've attempted to correct this to the best of my ability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jadakiss–Styles: should that really be an en dash rather than a hyphen?
    • Fixed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Following the reference of Womack's song, she then sings:" Which word is redundant? There's another one of them shortly after this.
    • Fixed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The tempo was composed in C major?
    • Didn't catch that, but I've fixed it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "As tension raises, the hip hop prominence on Carey's vocal delivery increases"—raises what? "on"?
    • Silly mistakes. Fixed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still finding problems in just about every sentence. Tuf-Kat is an expert in this general area and has established a system of quality control for articles such as this. Have you asked him for assistance? Perhaps he could suggest copy-editors. Tony 10:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems in every sentence? Oh dear. I don't quite understand this, but I will request that Tuf-Kat locate some copy-editors since at this point, unfortunately, I believe there is not much more that I can do regarding text and content-editing. I will search for him immediately. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My Canadian dictionary does not have a hyphen in the word "hip hop" and neither does the main article hip hop music. —Eternal Equinox | talk 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Message received. I'm an expert though, at least formally - no education beyond high school. Anyway, I had a few comments in PR, of which not all were addressed. I agree that the Music and structure section needs some copyediting. I'll see what I can do now.
  • It's not clear to me what "heavy" means exactly.
  • Not clear what the bit after the semicolon has to do with "The hip hop influence is further exhibited in Carey's vocal delivery" -- don't write something like that unless the "hip hop influence" in vocals is clearly expounded on.
  • Also not sure exactly what "effusive" means here.
• I only got about halfway through that section, but now I've got to go. Tuf-Kat 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello, thank you for the response and thank you for tidying the portions of the music and strucutre section which did not quite make sense. "Effusive" and "heavy" could be described as irrelevant to the section now that it has been copyedited; from what the new material that I've read, it seems to make more sense without the use of these words. I apologize for not correcting all of your concerns at the peer review (I had become rather lazy, I must admit), but your knowledge has helped enhance the vocabulary! Excellent work! Are there any other parts that you think may require rewriting? —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, impressive article. —Nightstallion (?) 15:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, one of the best articles about a song I've seen on Wikipedia. --Musicpvm 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The prose of the article has been improved upon and I would appreciate it if the editors who voted "object" reanalyzed their vote and commented further. Thank you.—Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Per Malber and Tony. The page needs to be condensed and re-written. The banal prose uses twenty words when five will do. Aspern 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific. What do you mean by "boring"? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A few collaborators helped to trim and tidy the prose excessively. The material remains the same but is summarized significantly. I feel that the writing has greatly advanced, so please comment. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please read my comment--I didn't say the article was boring. How could anything concerning Mariah Carey be boring? I said it was banal (almost juvenile). The vocabulary and phraseology are limited and the prose doesn't flow. In some places it's verbose, in others it's monotonous, hampered, and lumpy. Aspern 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I've cleared a lot of the lumpiness. Is there a specific section that requires rewriting? —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have repeatedly edited sections to exemplify that which needs changing. I look forward to changing my vote when you have fully addressed my concerns with your prose and text. I am capable of following your edits. Please do not trouble me again on my talk page. I shall be watching with interest. Aspern 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt that I have been troubling you at all. Anyway, Tuf Kat has not responded to the matter regarding copy-editors along with Malber and Tony. I don't believe there is anymore clunky writing, but I'll continue to copy-edit. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I did not have the time to listen to the samples, but is it right to put two 30-second samples (1 minute) for a 3 minutes and 20 seconds song? CG 18:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it is all right because the user who uploaded the files has the appropriate knowledge regarding music-samples. This was Rossrs. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• I think the sections should be expanded. Especially the download controversy section, which is only one paragraph long. Everyking 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Just the first paragraph is enough to make me want to burn my wife's Mariah Carey Greatest Hits CD.
  • "We Belong Together" is a pop–R&B song performed by singer do you really need to point out that she's a singer? think of thew audience that might search for this article Mariah Carey. The song yes, let's restate that it's a song was primarily who else was involved? composed and written as a musician, the diference between compose and write eludes me by Carey, Jermaine Dupri, Manuel Seal and Johnta Austin the rest of this paragraph is a non sequitur -- unless you mean during through additional studio sessions after Carey had initially completed her ninth studio album The Emancipation of MimiNo link? (2005). how can you initially complete something? Complete is an absolute -- it's either done or it isn't The popularity of "We Belong Together" is often attributed to its retro-soul appeal, and the understated, rap-inspired music and vocal approach, is this thing R&B, pop, retro-soul or rap? which received critical praise following the reviews of Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002).Are they albums? Do they have their own articles? If so, link them. Also, from whom did the song receive critical praise
  • Essentialy, a complete rewrite is needed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to comment on your last point, I don't think it's necessary to be specific—the sources of the praise are more properly identified later in the article. Everyking 04:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
      • True, but a ref wouldn't hurt. In any case, the article is simply not good enough to even be considered a good article let alone be given FA status.
• Object. Agree with the others above; the writing is simply not up to scratch for a FA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Redundancy in the lead section (when talking about the critics) and an expansion could be done. Fair prose but not brilliant. Lincher 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Busking

Object to the article's discussion of U.S. law relating to busking. The discussion is one-sided and misleading, making it sound as if virtually all regulation of busking is unconstitutional, which is not the case. Further, it's description of the legal parameters applicable to busking regulation is inaccurate, and appears to be an attempt to describe the legal standard applicable only to regulation in a "traditional public form" such as a street or sidewalk. Regulation of space in subways, parks, and other publicly-owned property may fall under the standards applicable to "limited public fora," or even "nonpublic fora." These standards are all different, and confer a greater or lesser degree of regulatory power depending on the characterization of the fora (i.e., as traditional, limited, or nonpublic). Finally, the list of relevant U.S. cases is woefully incomplete; e.g., the description of the St. Augustine FL case stops at the district court decision, and omits the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which upheld the city's prohibition against busking in certain areas of downtown. This section of the article needs a fair amount of work in any event, but revision is certainly as a prerequisite to FA status.

• Object. Lead needs expanding, lists need converting into prose, needs copy-editing, sub-sections in "History" section need expanding or merging. Image layout is messy. Almost every footnote (4 - 19) are in the same place. Most of the article is unreferenced. Unnecessary bolding needs removing in "Pitfalls" section. "Practitioners" section is too short. Please see WP:LEAD, WP:FOOTNOTE, and Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. — Wackymacs 10:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object. There are major problems here, as there is a strong original research tone that permeates throughout the article. For example, the two sections "Motivations" and "Pitfalls" are uncited, are written in a somewhat personable way. (It feels like someone just sat down and wrote those sections off the top of their heads). To build on Wackymac's comments, the long list of footnotes is misleading as most of the them belong to one section, and the rest are links to dictionary definitions. This pretty much means the whole article is not referenced. (Hope I'm not being too harsh, but this is certainly not FA material.) --P-Chan 15:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

re wackymacs comments

"The discussion is one-sided and misleading, making it sound as if virtually all regulation of busking is unconstitutional, which is not the case." apparently WM did not see this.

~In the USA about the only reasons that can be used to regulate or ban busking behavior are public safety issues and noise issues in certain areas that require silence like hospital zones, around churches, funeral homes, cemeteries and transport terminals where announcements need to be heard. Such laws must be narrowly tailored to eliminate only the perceived evils by limiting the time, place and manner that busking may be practiced. They must also leave open reasonable alternative venues.~ ~In the USA any form of regulation on artistic free speech must not be judgmental, and permits must not be so restrictive, complex, difficult or expensive to obtain that they inhibit free speech.~

WM mistakingly states parks are not public fora and they are specifically mentioned as public forums in most of the legal decisions. Subways are a limited fora but free speech is allowed and it is the volume which is at issue. There were sevral cases among them the decision of Jews For Jesus, Inc. vs. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority that resolved that issue.

WM wrote, "the description of the St. Augustine FL case stops at the district court decision, and omits the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which upheld the city's prohibition against busking in certain areas of downtown."

The appeal to which WM refers occured in 2001. The decision by the city council to acquiecse and allow busking in the St George St. area occured in 2003. Unfortunately all the newspaper links to that occurance have vanished. The inet is a fluid medium constnatly changing content. Even though the links disappeared it doesnt mean it didnt happen and wasn't there.

Re P Chan The pitfalls area is common knowledge among buskers. It is likme asking someone to provide cites that the sky is blue.

Arecaceae

I have worked many hours to expand this article greatly. It seems to meet the featured article criteria and is quite exhaustive, especially for an article on a plant family. I have cited over 20 sources with proper footnote referencing and included pictures for each section. Although some of it is a little technical, it should be understandable to the average reader without sacrificing accuracy. --SCHZMO ✍ 01:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- 1. Lead needs to be expanded 2. List information be converted to prose. 3. Remove subsection 1.2.1 (either promote or merge with another) 4. a) Why is there US specific information? In the United States..., while only the names of other countries mentioned? None of the countries mentioned are in the tropics, the predominant area for the growth. Why? b) Palm Canyon, California etc -- name the country 5. What about the uses of the plant? Fruit, wood, flower, coir, toddy etc? =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was debating whether to remove the US and Europe-specific information. However, I don't mention specific countries in the tropics because palms are everywhere in the tropics. Also, I did list the uses of palm under section "Uses and cultivation". SCHZMO ✍ 02:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I don't know how that slipped my attention. But you'd need to include toddy, coir etc. As far as the countries are concerned, all should be treated at par since the audience is universal, not specific. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Nice layout. Where is your criteria for "Economically important" coming from? Jkelly 02:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Nichalp. — Wackymacs 06:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tikal the Echidna

This article is well-written, covers the topic, has enough references, stable, has a lead section, and is factually accurate. Is it good enough to be a featured article? --71.105.14.68 18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. The article completely lacks an out-of-universe perspective. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

• Object—2a. The prose will have to improve significantly to meet our standards here. Here are examples.
  • "Her character is described as 14 years old, 3 ft 1 in tall, and 52.8 lb in weight." "is described as"—who's doing the describing? Do we need to say this? Replace with "is"? Metric equivalents for 96% of humanity, please? "Her character" is then "The character" in the following sentence. Confusing.
  • "voice acting"—do you mean "voice-over"?
  • "Moreover" is inappropriate as an agent of cohesion here. Ask me if you don't see this.
  • I don't want to read in passing of "Pachacamac's power-hungry ways" in the lead without some prior mention of it. More logical treatment in the lead is required, or remove it and treat in the body of the article.
  • "Tikal's role in the game, Sonic Adventure, is to show what happens thousands of years prior to the game and is the plot of it." The last five words go "clunk".
  • "to stop all his fighting, stealing, and killing"—spot the redundant word.

I won't go on. This needs to be "compelling, even brilliant" to pass, no matter how many fans support the nomination here, or vote "Support" just because they like the topic. Tony 07:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

PS It would be nice if the anonymous nominator bothered to register; there may be reason to communicate with this person one-to-one—you never know. Tony 07:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Tony. — Wackymacs 08:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Tony, and also the lack of referencing in the article. And, I know that this is minor, the japanese pronunciation has a help symbol next to it, which I feel needs to be sorted out. This little problem no longer matters now that the referencing has been made better, along with 2a. However, 2a and referencing still isn't up to FA level yet.The Halo (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria

I have followed the article's development for quite some time now and I believe it meets the featured article criteria. It has had a peer review that has now been archived. Todor→Bozhinov 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The sectioning is bizarre. — Ravikiran 09:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Ravikiran. It's a nice article but I have to oppose. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please be more specific? What is exactly the problem with the sectioning? Could you give any suggestions as to how it can be improved? Thanks in advance! Todor→Bozhinov 10:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you have put pretty much the entire article into various subsections of section 1 and you have a section 2 for "Family". It just seems weird. The subsections should be sections. — Ravikiran 10:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• That is not the only problem with the article. It is not comprehensive enough. It does not educate someone like me, who knows nothing about his story. For example, right in the first paragraph of "Early rule", we have "This defeat precipitated a succession crisis exacerbated by foreign invasion." Which invasion? I guess it is the Serbian invasion, but in the second paragraph it talks of Bulgaria's "recent losses to the Byzantine Empire." Where did that come from? Also, in the first paragraph, we have "After the conspiracy that drove..." What conspiracy? More details please! The "flow" does not seem right. — Ravikiran 10:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Social promotion

I truly think this article is a really good article and should become a featured article. It list the pros and cons of social promotion in a neutral way. There aren't anymore edit wars. Social promotion is only used in the United States and Canada. I wrote in the article that it was used in the United States and Canada. It's not a worldwide view. How can you object to such a good article? It tells you everything you need to know about social promotion. Well if you object, then maybe you should just write the article instead since you know more. (Xtremeruna21)

• Object. Styling/formatting problems, see WP:MOS, article generally very short, article does not represent a worldwide view (only seems to speak of US and Canada), no footnotes (see WP:FOOTNOTE. — Wackymacs 15:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article should state that Social promotion is only used in the US & Canada. — Wackymacs 18:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object A very short article, in FA terms, and has a number of formatting problems, and is generally not representative of the best work on Wikipedia. --Wisden17 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too short and doesn't show a worldwide view --Geoffrey Gibson 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. As someone who has contributed a number of edits to the article, but has given up fighting about minor points (like redundant information, poor grammar, etc.), I'd be among the last to consider this article an exemplar for wikipedia. John Broughton 22:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Giving this the gold star would be ... well, social promotion (Sorry, I couldn't resist). Daniel Case 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty good. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 18:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Resembles below-average freshman paper (sorry for being so blunt, but I grade those on sociology topics). Too short sections. No inline citations. 3 references out of which maybe one is academic. Few ilinks. Short. This needs much work before it can even go to WP:PR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Airbus A380

This article has gradually and consistantly improving, and is now comprehensive and well written. All facts are referenced and every image used is free use from Commons. This article has had a peer review, and the only faults, style inconsistencies, have been fixed. I now believe it is interesting, comprehensive and stable enough to become an FA. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object – 1. Choppy prose and long winding sentences that call for a copyedit. eg: The unconfirmed story brought outrage and embarrassed the European Trade Commissioner. 2. Too many subsections. Needs to be reduced. 3. Why is =History= lower down the order? 3. Medellín, Colombia --> Medellin in Colombia; Iqaluit, Nunavut --> Iqaluit, Nunavut in Canada. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tried to address your objections; are there any other issues which could do with fixing? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

    It needs a copyedit. There are too many winding sentences eg the lead contains: However, the Antonov An-225 retains the record of being the world's largest commercial aircraft, although its passenger capacity is only about 80, and only one flying aircraft currently exists. Why describe another plane in the lead? 2. Both knew the risk of splitting a niche market; unspoken consensus (tacit understanding?) 3. two versions or two models? 4. Convert the comma to in: Toulouse, France; Bangalore, India to Toulouse in France etc. 4. Official list price stands at US$ 295 million per unit. Carriers often receive large discounts for volume or early purchases. Official list price? --> As of [date], each plane costs [cost]. (bulk bookings are valid for all products, not only planes -- implied) 6. The Wall Street Journal needs to be italicised. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lead must be longer, the lead must summarize the entire article in 2-3 paragraphs for an article of this length. — Wackymacs 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per Nichalp and Wackymacs. I took a little look at random sentences throughout, and found things such as: "the microprocessors produced by TTTech for the A380 is severely flawed". There's inconsistency in terminology, e.g., "Qantas" and then shortly after, "Qantas Airways". Some assertions require referencing, e.g., "Airbus expects that this requirement will be waived prior to the entry of the A380 into service."—says who? Tony 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tried to address all your concerns at once; I've fixed all the grammar and terminology errors you've pointed out, and similar ones, and it now has a slightly better lead. I couldn't find any reference for the "Airbus expects these requirements to be waived". Plus, it does seem like a rather flippiant attitude for a major aircraft company, so I've removed it without citation. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Article has short lead-section. Anonymous_Anonymous 12:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning to Support article is a little unstable. ( Target of vandalism ) Anonymous_Anonymous 13:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive article, good visuals. M.K. 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very informative, relies on texts not websites as reference, inline citations, very nice pictures, very nice structural composition, just plainly amazing. (Wikimachine 01:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
• Support Quite informative and filled with lots of detail. Lots of nicely detailed pictures with alot of good links.- Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by A380 Fan (talk • contribs)
• Further comment—We shouldn't be able to find substandard prose by now, but it's easy. My eyes first fell on:

"Airbus operates 16 manufacturing sites all in Europe except for some wing component manufacture by IPTN, an Indonesian aircraft manufacturer. The European manufacturer will produce most of parts for the new A380 airliner.

First, the front and rear sections of the fuselage are loaded on ..."

• • At least one, and probably two commas required in the first sentence. I'd like more precision: do you mean that 15 are in Europe and one in Indonesia? What do you mean by "some"? A FA might pride itself on giving our readers up-to-date, high-quality information, rather than just "most of parts". Do you mean "the parts"? Then a new paragraph launches into the subject of the stages of the construction process, without orienting our poor readers to this theme.

Not good enough. Is the rest of it better? Tony 07:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph; I think it must be a recent addition, and it is rather confusing. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore

This article is currently a good article, it has been a Comics Collaboration of the Month and has addressed the majority of issues from the previous two nominations.[42][43]. I believe this article is ready, and I am prepared to handle any objections which may arise.--DCAnderson 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Move the list to a new page. --Maitch 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Done--DCAnderson 21:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There might be a more clever way to incorporate the link to the list, but I will withdraw my objection. --Maitch 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I found another objection. The fair use images needs fair use rationales. --Maitch 21:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added a little blurb to each picture explaining why specifically it is Fair Use in the Alan Moore article.--DCAnderson 21:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It has to be more detailed. Please read Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. --Maitch 21:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on something, but could you maybe point to a similar image in a similar article thatyou believe is an example of how it should be? I don't know if there is a whole lot I can think of to say beyond "this image is being used as an example of something by Alan Moore."

Are there images in this article that you believe will never justify fair use and can be cut entirely?--DCAnderson 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made the fair use rationales be more like the ones you listed here[44]--DCAnderson 22:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be alright now. Images that don't have a function in the article besides looking pretty will never justify fair use even if it is related to Alan Moore. The ones in this article are book covers and are only used in sections about the corresponding book, so therefore they add significant value to the article. However, I'm a little bit worried about Image:V for vendettax.jpg and Image:Swampthingmoore21.jpg not being low resolution. --Maitch 07:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well both those pictures are nowhere near full size, so they are at the least, lower esolution than the original. I personally don't have the software to edit them, so someone else is going to have to do it if it is a problem.--DCAnderson 00:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support - Very comprehensive article on an influential late 20th century writer. Next best thing to talking to Alan Moore himself! Tombseye 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Not really referenced well enough, lots of paragraphs and facts are missing footnotes. See WP:FOOTNOTE. — Wackymacs 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, for a number of reasons, many unresolved from the last FAC

1. Biographical information still lacks details on his marital status
2. There are quote and references to opinions that really should have a source cited inline, the biography and major works section are both problematic, with no evidence for the source of direct quotes.
3. In the major works section, Swamp Thing and From Hell are disproportionately long. The section on Watchmen (arguably his most famous work) is poorly written and underdeveloped. Promethea could also be added to this section, as -interestingly- it is a comic about the authors mystical ideas, and one of the few comics with an interesting female protagonist. As is the reader could get the impression that Moore hasn't written anything major since 1988, which simply isn't true.
4. Poor development on of detail on this religious beliefs which get a brief mention in the lead (why?) and nothing more.
5. Terra Obsucra should probably be in the list of Americans Best Comics releases
6. Current work is underdeveloped and Albion is out, what is he currently working on? Does he appear at cons? Why is he having ideas and getting other people to write the comics (Albion, Terra Obscura)?

--Peta 05:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany

I'm nominating this article as I feel that it is the best article I've read based on a country. The writing is very clear and concise while in great detail stays to the point. It also makes fabulous use of linking to other articles and the images included go very well with the point being made. Jboyle4eva 14:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Far from FA. Just to name some problems: At more than 80k, the article is too long (especially the history section) and badly referenced. The "Culture" section is just a list of names, transportation section should be written more in summary style. Exports and imports list breaks up economy section. Kusma (討論) 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object. Article is too long, however some sub-sections are insufficiently short. Lead must be expanded to actually summarize the article. Lists should be converted into prose. Image layout is messy, all images are different sizes. Some citations are inline HTML links, some are actual footnotes - they should all be footnotes, see WP:FOOTNOTE. Article needs a copy-edit, spell check and general cleanup. — Wackymacs 18:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object for length and refs before even giving the article too close a look-over for finer details. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article is too long. The history section alone is 24 KB. It needs to be summarised. --Maitch 21:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd object due to its state now, but think it is appropriate to hold off and see if the already identified work starts getting done. Jboyle4eva, you may want to look at what happened during the process for Canada recently, where significant improvements during this process, including shortening and summarizing, ultimately put it on the front page (well, it will be on the front page shortly). Sam 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Homestar Runner

This article is about the Flash toon, in which has created such a fan base that there are people who would give their time just to make fanstuff or transcribe the toons.

• Support: I believe its a great article.--H*bad 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's a good article that meets the featured article criteria in my opinion. —Mr. Strong Bad/_talk 17:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Most of the article is unreferenced, more footnotes required, see WP:FOOTNOTE. Last few sections look like afterthoughts and are way too short (Popularity, Awards, Merchandise). — Wackymacs 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I'm all for it! We all love Homestar!--rFalcon 10:16, 12 June 2006 (PST)
  • Loving Homestar is not a reason for supporting the article, please look at the FA criteria. — Wackymacs 17:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not referenced enough for FA, books have been published with sections on the subject, none have been mentioned. Popularity and Merchandise sections could be expanded. Lincher 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. For the reasons listed above. Phillip M. 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: See the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homestar Runner/archive1. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: "The Chapman brothers have created a very large collection of collectable merchandise. For more merchandise for Homestar Runner see the store." In it's current form, this statement looks like blatent advertisement. For future reference, this should be removed.--P-Chan 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • fixed Judgesurreal777 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A mighty fine article. --TotalSpaceshipGuy3 18:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not quite ready yet. Needs to be made better (I guess I better help do that) and will try nominating again later. —BazookaJoe 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. I think it sums up Homestar Runner in a nutshell. Nothing needs more info. If you want more info, go to Hrwiki. This is Wikipedia, not that. Seriously630 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 6 inline citations for an article that long? And on a web-based subject to boot (making references easier to find, even sitting at a computer)? No way. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept This article has more than enough information about the website for it to be a featured article. Red Director 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept This is a well-written article about a well-known and popular pop culture phenomenon. THis is exactly what Wikipedia is about. —BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's certainly depressing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a fine article, but the last parts of it need work. (The "TMBG music videos" looks useless, and should be written a different way, or put somewhere else on the article) Oh, and I think some people are voting for it because the Homestar Runner Fanstuff Wiki had a thing that said to help vote for this article about a couple hours ago. PurpleKoopa 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The coverage of what the site contains is fairly comprehensive, but the following aspects, in my opinion, need work:
  • Criterion 2a: A good copyedit would help. Series titles (such as Teen Girl Squad) need to be italicized. There are some problems with referents ("By focusing on Internet distribution, the animated series has been able to reach a larger audience than they would otherwise have had access to." — who's "they"?). This is a run-on sentence: "Homestar was once called The Homestar Runner, now only in the Old Timey cartoons, but the title has since changed to Homestar Runner."
  • Criterion 2b: Some sections, particularly later in the article, are too short. Certainly more can be said about the site's popularity and critical reception. Did you know, for example, that Rooster Teeth Productions has cited H*R as inspiration for their own series Red vs Blue? I would guess that they're not the only ones.
  • Criterion 2c: Key assertions and analysis aren't supported by citations. Is the series really absurdist? Absurdism isn't about absurd situations in general; it's about the pointlessness of life. Also, the article might want to incorporate any germane information from the commentary tracks on the DVD.
  • Criterion 2d: Has there been any negative criticism of the site at all?
  • Criterion 3a: The lead seems to go into a bit too much detail. I wouldn't introduce all of the characters in the lead, just the most important ones (Homestar Runner, Strong Bad, etc., but definitely not the Poopsmith or Homsar.) Also, the lead should probably make some mention of the physical media on which Homestar Runner has been released, since that's significant for a series primarily distributed via Internet.
  • Criterion 4: Image:Puppet Jam 6.JPG doesn't look like it's from a computer or video game.
    • Re. Criterion 3a: According to the creators of Homestar Runner, every character on the character page of the website is a "main character." —BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Even so, don't you think that mentioning all of them in lead is too much? — TKD::Talk 10:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Please keep in mind that the featured article candidacy is not a vote. — TKD::Talk 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It can be made to be a fine article, but at this point, it is definitely not FA material. Rogue Leader 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. As much as I'd like to see it featured, it simply is not ready. Qermaq 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The referencing in totally inadequate, and many sections are way too short, especially toward the end of the article. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- Image:SB Flagrant System Error.png needs a fair use rationale. Jkelly 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's a great site, and the artical is pretty good too. Teh Pampas Cat 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object; needs more references and citations. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Expansion and better organisation is needed. I suppose I'll help with it (after I finish project). --JCasto 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: This article may need changes to it's basic structure.
  • The lead is not representative of the rest of the article, as it introduces way too much information that is not expanded upon again (characters, popularity with college students and the UK) and does not include much of the content in the article (Other Sub-Cartoons takes up almost half the article). The lead should act as an introduction to the content in the article and should be rewritten as such.
  • If all the characters are important enough to mention in the Lead, why not have a section for them in the article? (Just one or two sentences for each of the major ones, so people aren't left in the dark.)
  • This article should have a more out-world perspective. It does a bit of this with the last 4 sections (Popularity, Awards, They Might be Giants, and Merchandise), but these sections seem to be more of an afterthought. They should be expanded. If this is such a popular website, then why is it is so popular? (Source properly of course).
  • Some of the sub-cartoon sections are rather small. One suggestion is to merge some of them together as reoccuring themes.

That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: I am a fan of H*R, but the article is lacking too much to be Featured. Perhaps information from The Homestarrunner Wiki can help improve the article. --Chris 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support: It's a great toon and everyone loves it.

Comment: Just a reminder, this is a page for Nominating the article and not the series itself. --TotalSpaceshipGuy3 23:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object Not enough references. Andjam 07:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Great Neck

I think this article should become a featured article. It has a lot of information and it's very useful. (Nwonk)

• Object. Fails FA criteria. Several formatting problems, see WP:MOS; bad prose, too many lists; lack of references/footnotes, see WP:FOOTNOTE, should also include a state map presenting its exact location. This article needs lots of work, please add to WP:PR for peer review comments and more suggestions. — Wackymacs 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object as it lacks references and does not contain a map or pictures to help illustrate the village. -- Underneath-it-All 01:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Charmed

I believe this is a concise, eloquently-written article which fully covers the topic at hand.Moonmirror 06:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Large part of the article is filled with rather useless syndication notices and DVD release dates, while leaving more serious topics untouched. The main characters are mentioned, but little is told about them. Who were the writers/directors? How was the show valued by viewers during the course of the show? What about the fan base (a magazine is mentioned)? There are several sub-articles (see box at the bottom) that are hardly or not treated in the main article. Also, the article seems poorly referenced. Jeronimo 06:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Syndication section is too listy, needs converting to prose. Not very well referenced either, also needs copy-edit and general cleanup. — Wackymacs 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Fair use images need rationales. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object, unfinished fannish, POVish, incomplete. Promising start, but needs a lot of work (give me a month ;) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool FC

This nom isn't mine, I'm just adding it to the list, as it was improperly filed. I think it was added by Jeeps2009 at 23:37 UTC 13 June 2006, but I could be wrong.

(placing my sig on another line to avoid confusion) RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I object due to the large number of lists, which make up over half of the article. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as well, due to the lack of images where many are available, and per the above. Phoenix2 03:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose very little images. Anonymous__Anonymous 11:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a note, WP:WIAFA states that images are not prerequisites for articles. Andy _t 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ulster and Delaware Railroad

• Self-Nom. This article was made last year, and has steadily risen up from being a rubbish pile. This article is very detailed, and every contributor that has come by to contribute to the article has done an amazing job at contributing to it. It includes a lot about the railroad's history, and one could learn a great deal about the railroad if they read the article. That is, if they wanted to :). Kschwerdt514 11:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, unbold all of the stations and such (all but the title in the first sentence). zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Referencing is insufficient, and Zafiroblue is right, the bold text is really distracting. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Only four references are given for an article of quite significant length. The topic is fairly specific, so the number may be explained, but there are no footnotes, and no inline citations, as required for Featured Articles. It is no longer sufficient to just list the references works used in sourcing an article, but citations must be made within the article to show which published works are referencing which specific facts within the article. That's what meant by "referencing is insufficient." I hope that was helpful, RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The run-on sentences need to be fixed before this article should be featured. I've done a little work, but it needs more. RussNelson 03:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - per above plus it's not til the middle of the 4th paragraph that we have a year so we even begin to know when this occurred. Rlevse 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Friendly object since the nominator has done a lot for Catskills-themed articles. I fixed a problem with the reference formatting that was keeping most of the article from showing up, but ... more work needs to be done in that department and I will try to clean up some of the prose problems others have noted (to which I would add some places where the tone needs to be more encyclopedic). Some more research could be done ... I don't know if it's really relevant, but it's a neat bit of trivia that, since the Grand Hotel straddled the Ulster/Delaware county line, the bar used to be moved back and forth in the hotel when one county or the other had a fit of temperance fever and went dry. Daniel Case 03:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, it should really go to peer review first. Daniel Case 03:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is now a red cite error showing up. Now that I've read it in more detail, I agree with Daniel that it should go to PR first; but I do think the potential for FA is there. Rlevse 11:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment All problems about the article are fixed. Thank you for reading this update --Kschwerdt514 05:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Battle of Kharkov

Self-nom. This article failed its previous FAC because of quite legitimate, yet not major, reasons. Following a major overhaul, a lot of points were taken care of.

• References were expanded (more books used) and a lot of inline citations added.
• A map of the offensive was drawn.
• The lead was expanded
• The conclusion section was dealt with its possibly POV points.

I think this article deserves an FA star. Comments? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article; all the issues raised in the peer review have been addressed. Kirill Lokshin 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support easily now that everything has been nicely fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Needs proof-reading by an uninformed reader and explanation of some of the difficult terms. What is Stavka? What is Izium salient? Also, pic captions could be extended to include not only the names of the people, but also a brief mention of why are their pics there. Finally, could do with some more sources from the outside world. Don't get me wrong, but the article seems to be written almost entirely with books by three of the Soviet commanders, which is quite one-sided. Some on-line sources could also be nice, but it's just a wish, the "term explanation" is the basis here. //Halibutt 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Response The article is written using primarily two Western books (Beevor and Glantz) and two Soviet (Moskalenko and Zhukov). Anyway, since the battle was a Soviet defeat, I don't see nothing wrong with using Soviet sources, since the bottom line of all three books is "yes, we got owned big time by the Wehrmacht, and it's our fault". Propaganda does not matter here. I know you don't like Soviet Union Halibutt, but you should admit they sometimes go beyond propaganda.

As for captions and explanations, I'm going to take care of that. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: I added a pic to illustrate what the Izium Salient is and added an explanation for Stavka (it was already there but I made it simpler).

As for sources, I insist that a) They're mixed and b) Most important information (strength and casualties) are either Western- or double-sourced to make sure they weren't minimized on Soviet side. And since the most interesting aspect of the battle is actually centered on psychology, the sources can only come from people who oversaw the operation at Stavka. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ==Conclusions== needs to be reworked. The big quote could probably be cut down and/or summarized. However, my biggest issue is with the phrase "the truth is". Per WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth The wording throughout the section needs to be changed to make it more clear who is drawing these conclusions. Currently, it reads like the conclusion of a paper on the battle, not an encyclopedia article. - The Catfish 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you're quite right. Wasn't me... :( Anyway, I reworked the conclusion section by summarizing Zhukov's quote and by rearranging a few thing. Tell me what you think please! :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better, though I have one last question before I strike my objection. Is this this the only significant interpretation of the events, or are there other notable interpretations? Do the western sources (not cited in this section) have a different view? I ask merely becuase I am not very familiar with the subject. If there truly are no competing views, consider my objection struck. - The Catfish 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this was a stinging defeat for the Soviet Army, there can be no doubt about that. You will note that the article uses Western authors, too.

I daresay that in these books, Russian commanders make (a rare thing, but still) a honest analysis of the situation, recognizing their own defeats. Starting from that, the risk of POV and propaganda is almost non-existent, since even Stalin censorship could not transform a defeat into victory. And to top it off, most important information (strength and casualties) are either Western- or double-sourced to make sure they weren't minimized on Soviet side.

As I said to Halibutt, the main interest of this battle is psychological, involving dangers of armchair generalship and interference between propaganda and military. And I daresay there is no better view sources than those used for this article.

Hope I managed to convince you :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that the Western authors should be cited under ==Conclusions== if they had a different point of view about the causes and effects of the defeat. I was not refering to the rest of the article, where, as you say, you used both Russian and Western sources. So, since I'm still not quite clear, do Western historians have a different view of the causes and effects of the battle than the Russians? If so, please add their interpretations in. If not, maybe cite them as well to emphasize that the view in the section is widely held. - The Catfish 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not fundamentally, but in my opinion the article is not there yet. I think a lot needs to be added in terms of the conflict between Soviet command levels, and I think at the moment the conclusion is far too generous on the Red Army's performance. I strongly recommend the use of Ziemke for the German side and Erickson for the Soviet side for this article, to improve it further. Also Bagramyan's memoirs, since he was Chief of Staff to Timoshenko, IIRC. If I did not have my books in storage I would add things myself. Andreas 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Although mostly written well, there is not much on the Germans as the article reads as if it is written strictly to cover the Soviet perspective. Entire article should be written to give both sides equal time or as close as possible. Tombseye 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Emanuel Swedenborg

The article was on Peer Review, no major flaws detected. Some requests for more photos, which were provided. The article has a very delicate POV perspetive that seems to suit everyone. A year ago the article was subject of POV pushing, but now people on the talk page express how impressed they are of the POV balance.

Everything is referenced and important isses taken into account. I, being one of the main contributors, can't think of much more to add to the article.

Fred-Chess 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object To start, the Lead needs to be expanded to two paragraphs per WP:LEAD and no inline citations. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Lacks proper referencing (footnotes), and the lists need converting to prose. Also, as mentioned already, the lead does need to be 2 paragraphs. — Wackymacs 11:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per 2(a). Here's some examples:
  • A clunker in the lead: "He said that the Lord, God, Jesus Christ directed his theological explanation..." Big comma problems.
  • "Then at age fifty-six he claimed that he entered into a new spiritual phase of his life, experiencing first dreams, and later visions..." At first glance, the phrase "experiencing first dreams" makes no sense; I had to read this sentence twice to understand it.
  • "Jesper also held the belief that angels and spirits were among us all the time." - Informal, and I'm not sure about the tense. Angels were among us? Mostly, though, it's the use of the word "us."
  • "Swedenborg proposed 150 years earlier than any other scientist, that the activity..." more comma problems.
  • "But a profound change was coming over him..." Why the sudden switch to the past progressive tense?
  • "Neither by geometrical, nor physical, nor metaphysical principles had he succeeded in fully understanding the soul, the brain or their functions, but he had nonetheless learned much which would now guide him into the new phase he was about to enter." - Awkward, overly-wordy, and a bit POV(?).

And so forth. Also, inline citations are needed, the lead needs to be expanded, etc. Good luck! The Disco King 13:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your comments! And especially to Disco King who appeared to have read through some parts of the article.

With the lead section I will, for now, persist in my view that one paragraph is sufficient for this article for the reason that 90% of readers wouldn't want (or need?) to know more about this topic, and that Wikipedia:Lead section is after all just a guide.

In regards to the language there I will consider adding {{copyedit}} to the article and perhaps ask some people to copyedit. With my English Level 3 (as per Wikipedia:Babel) I can write decent, but not brilliant, prose and I am aware of that.

(Incidentally, many of the formulations that were objected upon above originally came from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition -- e.g.: Up to middle age Swedenborg's position was that of a scholar, a scientist, a practical administrator, a legislator, and a man of affairs. But a profound change was coming over him, which led him to leave the domain of physical research for that of psychical and spiritual inquiry. Neither by geometrical, nor physical, nor metaphysical principles had he succeeded in reaching and grasping the infinite and the spiritual, or in elucidating their relation to man and man's organism, though he had caught glimpses of facts and methods which he thought only required confirmation and development. [45].)

Lastly, there have been queries about inline citations before, but noone has yet said what they want cited. I feel awkward to just add some randomly. I'd say most of the article mass is generally agreed on by the standard literature that is listed in the article's reference section.

Again, I'm grateful for your comments, and welcome further discussions -- here, on talk:emanuel Swedenborg or elsewhere.

Fred-Chess 16:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Edison

Many world famous inventors and/or scientists have Featured Articles and this one matches up to Featured Article status. It seems to be well written pictures are helpful. Refrences and External links are sufficent. The article is stable and not the target of vandilism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixboy (talk • contribs)

• If I have time, I may be able to work on this article; but as for now, object. As of now, it is listy, has trivia sections, few footnotes, improper licensing, etc. Not quite Wikipedia's best work. Andy _t 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per Andy. — Wackymacs 11:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Trivia is never any good. The Disco King 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article's opening needs to be longer. Also, there should be more of a chronological flow to the article and the subheadings should be shorter. And parcel out the trivia section or just get rid of it. This article needs a lot of re-organization. Tombseye 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per Tombseye. The sections need to be rearranged chronologically & certain sections need to be merged. The Trivia section definitely needs to go. All in all, most of the information is already there but it needs to be presented in a much better manner. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a note, the Trivia section is now gone, I reordered the sections, merged Improvements into Tributes, prosified the Tributes, and fixed the image license tag. Andy _t 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Good work Andy, but now those red links need to be fixed, and the article needs to be seriously expanded, there just isn't enough information in the first place. I also dislike the List of contributions section. — Wackymacs 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Good article but not FA quality yet. The flow of the text isn't great and some areas could use a little more information, especially the section about his childhood. --Nebular110 16:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

This article deals with a relatively controversial subject in a balanced way. It is well referenced. In the few months I've been working on this article (and others related to it), this article has improved tremendously due to the hard work of many people. This is a self-nom. joshbuddy^talk 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Although this article tries to be balanced, it seems to be strongly influenced by prejudice against Jehovah's Witnesses and their teachings. A quick read of other comments will show that the author is not alone in his/her opinions - but Wikipedia is not the forum for these disputes. Many statements give a clear view of the teachings, however there are a multitude of biased references and comments, particularly the sections detailing schisms and the section on future reading. To contrast this with an article that seems unbiased, compare the article on the Catholic Church and the relative lack of disparaging comments there to those that appear in this article. Should we assume that there has been no controversy over the Catholic Church? Of course not. How about the article on Islam? Also a contraversial religion. Yet, that article tries to explain the beliefs fairly without citing all of the negative controversy surrounding it. Generally I have found articles in Wikipedia to be unbiased, but I'm afraid this falls short. At the very least, you might consider confining the controversy to the controversy section, instead of peppering it throughtout the article. Ttime22 07:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)TTime22
• Support of course, it's come a long long long long x 10^999 way -- Tawker 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comments: I noticed that one of the sections uses {{main}} three times, whereas another uses {{mainarticles}}. I've changed these other sections to reflect this. The {{Jehovah's Witnesses}} template knocks the main text of the article, along with the picture, down a bit--any chance that this could be changed? Some of the references are punctuated strangely, as well. Reference number [26] appears to be unspaced, as "Membership" seems to follow it immediately, without a space. I'll see what I can do to fix them... Jude (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Due to image crowding, a lead section that is too short, and many stubby sections barely more than a line in legnth. Should be reffered to Peer Review before resubmitting. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 03:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of single sentences ending with a footnote, sections should contain cohesive paragraphs of at least five sentences in length. The lead section could touch on more of the contorversies surrounding the church, and should be two or three paragraphs, comprising 8 to 12 sentences, in length. Specifically, the subsections under "critical views" are most in need of expansion. Also, the images in the history section are crowded, but I can fix that myself. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I will take a look for these stubby sections. joshbuddy^talk 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've made improvements in these areas. joshbuddy^talk 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The lead section is much better now, however, the paragraphs trhoughout the article, and the "Beliefs and practices" section especially, require unification of small paragraphs. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Got it. Will fix shortly. Fixed this up. Thank you. joshbuddy^talk 19:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment—Apart from a passing sentence about patriarchy, there's nothing about the role of women in the church. Tony 04:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The roll of women in the church is minimal. joshbuddy^talk 05:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Woman are included in the congregation teaching programs programs however. They also preach often and pioneer. They are highly respected in the organazation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Felixboy (talk • contribs) .

Women—I guess I was referring to women in relation to power, or lack thereof. I'd like a little more information in the article about 50% of the flock, and 50% of our readership. Tony 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object before I even read the article throughouly there are many problems

1. Fair use images, without rationales, and some that could be replaced easily with free alternatives. It is very unclear why Image:Ctrussell2.jpg is labelled as GFDL, and other image issues.

• • This was bizarre. I reverted the image's licensing. The other images are as free as possible, and three of them were created by me. I'm not sure what could be more free than it currently is. joshbuddy^talk 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The size of the futher reading section is out of propotion to the rest of the article and violates WP:NOT

• • I have fixed this. joshbuddy^talk 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. See alsos and main article templates are a mess
2. Lead is not a summary of the article, completely avoids discussion on critisims and opposition which domainate the later parts of the article.

• • I have fixed this. joshbuddy^talk 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The aricle is really pretty short if you take out the giant list at the bottom, is it actaually comprehensive.

• • I assume this is a question. I believe the article is fairly comprehensive. joshbuddy^talk 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Captions on the images are not adequate

--Peta 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• The images remain a probelm, please read WP:FU and WP:FUC.--Peta 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe this has all been dealt with now. joshbuddy^talk 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object- Needs more information about the use of literarure specifically the Watchtower and Awake. Should have a category about the New World Translation, Witnesses view of apostates and how they define apostates. Should include something about the Witnesses and thier involvment in disaster relief work. Not enough info about their assemblies and conventions or the branches of their world headquarters. Needs more about the Witnesses home study program and thier different programs they have at the meetings. More about the baptisimal process. This article is good but much more information can be added. Felixboy 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How would you achieve this while keeping the article of an appropriate length? joshbuddy^talk 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Quite frankly I think its hard to a make featured article about many religions. Many are complex with long lists of belifs and practices. I think expnding the beliefs and/or practices section to include the things Felix mentioned would be fine enough. Felix mantioned some good points but we really can try to sum them up in just a few sentences. 4.247.170.181 13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Commrnt. The references section could be better organized, for instance, when citing the same source multiple times, put name ="name" in the ref tag and on subsequent refs simply put <tt><ref name="name" /></tt>. Also, a works cited section where you have full bibliographic information (Harvard referencing, MLA format, or whatever) with the references section giving the citation such as "Franz, 44". Speaking of Franz, some places (namely p. 202, 203, 204) could be more efficiently combined into "Franz, 202-204" since I assume they came from a section about that aspect of the church. For that, if several sentences in a row come from the same cite, a citation after the last one is sufficient in all referencing systems I'm familiar with. Don't get me wrong - well done article, just could use some tweaking. Moulder 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a fair comment. I will fix this up in a bit. joshbuddy^talk 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sections using {{main}} &c. should summarise the content of the main articles they point to, no more and no less. I'm not sure that the section "Controversy and opposition" (which you must admit will be a section that will get a great deal of attention) adequately summarises the 3 main articles it points to. --kingboyk 11:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is not balanced and I do not believe any sort of balance is possible on such controversial groups on a project such as Wikipedia. The article is far too sympathetic in every summarized section and demonstrates a clear lack of NPOV all around. Why not stick to safer subjects—such as Edible salt? :)  - Cestus ^Cd 05:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering your recent spate of vandalism, I think you can be safely ignored when it comes to matters of NPOV. [46] [47] [48] [49] How would you like to make the article balanced? joshbuddy^talk 06:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object; more work to be done. Citations need to be consistent and in accordance with WP:FOOTNOTE,^[1] like this.^[2] Note that they always follow punctuation and that there aren't any spaces. In one place, five citations appear in a row (from 51-55); are all of them necessary? Complete dates should be fully linked, not just the month and day. I also found an inline comment "need to find reference for this, and also reference for striving to be good citizens or members of community". Resolve this. Short paragraphs (of which there are many) should be combined. Sentence structure is often constant and uninteresting—"Jehovah's Witnesses are politically neutral. They feel that their allegiance belongs to God's Kingdom (government). Thus they refrain from saluting the flag of any country or singing nationalistic songs. They believe that such an act would be tantamount to worshipping an idol." The "Critical Views" section is woefully inadequate—there are tons of critics; don't just quote one guy's opinions. More research needed there. Evangelicals have written so many books attempting to debunk JWs that it borders on ridiculous; use some of their arguments. I agree that this needs a section on the NWT and how it was translated (though from what I understand this information is kept secret), and its critics. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 05:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your comments. I agree with everything you've said here save needing a section on the NWT bible. There is already a separate article that deals with it, I'm not sure why so much information would be needed here. joshbuddy^talk 07:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • As per Vengeful Cynic (below), the discrepancies between the NWT and traditional translations are heavily debated. "the Word was a god" (John 1:1), the crucifixtion on a cross vs. a stake, the use of the word Jehovah, etc. Admittedly, the NWT article itself needs some work on the controversy side of things (again, prominent evangelical scholars attempting to rip it to shreds over translation methods and perceived attempts to manipulate the text to justify JW doctrine). But all this should be covered here as well, though perhaps not in great detail. A couple paragraphs would probably suffice. I'm not sure where would be the best place to put it—perhaps in its own level 2 section, perhaps in the controversy section as a level 3 section. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Felixboy, I am concerned about a lack of information on the theological literature and bible translation produced by The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. While I am certainly appreciative of the difficulty of keeping down page length, I would note that as the New World Translation is central to much controversy and discussion surrounding the Jehovah's Witnesses and probably merits a bit more mention. My only other concern about the page is a complete lack of sourcing in the Controversy and opposition section. If the New World Translation were addressed and that section were sourced, I can find only minor issues with the rest of the article, many of which are on their way to being addressed. As an aside, I would like to compliment Joshbuddy in taking this article from the POV-ridden monstrousity that it was and transforming it into an article that is almost ready for Featured Article. --Vengeful Cynic 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: I still feel the article does not offer a fair and balanced view of all the issues and shies away from exploring criticisms of the religion. How this could be incorporated and still be of an appropriate length however I do not know. --Anonymous_liverpool_uk --82.0.16.248 11:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Volcano

I think it has gotten better than a good article. I think it should be featured! Josen 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Note - this was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volcano/archive1 Raul654 16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No inline-references. Too many subsections (each with paragraph) break flow of reading. The long list of volcanoes needs to go. See also section also needs copyediting as it is too long. Still a long way to go before getting featured. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support - fix other things and also get more references, since there are only 2. Judgesurreal777 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object, suggest peer review first:
• Usually, the first occurrence of a title in the lead is bolded.
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.

• Images need proper image copyright tags and source information. Specifically, Image:Destructive plate margin.png and Image:TOMS SO2 time nov03.png need(s) proper image copyright tags.

• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.

• There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.

• This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
• Those are some of the most major issues with this article. There are a few other more minor problems with this article (you may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions). Thanks, Andy _t 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Lead is a little too long, too many short sub-sections, bad flow, images are all of different sizes and the layout is bad. There are no footnotes and references. — Wackymacs 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry but I have to oppose. It's a good start. The layout must be fixed and some sections must be expanded. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy

This is a great article that was previously nominated to be a featured article over a year ago. Many people have worked very hard on this article (myself excluded) and it deserves recognition. --MZMcBride 02:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose & Comment: Well written article, but needs more citations where there are quoted statements such as under the Tydings Committee and Anti-Communism. Also, some quotes appear to be from the listed references such as Richard Rovere, but it's not clearly stated that the statements are from his book. Not that I doubt the accuracy of the statements as I've read and heard them myself on different occassions, but many readers may wonder where the statements are quoted from. If that can be fixed, I'll definitely support as it is otherwise a very complete and well written article. Tombseye 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - right off the bat, lead extremely POV against McCarthy. Also fails to mention that McCarthy in the height of his popularity was very well approved in national polls for his anti-communist efforts. Needs to go significently further in shedding bias. Judgesurreal777 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose—not well written. Stubby little paragraphs. Poor prose.
  • "These accusations were largely directed towards people in the U.S. government, particularly employees of the State Department, but included many others as well." After "largely", "but" is not a contradiction of the previous text; therefore it's inappropriate.
  • It takes a while before we learn the country that you're talking about. Some readers won't have guessed until then. Why not "the US state of Wisconsin" (first sentence)?
  • Can you find a more specific (piped) link for "Congressional", since it's the inquiry system that is at issue here? Why does "Communist" start with an upper-case C?
  • If you're going to refer to the Second Red Scare in the lead, please tell us what the first one was. For this reason, the term is probably better introduced in the body of the article.
  • Why are "McCarthyism" and "witch hunts" in italic?
  • If you're quoting dictionary definitions, which is kind of tedious in a WP lead, provide references. Regardless of which dictionary the source is, remove the redundant "in order" from "... in order to suppress opposition" .

Please find someone who's relatively unfamiliar with the text to perform a thorough copy-edit on this article. Tony 11:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Judgesurreal. Even in the lead, the POV is obvious. (Just because somebody called him "freewheeling" in his accusations doesn't mean that it's a neutral fact.) Tony also has some good criticisms. Also: the sections "Actual Soviet Activities" and "Evidence" seem out of place. Could they be integrated into the more relevant biographical sections? Lastly, I've never been a big fan of "X in pop culture" sections, but if you think it's relevant, could you prosify it a bit? Cheers! The Disco King 12:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. POV, language, context, tone problems. Some places not referenced properly - and the last few sections are too short. Popular culture list should be converted to prose. — Wackymacs 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

• Strongly Oppose: This article is clearly biased and an example of commentary, not a factual writeup. I depend on this Wiki to be fair and factual. The following statements illustrate my meaning:

"...he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq."[18]

Zarqawi is believed to have had two wives. Al-Zarqawi had consentual sex with his second wife Israa, when she was 13 and she bore him a bastard child when she was 14."

Please delete this article, and have someone write one without the clear right wing bias towards Bush. And leave out "wining and dining the French," as well as the statement, "and she bore him a bastard child..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.229.53.224 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment - it's bad form both to put your comment at the top, and not to sign your comments on FAC. (By the way, this is also the IPs first and only contribution [50]) 81.86.155.153 18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good and indepth article which covers the life and death of this brutal terrorist. Good FAC. --Mercenary2k 1:44AM June 9, 2006

• Comment (leaning to object) - Given the recent news concerning al-Zarqawi's death, I would hold off on nominating this article for FA for about a week or so until everything has settled down. Pentawing^Talk 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - what Pentawing said... wait for the vandalism to calm down... we're still working on minor cleanup here and there too... - Adolphus79 05:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - there will be too much change in the next month at least, especially if he may not actually be dead. Then whatever his followers do may keep on necessitating a change in whatever his "legacy/consequences" on history that he may have left.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with Blnguyen. Becasue of recent events, this won't be a stable article, which is one of the requirements of an FA.--P-Chan 06:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Unstable, uses at least 1 copyvio image. --Rory096 07:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Unstable, recently been on Main Page. Too many short subsections. Could do with a copy-edit. — Wackymacs 08:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Obviously too soon. Everyking 10:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Way too soon. New material is still being released on him in regards to the airstrike.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree that its too soon but absence of vandalism should never be a criteria for FA noms. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is incredibly soon. Many FA's have much more info than this one does. Just because this is news doesn't mean it should be a featured article. We should wait until there's much more information about the details surrounding the impact his death will have (or lack thereof). This article is certainly not Wikipedia at it's best! Rondmc170 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, fails stability requirement. --Golbez 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object: one of the criteria for a featured artiare is that it be stable. Numerous changes surrounding the exact circumstances of his death, as well as other changes, mean that this article will become different rapidly. By waiting for a period of time after the current-eventness to die down, this article will become stable.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: uses copyrighted images. /Slarre 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above - it's really a current event. -zappa.jake (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose POV concerns and too current...wait at least 30 days and see what other information may arise...just today, it was disclosed that he was still alive when Polish and U.S. forces first got to the scene, and he even tried to get off the stretcher to possibly escape.--MONGO 00:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Given that this relates to a major current event, this articles needs another couple of weeks before it can be considered stable and worthy of featured article status. joturner 17:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the issues concerning the timing of the nomination (in light of him just dying) is something that any user can really change. Maybe we should just move the article off of the FA nomination list (for now) and just put it back in a month of so. What do you think? (Right now, it feels a little cluttery to have this here).--P-Chan 02:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Because of recent events with his death and who he is, this article will be an even heavier target for vandals than it already is now if it was featured. Also, just because it's major news right now does not make this article a good article. --Shizane 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment. It is too early, especially since this is a hot issue. Let it wait for a while as this article is a very tempting target for vandals. RashBold ^Talk 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm putting a POV tag on it. TheKillerAngel 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Scooby-Doo

Help, I'm trying to nominate Scooby Doo for FA, but apparently my Newb-ness is overwhelming mt ability to follow simple instructions. Reimelt 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Okay, I think I've got it now. In any event, stumbled on the Scooby article and was impressed with its quality--especially for an article about a cartoon show. And no, I did not work on it. Reimelt 01:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Surprisingly good, but needs more inline citations. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  To expand on Ryan's objection, you'd need to add inline citatations where the text quotes a number, or something contentious, or pathbreaking. Else having an overabundance of refs would make it untidy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, on re-reading it does need more inline cites. One question though--what would you say is "contentious"? I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm genuinely confused as to what's disputed or controversial about a cartoon.Reimelt 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

    No fight :) I've given a general idea where inline refs are called for. It need not apply for this article, but it would set you on the right for future articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- ToC needs to be shortened, summarise content, left-aligned pics push the headings left, please right-align such ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - There are 9 copyrighted images in the article with fair-use rationals that are either underdeveloped or missing all together. These images have to have rationals.--P-Chan 02:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

*Object Images need a fair use rationle Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Big thank you for the rationales; there is a LOT of citing to be done, and not having to worry so much about pics is a big help.Reimelt 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by op Clearly, the pics must have rationales as to fair-use, and should probably be right-aligned; does anyone have any non-pic objections? It seems to me the most serious problem is the citing--anything else? (Oh, and I realize now I should have had it peer-reviewed first, to catch the obvious pic rationale problem. I apologize for my inexperience.) Reimelt 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The article also needs to undergo a major case of copy-editing. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) should give a good idea as to what is expected.--P-Chan 06:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I added fair use rationales, I may work on the article when I got time Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lack of proper referencing using footnotes for all facts mentioned throughout the article. There are only 3 footnotes. — Wackymacs 08:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now, images and needs references as per above. I've copy-edited it, as there was quite a few typos. I do like the article, though. Proto||type 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good improvements on copyediting; I will try to improve further. Question--where can I find instructions as to how to move pictures?71.224.192.29 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reimelt 15:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I like this article. Close to FA status. It needs more references. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Close, real close. Fix the above and FA should be no problem. Rlevse 15:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Two solid thumbs up, but oppose until there are references. Fantastic article; needs a bit of copyediting as well, but the inline cites are the big deal. Great job to whoever wrote this article. The Disco King 16:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object lack of free images. Computerjoe's talk 09:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh? How exactly can you get many free images for a TV show? Most of them are video screenshots, which are covered under fair use and obviously a free use replacement cannot be made for those.— Wackymacs 10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:IMG 1794.JPG is a free image, tangential to the actual article though it is IMHO. --FuriousFreddy 15:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Much better than most articles, but I don't think it's quite FA material. Needs to be run through to rm some POV, and could use copyedit in some sections. Very close, though. - Mike(talk) 14:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I did a lot (probably most) of the editing work on this article, and whilke I was slowly working towards a possible FAC, it most certaintly wasn't ready for it at this point. Oh well. What specifically needs to be directly referenced in the article (it's probably a matter of simply using direct citations to the existing reference sources). --FuriousFreddy 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Therion (band)

Fully described band, its history, discography, members and other aspects, such as symbols references. Visor 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object due to lack of proper inline footnote referencing. Please see WP:FOOTNOTE. — Wackymacs 19:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object for the same reasons. I have added a couple places where citations would be necessary; of particular importance is anything that is subjective (saying music was progressive or not typical of the norm and the claim about their relationship with the record label, for example). I didn't read the entire article though, as I figured it was enough to give you an idea of how strict a standard FAs are held to. Good work overall though. Moulder 20:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. To Wackymacs and Moulder: I've added some references, but... There is no need to add reference for every fact in biography section. Two main sources are included in "Reference" section (in additional subsection "Main references") and you can find all of these facts there. Visor 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • How is the reader to know this? — Wackymacs 07:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Too much history, not enough mention of the significance of the band. As an encyclopedia article, it needs to address the general reader, and the general reader's question "Why should I care?" is not answered here. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. As per above, but also the article fails to meet the brilliant prose criteria. Several statements are informal or just approaching rough/bad English. I don't have the time right at the moment to enumerate them all, but I will later. Citations are missing from several claims. For instance, the following requires sourcing:

"Of Darkness... can be seen as a progressive death metal album in that it contained mainly influences that were not standard to death metal at the time. The lyrics were very political, in the vein of Napalm Death and other 80's hardcore punk bands."

"The record Beyond Sanctorum shows a more experimental edge to the music.."

"As a death metal record it was very experimental, incorporating elements of jazz, industrial music, traditional 1980's heavy metal and religious chanting. This new record scared many death metal fans off the band, but the band developed a small following who appreciated the change and innovation the band had created."

Those are just a few examples. Also the Metal and symphony era (1996-present) is way too long. It needs a fair bit of trimming and summarization in order to balance out all the sections.

Also, there is no mention of the band's influences or significance.Wisdom89 18:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Project Apollo

Article about NASA's manned missions to the Moon in the late '60s and early '70s.

The article has huge historical relevance, contains lots of valuable content, and in my opinion is long overdue to become a featured article. I think that it meets all criteria. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Very list heavy and table heavy, and also <ref> system is not used. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object lack of proper inline footnote referencing (WP:FOOTNOTE). SCHZMO ✍ 21:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• I do not understand the system. If someone could explain it, I will implement it. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 21:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • see the link he left, WP:FOOTNOTE. If you have any more questions on it I'll be happy to answer them. Philc _T^E_C^I 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that footnotes are not required, but references are. "Harvard citation" is just as valid, if the user is more familiar with it. Geogre 20:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Prose is choppy, requires proper referencing (using Footnotes) and lists need to be converted to prose. — Wackymacs 06:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that footnotes are not required, but references are. One can still use parenthetical references, so long as there are references for all facts brought in from outside reading. Geogre 20:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually you are incorrect, all FAs must have a decent amount of footnotes, Just look at all the recent successful nominations. — Wackymacs 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

United States

(self-nomination)

This important article is very well-written, not too long and not too short, and full of references.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive2
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive1
Wikipedia:Peer review/United States/archive2

NOTE: This article has 48KB of prose as of 9 June 2006

• Support per nom.--Ryz05 _t 14:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Terrific article indeed! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. My previous objection in a former nomination has been fixed. --Maitch 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support On this topic I would love to see some adminstrator step in, because I have seen this article keep getting kicked around; first it needs to mention all this new details or it can't be Featured, and then it's way too long. Unbelievable, this article is going to be long, lets accept that. Judgesurreal777 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • • Finally someone understands this dilemma.--Ryz05 _t 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support The article is on the longish side but that is to be expected for a topic as broad as this. It would be hard to shorten it in any substantial amount without detracting from its comprehensiveness. --Richard 22:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The prose is flabby in some areas and awkward in others. Per various comments below.

--Richard 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The main arguements against this nomination are that some things important to the objector are missing. However, it simply is not possible to say everything about the United States in one encyclopedic article. Instead, the purpose is to give a good introduction to the topic, which I think this article does a great job of doing. PDXblazers 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  We summarise the content here, and move detail to dedicated articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • • Response' I didn't ask that Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the American Dream, Entrepreneurship, and the development of computers after 1969 be described in detail. Most people suggesting additions fully understand that this is a summary overview article. What we're asking is that these things be at least mentioned in the corresponding sections. The whole point of a summary overview article is that includes mentions of major terms and topics. Can you show how mentioning Hollywood is less important than mentioning the influence of Disney on Chinese comics? Or why the American Dream isn't important to reference properly rather than dump in the See Also section? Bwithh 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

      Are you asking me? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I was being rhetorical, I think. Oh, and for the record, I support letting this article be longer than normal for a FA due to the scope of the subject Bwithh 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. PDXblazers has got a point, you can't put everything there is in an encyclopedic article. It is well summarize as it also gives important issues on all USA aspects. Lincher 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I'll take care of Bwithh's comment about the dates sometime soon. (and by the way, I don't think the stability of an article was originally intended to refer to protection/vandalism- see Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?#Stability) Andy _t 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I believe that the article is well-written and makes good use of summary style. I think because it does all that it can to off-load information, it's size can be forgiven. It's long, but it's doing the best that it can to be short, IMHO! InvictaHOG 03:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. But Geography section may contain more summarized text on climate. --Brand спойт 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support I support everything about the U.S. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment thats not what the featured article process is about. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent article. Very informative and very encyclopedic. -Vontafeijos 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent footnotes. Globeism 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is a great article. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Per all above. --Hezzy 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per all the supporting comments above. --Northmeister 02:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Although I must say: holy crap this article is long. I'm not going to oppose because of that, since America is the world's pre-eminent nation and I'd expect nothing but a very long article, but still....damn. I would suggest beefing up the lead though; such a long article definitely requires a bigger lead than what's currently there. Overall, great job though. Long live America!UberCryxic 02:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Long live America!" - Amen, Brother! --Northmeister 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What's with all these patriot support votes which have suddenly come flooding in? Bwithh 03:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - One of the most fantabulous articles I have ever read, like oh my god, it was good. Strong support. Amaas120 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support This is a good article, which I do not think is too long. I continue to worry about systemic bias, which is not evident in the length and detail of this article, but in the shortness and lack of detail in other articles (and the flag waving on this page). However, each section is well summerized and well written. Good job to all who worked on it. --D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, why the hell not. I added a mention of the American Dream and removed the table; those take care of my two largest grievances. I do, however, also agree with Pepsidrinka, and hope that the article continues to be trimmed. --Golbez 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, that was rather bold of you. (Too bold, in my opinion, since it goes against an established consensus) However, if it will get you to support the FA status, let's leave it out and re-vote on whether the table belongs in or out of the article later. Personally, I don't like the table either and would have voted against it if I had been aware of the poll.

--Richard 17:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply this is what you meant, but let me just state that it would be in bad faith for the editors of this article to remove the table simply for the purpose of this FAC only to re-add it once this nomination is completed, if it does succeed. Pepsidrinka 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you got me right. I'm not suggesting that I would deliberately manipulate things in the way that you described. However, it is inappropriate for you to be so bold as to delete text from an article knowing that a previous consensus had been formed around keeping it. (Remember that I am not personally in favor of keeping it myself.)

What good is it going to the trouble to form a consensus if people won't respect it enough to form a new one in the opposite direction?

If you won't vote for the article with the table in, then leave it in and vote against the FAC. If it makes you happy to delete the table and then vote for the FAC, be my guest. However, Wikipedia being what it is, don't be surprised if one of the people who does care about the table puts it back in either before or after the FAC closes.

That's the funny thing about Wikipedia. It would be a great place except for all those pesky editors that you can't control.  ;&)

The right way to get that troublesome table out of there is to re-open the poll and see if enough other people hate it also.

--Richard 03:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support I've read through the whole thing, and I really approve of it. JONJONAUG 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Neutral - I've flipflopped too much on this vote. --Golbez 04:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object. This article is great indeed, but there are still some minor issues in comprehensiveness. For example, the lead section does not mention the Civil War, rather, it jumps from the Revolutionary War directly to World War I. Also, the map showing territorial acquisitions of the United States, even though it comes from the United States government, is not accurate. It's close, but it does not show the result of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty which changed the border of northern Maine in 1842. I hate to be such a pain, but it's the small things that distinguish good articles and truly great ones. RyanGerbil10 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Having done extensive research on the US's borders very recently, I would say that northern Maine would not count as a territorial acquisition, it was a territory dispute. The other areas - Louisiana, Florida, Mexican Cession, Gadsden Purchase, Red River Basin, etc. - were clearly unowned by the United States until received via purchase or cession. Maine, on the other hand, was only disputed, claimed by both sides. Therefore, I don't think the northern half of Maine belongs in any list of acquisitions, only in a list of disputes and changes. --Golbez 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. RyanGerbil10 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I added a paragraph in the opening of the article that breifly talks about the civil war. Edit as seen fit. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Good article, but missing some key points which I raised in the previous nomination discussion but were apparently just ignored:
  • No mention of Entrepreneurship or "the American Dream" in neither the Economy or the Culture sections nor anywhere else. The American Dream is key to both the ideological legitimacy of the US economic system and to its positive image around the world.
  • Glaring ommissions from the culture section - the "American film industry" is mentioned (inadequately) but the term "Hollywood" is not mentioned anywhere. Also, television is not mentioned in the culture section, but is definitely more important culturally (and economically) than cinema. (Also this newest version now bizarrely refers to Disney's influence on Chinese cartoons and Japanese manga but still does not refer to Hollywood). Also, what about fast food?
  • Science and technology section has no mention of Silicon Valley or the Internet (there is only a very brief mention in the History section - it is not clear that the internet revolution began in the US). Computers are only mentioned in a pre-1969 context.
  • "The country has also sought to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but its main goal remains to protect American interest and the safety of its citizens at home and abroad". How is the "main goal" different from the first goals mentioned? (And it should be "interests", not 'interest") Bwithh 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Article should probably also mention that the idea of immigration being crucial to US history and identity ("a nation of immigrants") rather than just an useful economic boost - this would tie in with mentioning the American Dream Bwithh 15:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you forgot to read the Culture section, the Population migration and growth section, as well as the History section of the U.S. article.--Ryz05 _t 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)\

No, I didnt forget to read those parts. They give stats and talk about economic impact. They don't talk about the American Dream. Bwithh 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the mentioning of immigration. I also added the American Dream to the See also section. If you can think of a more suitable place to incorporate it, please say so. --Ryz05 _t 15:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of putting words into Bwithh's mouth, I think he is saying that the American Dream is central to the American ethos. Although it will be seen as POV by some, it is important to highlight the sense that Americans have of having a dream that was previously unattainable in Europe and other countries (that of achieving material success and upward social mobility solely on the merit of intelligence, talent and hard work rather than being born into an upper class). This should not just be a "See also". I recognize that this was more true in the 19th and early 20th century and that the differential narrowed in the last half of the 20th century to the point where there may be very little difference between the U.S. and some European countries on this dimension now. However, the difference still exists between the U.S. and many Latin American countries. Why do you think we get so many immigrants? It's because of the American Dream. Not just that we are a wealthy country but that you can get some of the wealth if you are willing to work hard. You don't necessarily even need to be educated. A hard-working entrepreneur can make it big here. It is this American Dream that has fueled immigration for two and a half centuries and some will argue that this is the basis of American greatness, that we did not have a rigid class structure when most everybody else did.

Similarly, we should highlight the idea that we are a "city on a hill, a light unto the nations" shining a beacon of democracy, justice for all and human rights. It's not for nothing that Superman stood for "truth, justice and the American way". Others may not agree that we are this and we may not be this in reality. But that is the way many of us like to think of ourselves. It affects a lot of how we act domestically and abroad. (No, not just Republicans, Democrats think and act this way, too.) Of course, you've heard this from me before but haven't been willing to incorporate it into the intro as I suggested. --Richard 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've inserted an encyclopedic version of the above text into the article. I disagree with Bwithhthat "The American Dream is key to both the ideological legitimacy of the US economic system and to its positive image around the world." I think that's hyperbolic and POV. I've tried to strike a more NPOV stance in the article text.

Bwithh, would you review the new "American Dream" section and tell us if this addresses your concern?

--Richard 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the section is great. I just added one small fragment mentioning entrepreneurship. As regards whether the my statement was hyperbolic, I was referring to the idea that the American Dream is a key part of the basic social contract between the politico-economic system and its citizens - and is important in this role today, not just in the 19th century - through which citizens accept less of a state social welfare safety net and greater economic inequality in return for a better chance at social mobility and improving their financial worth and enhancing their class through free market capitalism. I don't think this is hyperbolic - its a common part of political and academic discourse in the US and is not regarded as an exaggerated kind of position. Whether this social contract functions effectively is another matter of course. You addressed the second part regarding the positive image around the world in the passage. Bwithh 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. I think the bit about "accepting less of a social contract, etc." is important and I will try to make this point in the text.

--Richard 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Bwithh, I'll see what I can do about some of these. --Golbez 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Changed vote, see above.
• Reference dates Most of the dates in the reference footnotes appear to use European style dating (day first) rather than US style (month first). To be perfect, this should fixed up Bwithh 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- summary needed. Also needs to stabilise since it's protected. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

About the protection, see Talk:United_States#Request_unprotection.--Ryz05 _t 16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object, too long, too many details that should only be in subarticles. Especially History and Publich Health are too long. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Not too long? Skinnyweed 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe in WP:SIZE and think no article should be longer than 50k (plus references). 88k is too long. I know that it is hard to make a short article on a topic of such a scope, but that is what Wikipedia:Summary style is for. Here, the sumamries for some sections should be shorter, the meat and the details should be in the subarticles. Kusma (討論) 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose per WP:WIAFA 2e. This article is well-written, well-referenced, comprehensive, but it is not stable, and that is a major criteria for FAC. There has to be some guarantee that it won't degrade over time, and a page which is protected for vandalism can't guarantee that kind of stability. You could, of course, argue that my objections are unactionable (which they probably are); I'm not sure where I stand on that point right now, but for the moment, I'm voting against. Sorry. The Disco King 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:WIAFA, "(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars."

The article is only changing "significantly" in response to coomments on this FAC page. The semi-protection is to ward against vandalism by anonymous IPs. There has not been a significant edit war on this page in a couple of months. There are some pages which are more habitually vandalized than others (this is one of them). As a result, this page is almost continually protected as are some other notorious targets of vandalism.

--Richard 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, some minor, actionable points. Why are "Science & Technology" and "Transportation" subheadings of "Economy"?

The Disco King 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Truly a minor quibble, eh?. They could be moved out of "Economy" or left in. It's hard to define what belongs in "Economy" and what does not.

--Richard 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Could the History section be subdivided to make it less daunting, or could some information be moved to History of the United States? Cheers! The Disco King 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to shorten the History section much without opening it up to the charge of leaving out something important.

Insert non-formatted text here

• • Canada recently became featured. It is far shorter than this article. The US may be more important and more powerful, but it's article should still cover the same information and should be able to do so in the same length. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 19:02 UTC
    • On the other hand, if this article becomes to long with the additions, more of it might be eligible to be split off, per summary style. Obviously, if things have been split off to their maximum potential, then length can't be counted against it. Fieari 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Size issue is a major concern for me although an article on USA is bound to have a lot to write on. Please summarize further. Also image captioning is improper with many images having 9 lines long caption. For guidelines, please see WP:CAPTION. Image problems in "Largest cities". Please have a look at "Largest cities" in 800x600 screen resolution. One advice: It is better to have a reasonably big image rather than 5 tiny ones. Images are there to provide visual aid for the readers to understand the subject. Seeing one representative skyline is enough to fire the imagination of a casual reader. There is no need to fill the page with images as additional images aren't very helpful. Why does mile has "sq mi" and kilometre has "km²" in the table? Also, the references are sometimes after the punctuation and sometimes before. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The area measurements use the standard abbreviations - square miles are sq mi while square kilometres are km². It's much like the in-tandem use of mph and km/h for miles per hour and kilometres per hour. —Cuiviénen^T|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:03 UTC

"The country has also sought to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but its main goal remains to protect American interest and the safety of its citizens at home and abroad". How is the "main goal" different from the first goals mentioned? (And it should be "interests", not 'interest") Bwithh 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) The country is not a person with goals. This is instead the primary interest of the curent administration and may take a back seat to other issues at another time. It maight better fit in a polotics or modern events section. Feel free to change my post to conform to the style of this section.

• Object. The human rights section does not even mention the fact that the US is among the top five nations WRT death penalty, nor the intense domestic and international controversy surrounding that fact. That makes the article looks incomplete. Furthermore, phrases such as "unprofessional military tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan" to describe the well-documented organised violation of human rights by US soldiers, CIA et al. look ever so slightly euphemistic, don't they. 87.122.36.179 22:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per my comments on last FAC and peer review - in summary some parts are too long and others underdeveloped (like culture), the article still relies on some poor sources. Laregst cites table still poses a problem, its inclusion is not consistent with other featured country article and is over a screen in length, and I am yet to hear a compelling reason as to how/why it is useful to the reader.--Peta 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just had a brief look at the article and i can't find anywhere a discussion of the flora or fauna of the U.S.A. I think this would be a positive addition to the article.Yakuzai 12:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As I said above, the article is too long. To those objecting because topic XY is not mentioned in the article: It should not be. Check that it is mentioned in the appropriately titled and linked and easily found subarticle. Kusma (討論) 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object—2a. Here are examples of awkward prose.
  • "the U.S. displaced most Native American nations residing in the area." Can "residing" be removed as redundant (it's awkward, too).
  • "This belief was thwarted somewhat by the stalemate of the War of 1812,.."—"somewhat" is pretty clumsy here; can you find a better word than "thwarted", if that is too strong by itself?
  • Why is it sometimes "the U dot S dot" and sometimes "the United States"? Most US style manuals say to spell it out when another country appears in the same sentence (after the initial appearance in the text, of course); beyond that, consistency is required.
  • A few snakes need chopping up; e.g., "In the mid-19th century, the nation was divided over the issue of states' rights, the role of the federal government, and the expansion of slavery, which led to the American Civil War when, following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, South Carolina became the first state to declare its secession from the Union.[9]"
  • "The post-war era in the United States was defined internationally by the beginning of the Cold War in the late 1940s,.."—a bit jumbled ("internationally"?).
  • "Specifically, the nation operates as a presidential system, also known as a congressional system." Do we need the first word? Is it an overstatement to say that a whole nation, rather than its system of government, does this?

Now, I've looked at just a small part of the text. The density of the problems suggests that the whole article fails to meet 2a. Tony 01:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there were instances of "awkward prose". I have fixed (IMO) some of the ones that you identified. Could you review my edits and see if the changes address the issues to your satisfaction? Also, I notice that your comment suggests that the problems you mention are only representative of a larger problem with awkward prose. I acknowledge that this is a failing of at least one editor who seems to prefer anacondas to common garter snakes. My problem is that I don't always focus on a snake until someone points it out to me. Would you do us the favor of doing some snake hunting for us? If you will point out the snakes, I will slice and dice them into snake steak. --Richard 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per my previous objections concerning the article size. Please consider further summarizing. See WP:WIAFA, number 5. Pepsidrinka 01:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was asked to justify this objection further, so I shall give some suggestions on what can be shortened/removed to decrease the size of this article. The "Demographics" section can be vastly reduced. Five paragraphs should suffice for the entire sections, rather than the monstrosity it is now with many subsections. Further, there is no need for that much information regarding public health in the main article. Also, the information does not have to be cut, just moved to a more, in my opinion, deserving location for the information, i.e., Demographics of the United States. Also, as stated previously, the largest cities table is not neccessary (yes, I know, there is a discussion in one of the talk page archives). Pepsidrinka 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

While I think the article is "good to go" in its current state, I agree that the above suggestions by Pepsidrinka would improve the article. --Richard 04:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Further objections. I objected earlier based on size, but I'm going to provide more details on my objection. From WP:WIAFA, this article fails to comply with 2e, with the largest cities table being added and removed several times within the past few days. This article's lead paragraph is hideous. Three short paragraphs filled mainly with historical facts does little to summarize the topic (See other country FAs on what a lead should be like). Also, the article seems to disregard consensus from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (Number 3 from WP:WIAFA). Pepsidrinka 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object — violates Wikipedia:Article size. Needs to be trimmed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak object I hate to object to an article that's obviously had so much work done to it, but there are a few things I just can't overlook:

• The size. Yes, the US is a complicated place, but that's all the more reason to create a good summary article. This article is nearly twice as long as the article on China, which is just as complex, but with a history ten times as long. The US history section could probably stand some pruning, which might help reduce the number of references cited on the page.
• The history section also weighs too heavily on the recent stuff - fully half of it is from the 20th century onwards.
• Do we need to have a map and a list of the states? I would remove the list since it's redundant (there's also a list at the bottom), but I realize nation articles typically list their divisions in the article itself.
• The Foreign Relations section might work better if it was reworked into the military and economics sections somehow.

Again, it's obviously a very good article, but it just doesn't feel like a FA (yet). Matt Deres 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is too long, 88KB. I wish I knew what to do to allow certain sections to be in articles of their own so that this article, made of summaries alone, is at most 32KB, but I'm sorry I can't do this. Georgia guy 01:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article! HeyNow10029 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment. The size issue alone looks as though it will sink this nomination. I know that some of the contributors have resisted the relocation of such details as the list of the largest cities, but they appear to be out of touch with WP's summary style. My advice is to be bold and reduce the size by making proper use of the daughter articles: that's what daughter articles are for. I'd make a strong case in the edit summaries and on the US talk page for why this has been done.

It's simple. Tony 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be reduced by about 20%, which is a tall order. You can probably weed out 10% of the text by identifying redundancy. Look: "the United States foreign policy became highly concerned with the threat of terrorist attacks." Make it: "U.S. foreign policy focused on the threat of terrorist attacks." Magic wand got rid of more than a third, and it's much nicer to read at the same time. Everywhere I look, there are extraneous words. This might help you to define the scope of the task. The other 10% might come from relocating material to daughter articles, or from just getting rid of it. The list of 50 states takes up a lot of room; the states are named on the map nearby, and readers can easily type a state name into the search box. "American dream" risks being a little sentimental; why not shorten it and integrate into the "Culture" section? There are lots of opportunities for tightening up the article. Tony 02:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Until a majority of the citations are to reliable paper sources with page-level granularity (that is, by page number), I cannot support this nomination. --Coolcaesar 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment What is the obsession with paper references? Any intelligent person should be able to tell the difference between legitimate sources and junk on the net. I believe that for a project like Wikipedia, Internet sources are actually better because the user can verify the accuracy of the information with the click of a mouse, whereas there is no guarantee that the print reference in question is availiable at the local library. PDXblazers 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what WorldCat and interlibrary loan are for. Furthermore, in areas of the world with a high density of good public libraries and community college libraries (New York and California), it is extremely likely that the reference in question is at the local library. Also, you are making the hilariously false (and uninformed) assumption that Internet sources are always self-authenticating, when they are not. If information on the Internet was inherently self-authenticating (and if the majority of people were capable of intelligently discerning such authenticity) then we wouldn't be having so many phishing scams or downright crazy disasters like the Craig Shergold mess. That is why few scholarly works rely upon Internet sources as reliable unless their assertions are heavily corroborated against reliable print sources. At a top public university (like the one I attended), turning in a history paper that cites solely or primarily to amateur Web sites is likely to earn a D or F. Wikipedia can and should do better than that.--Coolcaesar 06:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tony--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 09:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• I like it. Clear and detailed, well structured, plenty of references, Strong Support --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 12:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Flab is the problem here. The writing is uniformly flabby—all 88 kB of it, except for the bits that have been fixed in response to complaints in this room. Thus, not only does the nomination fail 2a, but the opportunity to reduce the size of the article with no loss of meaning is being passed up. Take this paragraph, for example:

The United States is a constitutional republic and its government operates as a congressional system, meaning that it operates through a set of limited powers imposed by its design and enumerated in the United States Constitution. There are three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Each level enjoys certain exclusive powers and obligations, and the precise delineation of these powers has been a matter of considerable ongoing debate. Officials of each of these levels are either elected by eligible voters via secret ballot or appointed by other elected officials. Almost all electoral offices are decided in "first-past-the-post" elections, where a specific candidate who earns at least a plurality of the vote is elected to office, rather than a party being elected to a seat to which it may then appoint an official. The relationship between the state and national governments is rather complex due to the country's federal system. Under United States law, states are considered sovereign entities, meaning that the power of the states is considered to come directly from the people within the states rather than from the federal government.

Here's a much improved version:

The United States is a constitutional republic; its government operates as a congressional system through a set of powers specified in the Constitution. There are three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Each has exclusive powers and obligations, although the precise delineation of these has been a matter of debate. Officials at all three levels are either elected by voters in a secret ballot or are appointed by other elected officials. Almost all electoral offices are decided in first-past-the-post elections in which candidates who earn a plurality of the vote are elected, rather than appointed by the governing party. The relationship between state and federal governments is complex. Under U.S. law, each state is a sovereign entity, its power arising from its people rather than from the federal government.

The existing version is 1160 characters; the new version is 832 characters, and more precise to boot. There's your size problem solved, and Criterion 2a satisfied. Gone are awkward/redundant expressions such as "enjoying obligations" and "specific candidate". There are many occurrences of "the Constitution of the United States" in this "Politics" section; for some reason, all are fully spelt out and linked, and in one instance, piped into an inconsistent wording.

I wonder why so much detail is given over to elected officials (80% of the existing paragraph), when critical information about the relationship between the president and congress, and the fact that there are two houses of congress, has been removed. It used to be there, and it's likely to be needed by foreigners who consult the article to try to understand the system of government. I suspect that most Americans don't properly understand it either, which is more reason to explain it here succinctly. This is a very disappointing shift of emphasis, considering how much space is squandered in the article.

When you say "Under U.S. law", I hope you don't mean "Under the Constitution". If not, whose law? That of the Congress? I don't think so.

I can only assume that the reviewers who have expressed effusive approval of the nomination haven't read the article, or at least, haven't read it closely. Tony 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • If you can improve it, then please do so. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 13:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• As the article is no longer semi-protected, I'm retracting my "Oppose." However, before I support, something has to be done about the overly-long sections, especially History. We don't need to read the whole of American history on the page on the United States; that's what History of the United States is for. Tony's comments above are also correct; in some cases, the emphasis is misplaced. This article is fairly close, however. I'm gonna keep an eye on it, but for now, I'm still Opposed. The Disco King 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I'm sure it will be re-semiprotected before the week is out. --Golbez 16:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure about that, see Talk:United_States#Testing_unprotection.--Ryz05 _t 16:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I am. --Golbez 16:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I have noticed that the article actually has gotten larger since the nomination. It is moving in the wrong direction. At this pace it's going to hit 100 KB next Sunday. --Maitch 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Version before nomination: 88 KB

Current: 94 KB

--Maitch 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Trying to think of things I would expect to see covered in more detail in an encyclopedic article (or at least mentioned), and I came up with: the industry of the USA - the economy section and the main article about the US economy doesn't really go into any detail on the industry of what is, after all, an industrialised nation; Hollywood - there is currently a piped link hidden behind the word 'cinema' and a link in the template "see also" monster; US TV networks don't get a mention in the 'Culture' section - there is only a passing reference to sedentary people watching sports; I would expect to see references to TV shows around this point somewhere. Carcharoth 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose because of unconcise, flabby writing. --Shaanxiquake 10:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article needs a lot of copyediting, condensing of some material, while expansion of other areas...there is zero mention of biodiversity, the world's first National Park (Yellowstone), etc. I noticed many run on sentences, missing commas and there is a need for more precision: for example, the word "several" was used intead of the more exact "ten" when discussing the states that joined South Carolina and formed the CSA in 1861. I do think this is an excellent article overall, but some tweaking is necessary in my opinion.--MONGO 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, article can be summarised further. --Terence Ong 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Did you mean Oppose, as your observations indicate that. One further note. This FAC is fast reaching half the size of the article concerned. However, since the article is expanding faster now, it seems unlikely. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he means that the article can be summarised a bit more, but overall, it's a good article and deserve to be featured. Also, your comment about the article's expansion is unjustified.--Ryz05 _t 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops. It was probably a bad attempt at humour which didn't go very well. Hence I am striking my observation completely. Hope this is ok. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great page, I love it. Aspern 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support I believe that such an article is meant to be an lengthy as ours is. It is well written, fully documented, full of well placed photos, and has plenty of links to related topics. --Chris 23:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object Sorry, but the article really is too long. It's up to 94k now, and needs to be trimmed. I suggust trimming public health, and maybe removing completely the American Dream section. The Halo (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support More than enough pictures, refrenes, links etc. I don't think the article is too long. Felixboy 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per discussion. -- Wikipedical 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article. --MZMcBride 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object based solely on first two paragraphs. America's history, while certainly noteworthy, is not the most notable thing about it today, and isn't what the entire second paragraph and some of the opening paragraph should be devoted to.
  • America is the world's sole superpower, a nuclear power, the world's largest single-country economy, the large country with the highest per-capita GDP, the country most important to scientific and industrial research, seat to the United Nations, dominant NATO member, largest Western country by population (as well as economy), the country in control of the world's reserve currency, ... not all of this needs to be in the opening paragraph, but I find "oldest existing constitutional republic" a bit weak.
  • America has a democratic form of government. While this is nowadays seen to be implied by "constitutional republic", I would think it important enough to point out specifically. RandomP 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per the discussion, I find the article to be acceptably summarized, and the main article is informative enough but is covered more extensively in sister articles. Meticulously referenced. NorseOdin 03:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support With those cluttering lists gone, the article has become readable enough. Earlier it was difficult to go through the article at one go. It's good that the editors decided to go for good summarisation rather than obstructive thoroughness/comprehensiveness. The article is still comprehensive and abides by all the points of becoming an FA. And yet, it has much improved from the previous riot of information to an article that is a treat to read. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Another note, which leads me to weak object: The article quotes the economic assessment in the CIA World Factbook as a fact. This is unacceptable, as that publication does not have a neutral point of view on certain issues. I've drafted a proposed (very short) policy on this at Wikipedia:The CIA World Factbook, since it's an issue to many country articles. I think discussing things there would be best, but the statement as it stands is arguable at best. RandomP 05:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Ryz05 challenged me on this issue on my talk page, which leads me to believe that he does not understand that the CIA is not a neutral source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Its primary job is to provide intelligence to the President of the United States that supports American sovereign interests. It is not the CIA's job to write balanced assessments of every aspect of every country, especially when those assessments might conflict with the political views of Presidential aides who could then get the responsible analyst fired. --Coolcaesar 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I find the CIA site surprisingly NPOV. It is widely used as a reference. Tony

The economy sections, in particular, do contain both predictions and value statements - it's perfectly usable as a source, it just cannot be used as sole reference for a statement that is either controversial or meaningless (the US has "low" inflation compared to countries that do not make low inflation a monetary policy goal. It has high inflation compared to the other world currencies.)

Read the economy - overview section of the "china" (i.e. PRC) article. I'm happy to discuss this further at a more appropriate page, but it just doesn't satisfy NPOV

RandomP 11:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the CIA writes on their World Factbook is based off of data collected, either by themselves or from other government agencies. Accusing them of not neutral is a matter of opinion at best.--Ryz05 _t 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak object Lotta good stuff, but I'm also concerned a bit about the size. Trim about 10-15% out. Also, in the Human rights section, scrap the crud about South America, Iraq and Afghanistan. In the scheme of American history, any abuse there ranks far down the list. Events such as the Trail of tears, or the Japanese American internment camps rate much higher. --Jayzel 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A very nice article. Rangeley 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support good work on an article about a great nation. God Bless America! Rama's Arrow 04:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - The article is much too long. The editors have to be a little more discerning it what should be included in the page, and let the daughter articles take care of the rest of the information. -- Jeff3000 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - We're working on it but it's not there yet. The article still has far too much creaky prose and too many awkward phrasings. Moncrief 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I agree but, since you haven't fixed them all, perhaps you could identify the passages that you find creaky and awkward? Then, others can work on them. The appropriate place fo this would be the Talk:United States page. --Richard 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I've added many comments in recent days to the Talk page there, and will continue to do so. Moncrief 18:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No Opinion I would generally support the article. I do not have a problem with its length, find the level of bias to be minimal, and find the choices of what to include very acceptable. The article is comprehensive and clearly took a lot of work. I still, however, find the prose to be rather clumsy. MikeNM`

• Voting is over. --Golbez 16:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• oppose the United_States#Foreign_relations_and_military section is a dissgrace, i want to to see a reference to all the county that have been bombd to oblivion by USA. --Striver 22:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Autostereogram

I haven't been involved with the article, just clicked through to it from the reference desk, but it blew me away. Thorough, informative, well illustrated. I actually understand how Magic Eye pictures work now, something I'd wondered for a long time but assumed would be too complicated. A fantastic job that deserves recognition. Skittle 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, excellent work. I'll give it a thorough proofreading. —Keenan Pepper 16:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keenan, I see that Skittle restored a sentence you removed during proofreading. I agree that it sounds nonsensical. The problem is that I did not find a consensus on how variations of RDS should be called at the time. I will again remove that sentence, and instead write another paragraph to explain the current lack of agreement on nomenclature, in the next few days. I've asked members of the 3D Stereograms forum to donate their images to wikimedia, so I can refer to them in this new paragraph. See nomenclature Fred Hsu 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I just re-wrote a few sentences to clarify the concept. Fred Hsu 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I just added a new discussion section where people can discuss how to best classify various types of autostereograms.

• Comment:
  1. The lead section needs at least 2 more paragraphs, and should adequately summarize the entire article. Think of the lead section as being a separate mini-article, something the size of an average Britannica article.
     • I expanded the lead section with more information. I'll go back to edit it carefully tomorrow. Fred Hsu 04:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. There are no inline citations. While the references are listed at the end, they are not connected in any way to the content in the article. --BRIAN0918 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
     • I think I've added enough inline citations by now. Fred Hsu 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object as of now for the following reasons: (arrange from major to minor)

• 1. This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
     • I am working on this today. Hopefully the revision will be complete by the end of today. Fred Hsu 15:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
     • I split the former Reference section into a new (footnote) Reference section and a new "Influential work" section. Fred Hsu 20:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
     • I expanded the lead section with more information. I'll go back to edit it carefully tomorrow. Fred Hsu 04:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
     • I think the lead section is OK now. What do you think? Fred Hsu 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
     • This issue is fixed. Thank you, Bobblewik. Fred Hsu 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
     • I fixed the headings (removed the word 'autostereogram' from headings). Fred Hsu 03:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
     • Seriously? There are only three categories and no interlanguage links that I can see. Skittle 09:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
     • Mhm... I didn't realize categories need to be alphabetized. Anyway, it's done. There is only one interlanauge link. Perhaps we should find autostereogram pages in other languages and add links to them. Fred Hsu 02:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Wikipedia is not a "how-to". I would suggest renaming the headings that say "How to...".
     • Done, as well as I could. Skittle 09:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, AndyZ _t 22:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'll be working on the intro and cites. As I said, I haven't really been involved with this article so if anyone else wants to have a go, please do. You probably know more about this stuff than me. Skittle 09:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't notice the nomination until today. I am quite happy to work with Skittle to further enhance this article. I'll also ask members of 3D Stereograms forum to help out. Fred Hsu 21:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Make sure you follow the instructions in you monobook to clear the cache. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Bobblewik. I copied your .js script to my own page, and I now have 'dates' and 'unites' tabs indeed. I will use the 'dates' tab tomorrow to edit dates. Fred Hsu 04:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the article thoroughly yet, but the referencing still needs to be improved. As of now, only the "History" section and "3D perception" have WP:FOOTNOTEs. Many editors on WP:FAC nowadays request for at least one footnote per paragraph, though I think that there should be at least 1 footnote per section. Remember that web references can be used ({{Cite web}}). Please shift up the image in the lead all the way to the top. Also, "Influential work" should probably be renamed "Further reading" or "Bibliography" (see WP:GTL). Thanks, Andy _t 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead Image and Bibliography: fixed
  • Most of the information on this article come from Pinker's book and Magic Eye books from my own collection, and various websites I found during my research. These are corroborated by my own software which I wrote and used in order to create images shown in this article. But I did not want to keep referring to the same footnotes over and over, nor was I sure web references were not frowned upon. I created the original Reference section by carefully reading my books and sources to see what they had to say about "who did what" as described in "which book/paper". I also listed the top few papers cited by every source.
  • I can probably place footnotes at every paragraph with fairly high accuracy. But I do not feel comfortable attributing a paragraph to a book/paper, unless I have read it with my own eyes (or I know with 100% confidence that author X has writen Y). To that end, I have just bought 5 books online, all of them out-of-print (including the $175 classic, "Foundations of cyclopean perception").
  • I don't know how long an article can remain in the candidate list. But I think I can have the reference situation corrected in a week.
  • OK, boys, I've received the Foundations of Cyclopean Perception and am working on better inline references. Fred Hsu 01:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am slowly fixing (previously missed) incorrect statements in the article, adding links to other wiki articles and inline references wherever appropriate. Please check out the History page. This is not yet done. I need a few more days. Fred Hsu 04:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

---

• • I know this nomination has been archived. But, I've just received two more books (Kinsman and Cadence Books). These two have tons of information. So, I will continue to add citations. Fred Hsu 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • This was done a few weeks ago. Fred Hsu 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Could you provide a bit more information for the web reference (date of publication, date of access, authors, etc.)?
  • Done as well. Fred Hsu 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• You might want to give the article a light copyedit, for example, In 1959, Dr. Bela Julesz, a vision scientist, psychologist, and MacArthur Fellow, discovered the random dot stereogram Who is the psychologist? A few more commas can be added before the word "which", as in The brain does not rely on intelligible icons which represent objects or concepts.
  • I am not sure I agree with the first point. See the first sentence in Steven Pinker. Fred Hsu 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• I find it kind of odd that you define "Autostereogram" in the "Terminology" section. Hopefully the reader will know what it means by the time he/she looks at the terminology section...
  • Good point. I folded the autostereogram item into SIS. Fred Hsu 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Otherwise, great job! Thanks, Andy _t 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• • That's cool. Thanks for reviewing again. I just wanted to make sure your previous suggestions were addressed. As Bunchofgrapes suggested in my talk page, I'll get it peer-reviewed again. Fred Hsu 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Gulf Oil

This is a business history and economics related article, of a kind that is not well represented in Wikipedia. It has recently been awarded Good Article status (at the second attempt) and has since been enhanced. It meets the criteria for Featured Article status and offers useful insights into current developments in business practice. Bob BScar23625 12:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen. Thankyou for your comments on the article, which are appreciated. My responses to those comments are annotated below in italics. Perhaps you would all be kind enough to take another look at the article?. Bob BScar23625 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support I failed the original GA nomination. All my concerns where addressed quickly and I had no hesitation in renominating for GA. I have no hesitations in supporting this nomination for FA. Gnangarra 13:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou, Gideon. Bob BScar23625 10:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There's very little inline sourcing. Many paragraphs don't have a source after them. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added several references, expanded some reference descriptions and moved a number of mid-para inline citations to end para positions. Bob BScar23625 10:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Some still don't have sources. I'm looking at the history, and 8 paragraphs don't have sources. Also, it shouldn't be listed as footnotes, it should be references. One more thing. There's an incomplete sentence in the history. Through its subsidiary Gulf General Atomic Inc it was active in the nuclear energy sector That's all it says as the end of the paragraph. Is there supposed to be a period, or is there more to the thought? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(1)The section title 'Footnotes' has been altered to 'References'. (2) I have added the citation for Gulf General Atomic (an item already in References), and might add a few more citations if it doesn't clutter up the look of the article. (3) Gulf got out of atomic power in the late 70s, which might be just as`well given the history of the Betelgeuse incident. Bob BScar23625 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • There's still 7 paragraphs without citations in the history. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Some more citations added. Not everything in the History is based on published sources. For example, there is no published reference to the attempted Big Jobber strategic realignment. I only know about Big Jobber because I was working for Gulf at the time and played a very minor role in its implementation in Europe. Can you live with that?. Bob BScar23625 07:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I still object until everything is sourced. That doesn't sound very FA'ish to have unpublished information in it. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to a point of view on that. Central Some parts of the Gulf Oil and The Betelgeuse incident articles are based on my experience of working in the oil industry during the late 1970s and early 1980s. That was around 10 years before you were born (*). Thankyou for your input which is most welcome. Bob BScar23625 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (*) patronising comment - 5 gold star award

• Object No Fair Use Rationales for images. If you add them, please denounce this object (make it a neutral, not a support). Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationales added, where appropriate. Bob BScar23625 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your request has been complied with and there is nothing questionable about the Fair Use status of the images. So I have struck out your Object as allowed by your statement. I hope that is OK with you. Bob BScar23625 11:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object 1. It needs a copyedit. 2. Infobox needed. 3. The logos are really compressed. Can you have it converted to SVG? 4. Poor referencing. a) not formatted correctly, b) points to sites where the information is not displayed/hidden. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) The text has been tidied up a little. (2) An additional para has been added to the Lead, but a Company Infobox might not be appropriate since Gulf has not been a company since 1984. Gulf is now a business network in the post-Fordist model. (3) The logos are small in order to meet fair use criteria. They might look better if you view them in a larger screen setting. I will consider converting to SVG some time. (4) The referencing has been tidied up (see response above). Unfortunately, the main GOI site seems down today - but I am sure this is just a temporary glitch. Bob BScar23625 10:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Poor WP:LEAD, an infobox would help - Template:Infobox Company. - Tutmosis 01:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lead has been expanded. Thanks for drawing my attention to the Company Infobox template. The problem being that Gulf is not essentially a company. It is a network comprised of a variety of interests. Trying to produce a meaningful set of consolidated financials for such a network would involve a lot of original research. I guess it could be done, but that is not the task before us. Bob BScar23625 10:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object External links are poorly formatted, and should be below the refs, not above. Tobyk777 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The references have been tidied up (see responses above). External links repositioned and descriptions expanded. Bob BScar23625 10:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Issues mentioned above have been taken care of quite well. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou, Srikeit. There are still 3 outstanding Objects, whose comments I have responded to. I will be very pleased to address any further concerns that those 3 reviewers may have. Bob BScar23625 11:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've done a major copy-edit on the first third ([51]]. It's not only the language; it's the precision of the historical information and other queries that need to be addressed. Can you find someone who's distant from the text to go through the rest? I notice that User:AndyZ may be able to help. (See his User:AndyZ/Suggestions.) Tony 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony. Thankyou for the time and effort you have obviously invested in this article. I have accommodated the specific points you have raised and have invited a number of regular Wikipedia contributors (including your AndyZ) to take a look over it.

Just a couple of asides.

(1) You have switched “New Economy” to “new economy”. But most management literature uses the term New Economy [52]. This may seem odd, given that the same body of literature usually refers to “the new economic paradigm”. Strictly, I think we should adhere to common usage and thus use New Economy. But, I can live with “new economy”.

(2) You have switched a quote from the published GOI Mission Statement into the main body of text (now final sentence of Lead). Strictly, I do not think you should do that since it implies that the item is our own writing while it is actually that of a GOI employee. This invites a charge of plagiarism – although I guess that the chances of any such problem arising in this case is less than one in a million.

Once again, thankyou for the time and trouble you have taken. Bob BScar23625 16:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some things I noticed: (in no particular order; many of them are minor issues)

• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. {{Infobox Company}} may be useful.

I keep making this point. The whole thrust of the article is about the move from an Old Economy company based on industrial assets to a New Economy business network based on knowledge. Gulf effectively ceased to be a company in 1984. The article is not about GOI. GOI is just a paper holding company located in an offshore tax-haven. The main players in the Gulf business network include GOLP (a USA company) and GOCL (an Indian company). GOI has a minimal equity interest in both of these. The whole point about Gulf is that it isn't a company. Bob BScar23625 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.

• Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
• External links should be like: Google instead of Google [53].

AndyZ. I thank you for your contribution, but you have really lost me from this point on. I wonder if you are offering some standard comment, that may not be all that relevant in this particular case?. Bob BScar23625 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
• Double check for typos; things like ". [33]." and "profit.[19]."

• Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.

• As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]

• After a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all (for example, either In 1908, this happened or In 1908 this happened).

• This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. For example,
  • Gulf, was one of the chief instruments no comma necessary
  • "Your Local Global Brand" period?
  • significant revival since around 1990 since seems to be a bit redundant
  • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.

• Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Gulflogo1920.JPG need(s) proper fair use rationales. (it may clearly be fair use to your viewpoint, but it would be more helpful to provide the rationale}}
  • • rationale formatted as per fair use requirements for each image with appropraite in article directions. Gnangarra 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• A bit more wiki-linking can be done; for example, in the lead, links to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, London, and Cayman Islands wouldn't hurt (and please pipe the link for Mellon).
• In case I missed anything important, you might want to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (again, as Tony has pointed it out to you before).
• Thanks, Andy _t 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• People editing this article may wish to use a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps.

Thankyou Andy. But please try to be a bit more specific. Have you actually read the article?. Bob BScar23625 20:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry - above comment sounds rude and is now struck. I have accommodated the specific points you make.

On the matter of Bobblewik's date thing: I'd love to know the cache-clearing commands for Safari and IE on the Macintosh ... Tony 04:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Safari on Mac:

• Click on 'Safari' menu, select 'Empty cache...'

IE on Mac OSX:

• Click on 'Explorer' menu, select 'Preferences...'

IE on Mac OS9 and ealier:

• Click on 'Edit' menu, select 'Preferences...'

Google is your friend. bobblewik 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Elisha Cuthbert

An article that has been on my worklist for a bit. It's gone through a peer review, is labelled as a good article (by me, before my involvement with the article, and only after it had been on the nominations page for quite a while without objection). I feel it's worthy, what do you think? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-done, well-referenced, and well-deserving. (Is that a word?) RyanGerbil10 02:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Images of unclear/dubious origin, and there are too many given that they chiefly serve to illustrate her appearance. Section headings don't make much sense, current career is a subsection of later career, later career includes such higlights as finishing high school -she is only 24 - so the later career title seems a bit premature; it would probably be best to roll all the career sections into a single section. The language, in particular the grammar also needs work. Much like KaDee Strickland (which has a more logical article structure), I'm not really sure why this person is interesting after reading the article.--Peta 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As a quick statement to start with (to reply to your last bit) remember that personal beliefs on the overall "value" or "importance" of subject matter is not a factor in FAC. If an article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia (which she most certainly is) then she can rise to featured status. Second, the images provide necessary functions (Infobox image for general, standard look, 24 image for what she looks like in her most famous role, House of Wax image for the first role where she took on an extremely different look than usual). I have, however, removed the Lucky Girl image as it is not as useful for her Early Career as I first thought (thanks for the note). Finally, I've renamed the career sections, and re-added the 24 section that I agree was sensible. It was mentioned in a peer review, but I agree that this follows the KaDee Strickland model better. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm more than familiar with the FA criteria, my point is that the article is not engaging, which in my opinion is problem with 2a - the prose is clunky and overly chronological, x didy y, then she did z etc.--Peta 03:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I meant no disrespect, I was merely replying to a statement. Do you feel I've addressed some of your other issues, and if not what still needs work? As for copyediting, any help or suggestions you can give would be wonderful. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The tone is fannish, the grammar is bad, two examples:

She began her career in 1989 by modeling for various lines of children's clothing, also becoming a foot model.

She landed, in the same year, the part of Kim Bauer, the danger-prone daughter of CTU agent Jack Bauer (played by fellow Canadian Kiefer Sutherland), in the television series 24.

Ask a third party to copyedit it. According to the filmography she was in a lot of things before 2001, none of these are discussed, why? The inclusion of her height and weight is just insulting, she is not a race horse or a boxer.--Peta 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed the issues you just brought forth. Any chance you could be that third party? I'm not much of a copyeditor and I'm even worse at material I've read over and over again. There isn't a Wikiproject Copyediting or some other group I can approach, is there? Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Lots of potential, and many good things in this article, but I agree with Peta's comments and while I won't presume to speak for her, I also find the prose clunky and will give a couple of examples. As a rule of thumb, try reading the text out loud. If there are sections comprised of a string of short sentences - clunky. If you read it out loud, the general rhythm of the article will become clearer, and if the rhythm sounds repetitive, that's another sign that some sentences/sections should be restructured. By this definition the "Recent career" and "Personal life" sections are most in need of revision but the overall article could do with some minor fixes.

• Specific examples and points:

*"The Quiet was helmed by Jamie Babbit, best known for the teenage satire But I'm a Cheerleader. The Quiet was a change from Cuthbert’s past ventures.". Example of clunky. Two sentences in a row starting with the same two words, plus, in an article about Elisha Cuthbert, the first sentence is about Jamie Babbit only and is irrelevant. It's also not exactly clear why it marked "a change". Different type of character? Tested or stretched her abilities? Caused critics to acknowledge some depth in her acting that they hadn't seen before? The point could be a little stronger.

• Removed entirely as even if it were better worded it would be an opinion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

much improved, thanks. Rossrs 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article is about Elisha Cuthbert therefore everything needs to be in some way related to her. Going off on tangents looks like filler - keep the spotlight on the subject, Cuthbert. Examples : Assessment of The Girl Next Door - "critics were divided... (about the film)" Did anyone say anything about Cuthbert? What they thought of the film belongs in the article about the film. The comments regarding House of Wax goes into even more detail about the film being a poor remake etc. We don't need to know that it was a second remake of a 1953 Vincent Price film. Once again, this is a tangent, as is all the critical comment about the film, and has nothing to do with Cuthbert. Despite the film's shortcomings did anyone notice Cuthbert and write anything about her? That would be more relevant.

• Comments on a piece of work the subject contributed to are absolutely relevant. I've tried to tone down the depth a little bit, but Cuthbert is taking these roles in these films, so opinion of these films is relevant to a discussion of her. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A general indication of how the work was received is relevant and quotes to support this are fine, but the problem is balance. There are 4 quotes in this article that specifically discuss critics' reactions to the films. None of these quotes is linked in any way to Cuthbert or her performances. The article currently contains zero quotes from critics about Cuthbert or any of her performances. This is an inbalance that should be addressed and is why the quotes as they currently appear, are irrelevant because they are not balanced by any critical discussion of Cuthbert's work in these roles. Rossrs 08:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I removed one of these quotes and replaced it with a quote about Cuthbert's role (it was Ebert's quote about GND), striking two birds with one stone. I'll try to dig around on this s'more today. Staxringold _talk^contribs 09:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Finished off the remaining quotes in the HoW section so they now pertain to Cuthbert's performance. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the type of expansion I was hoping for. Excellent! Thank you Rossrs 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

*words such as "tanked" are unencyclopedic unless used in a quote. For our own text we should use something less colloquial such as "failed" perhaps. "slated" should be "scheduled". "Helmed" should be "directed". There are other examples.

• Ok. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The "Recent career" section is quite awkward. "Little is known about the second film, He Was a Quiet Man, at this point" - we know the film's title and that Cuthbert will play a quadraplegic. Isn't that enough? If anything has to be said about this film, it would be better to leave it at that. An encyclopedia should not be drawing attention to what we don't know or what hasn't happened. Rossrs 09:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reworking. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

it's getting there. Rossrs 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think the changes you've made are very good, so please persevere. Another problem : why the section for 24? I know it was her first role and her breakthrough but it could easily fit into the career section. I think singling out a role or a production with its own header is POV and in this case the discussion of 24 is very brief anyway. The whole Career section could easily be absorbed into one section - it's not overly long. On the subject of 24 this section is written out of sequence. It goes 1. Cuthbert moves to Hollywood. 2. Cuthbert gets a role 3. Cuthbert gave herself a deadline... she's already got the role, what's the deadline about...it's backtracking. The paragraph should be rewritten as 1. 3. 2. followed by the fact that the show was well received, so that it follows a chronological line of thought. Rossrs 08:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of looking like a lunatic, since I rewrote most of the article, I'm opposing. The article is a tad too much on the short side, and needs a bit more work. Maybe a year or two ago, the article would've stood a chance at FA status like Chuck Palahniuk's, but I'd like to think the standards for FACs have risen since then. I'll definitely re-nominate it (unless it somehow makes it through this time) once I get in the mood to spruce it up. There's not too much that needs to be done aside from expansion. --Antrophica 09:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please pose actionable objections? Saying the article is near perfect, but objecting, and yet not saying what specifically you object to makes it difficult to improve the article to satisfy your objections. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In detail:

• I realize I focused on elaborating on the films in many instances instead of Cuthbert's performances. Specifically, there ought to be more quotes regarding the critical perception of her performances.
• The article seems too short to be a FA. Expansion needs to be done to bring it up at least to the length of the KaDee Strickland article.
• I favor minimalism, so I tend to separate longer sentences into shorter fragments, which I suppose isn't a suitable way to write an encyclopedia. I don't reckon this issue is too prevalent, albeit.

That's about it. --Antrophica 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Opening needs to be longer (2 paragraphs at least). You might want to use Katie Holmes as the benchmark to shoot for. Give her work on 24 its own section, since that's her most notable work. See if you can also discuss more of her childhood etc. Tombseye 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know about giving 24 its own subsection. I'm pretty much neutral when it comes to film headers, but Rossrs may want to chime in on this. --Antrophica 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• He did, in saying "I think singling out a role or a production with its own header is POV and in this case the discussion of 24 is very brief anyway." I don't really mind either way, and I like the structure of having a lead-off section for the career section (and 24 is certainly her most notable role to date). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Supreme Court

This nomination was added by Judgesurreal777 at 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC), but no information was cited. RyanGerbil10 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Blast it! I tried to get it created through AfC, but someone beat me to it (See here) 68.39.174.238 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually not me, but I noticed it had been improperly put here, so I'll present it for whoever wanted it here. Other than a few red links, it looks pretty good to me :) Judgesurreal777 02:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok then! RyanGerbil10 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Anyway, Neutral. The article is well-written and very well referenced, but some of the sections need to be re-oredered and lengthened. RyanGerbil10 02:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Such as? Not to be impertinent, but which ones seem too short or out of order? 68.39.174.238 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, alot's changed here as far as sections and the order they are listed in. You might want to check again and see if you agree with the changes. Thanx 68.39.174.238 10:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, though it's an incredibly good article for a state Supreme Court. My issues are threefold. First, the History section needs some fill-in info from 1844-present. Second, the Impressions section definetly needs a rewording and, if not expanded, should be folded into another section (likely "Current Operation"). Finally, the Current composition should be better formatted and similarly folded into something else, again probably current operation. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For "history from 1844-present" are you suggesting anything specific, or just info on how that version of the court worked? Also, what part of "Impressions" do you see as being poorly written? Finally, I've merged the composition section as suggested. 68.39.174.238 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I'd suggest getting a username. It takes two seconds and makes communication a lot easier. As for 1844-Present, I just don't like seeing 160 years of history completely missing from the History section of a currently operating body. Whatever fits into the realm of history belongs there, IMO. As for the "Impressions" section, I don't like a whole section being built out of a few sentences and one reference. If you can provide deeper reactions, perhaps even past stuff, that might warrant a full section. Until then, it just doesn't IMO. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with "Impressions"; since the "impressions" are caused more then anything by the cases they've decided, it seemed best as a heading to that section. 68.39.174.238 03:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support - if the above fixes are done, then I'll go for it Judgesurreal777 02:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppopse. I'm no expert on the NJSC, but I would guess that there have been some notable cases heard by the court prior to 1960. Pepsidrinka 03:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Check under history, there's one/two there. I'm trawling whatlinkshere for others I've missed. 68.39.174.238 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. As per comment above by Pepsidrinka. Lincher 14:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  Other cases (found perusing fast through the net) :

James P. Ross v. The Board of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County (1903)

Where'd you find this? Google doesn't turn it up easily... 68.39.174.238 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See ISBN 0813533252 p. 176. Lincher 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Coppage v. Kansas (1915-m)

Frank v. Mangum (1915-m)

Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell (1917-m)

Mountain Timber Co. v. Wahington (1917-m)

Pierce v. United States (1920-m)

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Saddle River, 96 N.J.L. 40. (1921)

Thomas v. Casey, 121 N.J.L. 185, 1 A.2d 866 (1938)

With the exception of the first case, which I can't find too easily (Do you have a link to something about it), all of those cases are cases of the Federal supreme court. 68.39.174.238 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for these cases. Lincher 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Some more :

State v. Post (1845) ... ISBN 081477993X. p.204.

Added 68.39.174.238 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the matter of Quinlan (1976). ISBN 081477993X. p. 224.

Already there as "in re Quinlan" 68.39.174.238 01:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Anderson v. Sills (1970).

State v. Ordog, 45 NJ 347, 212 AId 370 (1965).

Robinson v. Cahill (1973). ISBN 0824793897. p.615.

(Correction:) Already covered under "Abbott cases" 68.39.174.238 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

De Felice v. Peace (1951). You'll have to see in the NJ Supreme court green book.

Vogel v. Roger (1954). You'll have to see in the NJ Supreme court green book.

Guess you can find more. Lincher 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It isn't bad, but I don't think the extensive list of cases belongs in the article, and there isn't much else. IMHO, the important cases section could be cut down to a couple of paragraphs, with the rest going off to a sub-article. Much of the "current operation" section would be more useful in the lead. There is only the most summary explanation of its jurisdiction. There is rather little on its history, only a brief description of each evolution. The list of justices might be more useful if it were put in a table, as with United States Supreme Court and High Court of Australia. There's virtually nothing on the appointment process apart from a footnote that Corzine will be appointing two replacements soon. There is nothing about where the court sits. It only has a sentence on where it fits politically (including nothing on the ideological makeup of the current court). I was left with quite a lot of questions after reading this article - United States Supreme Court and High Court of Australia would be good examples to look to, and to my knowledge neither of them are featured, so this has quite a way to go. Rebecca 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll deal with this one over several comments, since I'm busy dealing with the cases above. As it is it immedately strikes me as being, well, slightly incorrect (Unless I misunderstood something): the articel on the Federal supreme court IS featured, and has been for about a year. Also, the constitutional process is shown and cited in the section above that ("Composition and appointment") 68.39.174.238 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (PS. Info on the "ideological makeup" is not easy to find. There was a comment a while ago about their being an unwritten rule regarding the political parties of the members, but I had to remove it as I could find no reference to support it.)

Correction! If you're willing to take Fox News as a legit source, I can give you the partizan makeup ;D! 68.39.174.238 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be a start. The composition and appointment section is very brief and doesn't tell you much at all (High Court of Australia is a good example of this done well), and the rest of my objections stand unaddressed in their entirety. Rebecca 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideological makeup added. 68.39.174.238 04:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Too many sub-sections, and they're all too short. It has not got a good flow. — Wackymacs 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Many have been merged into categories, I request you re-read it and let me know if that helps any. 68.39.174.238 08:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are still spelling errors and a variety of other mistakes that need to first be corrected. I've tried to cleanup the "Composition, appointment and life on the bench" section, but I still think the whole article needs another once over. JCO312 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ran through Open Office's spell checker and cleaned up the ones they suggested. As to "other mistakes" ... what? Grammar? Bad constructions? Can you give an example? Since I've done most of this it's hard to see errors in my own work... 68.39.174.238 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, "This was then appealed to the Federal supreme court as Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, who reversed the ruling.[68]" So, federal is capitalized, which is wrong, and "supreme court" is not capitalized, also wrong. The United States Supreme Court is always supposed to be capitalized. Also, since it's an institution, the Court should not be refered to as a group of people, so it should say "which reversed the ruling" as opposed to "who reversed the ruling." I'll fix that sentence, but there are others that I'll try and work on later. Also, I'm told that there's a line in here about how Justices can be impeached after 2 years, and I don't think there is a 2 year "safe harbor," in other words they can be impeached before the first 2 years. JCO312 04:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Federal" buissiness is the result of not wanting to say "United States Supreme Court" every other paragraph, as many of those cases refer to it. The two year thing was a misread, I've removed it. 68.39.174.238 07:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem

The list of important cases needs to be seperately resolved: At least two people each want more there (See list of cases above) and less (See comments immediately above this). Also, the page is hitting 30K. This (I suspect) has to be resolved to the satisfaction of a majority (at least) of people before this'll get featured. Any ideas (Other then "shorten it"/"lengthen it", which don't provide anything concrete)? 68.39.174.238 08:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I said there should be more cases mentioned, but that doesn't mean I want a subsection for each case. If you could work it in the text that such and such cases were heard by the court and they are important for blah blah blah. Maybe one-two sentences max mention of a case. Pepsidrinka 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, like having seperate sections for say, civil rights, politics, etc? Sounds like an idea. Also, I'd like input from people who suggested individual cases whether or not they want a sampling of cases across all periods of the courts history, or just some contemporarily and currently important ones? 68.39.174.238 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented what I thought you were suggesting. 68.39.174.238 08:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Should cases like Dale or TLO be included? It's true that they are significant cases, but they were overturned by the Supreme Court? How much significance do they have, given that fact? JCO312 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest they be mentioned as they were direct predecessors to cases of fairly significant import, however since this court wasn't the one that delivered the final descision on them and the cases have seperate pages, they should probably be not given in too much detail, i.e. enough to show what it was about and how the court ruled, and then a link to the page on the case itself. 68.39.174.238 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RENT

I truly believe that this article is a brilliantly written article that exemplifies the writing Wikipedia loves. It is all relevant information, is entirely correct, shows no bias and is completely referenced. I believe this is more than perfect for a featured article. Political Mind 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support I nominated this article, and I sure believe this is a good one! Political Mind 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: glancing over it real quick, I would like to ask where is the reception/criticism of the film/musical? Whats the point of Musical numbers section which is just one big list? Thanks. - Tutmosis 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I do believe criticism would would be a bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Political Mind (talk • contribs)

I believe withdrawl of criticism is bias since you are only giving the positive side of the film/musical... - Tutmosis 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with all of the above. Oppose for three too many long lists, no inline citation, and absolutely no criticism (look at any other featured film or television or play or book article). Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per Staxringold. Alo, there is no explicit references section, and there are no footnotes. RyanGerbil10 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Lack of references section is the most worrying factor about this article for me. Also missing lots of information on the film that has been mentioned by Tutmosis. — Wackymacs 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object Lack of reference/footnotes - InvictaHOG 10:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object lack of references/footnotes. Computerjoe's talk 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian Bale

Self-nomination: I rewrote the article from scratch, citing sources whenever neccessary. I reckon it meets the criteria to be featured. I already submitted it for peer review, addressing a number of concerns in the process. If there's anything else that requires editing, I'll get to it as soon as I can. --Antrophica 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. The early life section looks a bit small, is it comprehensive? Other than that, I'm ready to support. RyanGerbil10 04:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll keep looking for something to add in. The man values his privacy and usually doesn't tells stories about his life unless it's neccessary, which is why the "Personal life" section itself is so small. --Antrophica 04:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: There. I've expanded it. --Antrophica 08:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, if it's going to be near-impossible, I guess it's kind of mean to demand more information, which probably doesn't exist. It's good enough for me. RyanGerbil10 11:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The main issue are the small sections: Early life, Personal life and 1980s subsection. The Career section has alot of information but yet alot of it is split in one sentence paragraphs. Merge this sentences to create fuller, proper size paragraphs.

The next big point is alot of the article, especially in the career section is spoken in a non-encyclopedic tone. There a few sentences that begin with things like "He felt/thought/tried" which are not sourced by any citation. I'm sure that where ever you got this information from is in the references, sourcing might not be an issue, its just this type of stuff creates a doorway for vandalism because people can just come along and tweak such sentence with them going un-noticed. Like I could I just come out and edit one such sentence to say something like "He had trouble adjusting to the batman suit" which might not be true but still sounds good and the article is well sourced so it might go unnoticed.

I would also like to see a few tweaks done. The third one sentence paragraph in the lead needs to be merged with the first paragraph. In the first paragraph regarding his accents it states he "developed different ones", I would suggest rewording. In career section, "1980s" subheading needs to go. Its absense would create a nice introductory paragraph and the content already informs the reader of what time period it talk about. Thats about it for now, Thanks. - Tutmosis 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All done, aside from the alleged few sentences that begin with "he felt/thought/tried" as I'm having trouble hunting for them. I was under the impression I'd sourced everything that needed to be sourced. I'm going to need help pinning them down. Specific examples would be a godsend, being that others are usually better at pointing out your mistakes than you are. --Antrophica 05:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support Like the others, I believe that the Personal life and the Early Life sections are too short. Also, there are no inline citations, however that is not a deal breaker for me. The Filmaker 04:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Personally, I prefer footnotes to inline referencing, hence the reason the references in the article are comprised of footnotes. If inline citations are supposed to be superior to footnotes, then it's over my head. As I said, information on Bale's early and personal life is scarce, but I'll keep looking. --Antrophica 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Early Life: first pgraph needs citation. too many 2-sentence pgraphs. merge them or expand them. cite "neither of which garnered him the acclaim he found in Empire of the Sun.". provide specific quotes from reviews about bale's performances in things like little women. american psycho should be a section by itself, not lumped in with 2000s (which is too long otherwise). would like to see more actual quotes of critics reviews of his psycho performance, especially as its important enough to be mentioned in the lead. cite this: "and from then on made an effort to avoid being typecast". who says? also this: "none of which were successful at the box office". dont external link to hall of mirrors. again, for the action vehicles, need specific reviews of his performances in those films. e.g. did he show talent as a a screen martial artist? give a specific quote to back this: "critics were impressed by Bale’s dedication". should mention bale did howl's english dub only - not the original japanese one. this also makes the japanese grosses redundant for this article. batman can also have its own section. videogame stuff appears irrelevant: " it featured Bale as Batman." how exactly? was he motion-captured? any quotes about that? first pgraph of personal life needs references. filmography is back-to-front. dont hardcode image sizes. remove this from lead: "Bale’s fans refer to themselves as “Baleheads”.". so what? its never mentioned again anywhere in the article so i assume its not important. remove "pre-production" stuff as its crystal ball material. Zzzzz 11:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mostly done, I'll get to the rest of it by tomorrow, excepting (assumingly) the Batman Begins pre-production info that I fail to see as crystal ball material since it's already happened and I've cited sources. Also elaborate what you mean by the image sizes. As for critics being impressed by Bale's dedication in The Machinist, the quotes were already provided. In regard to the filmography being back-to-front, that shouldn't be a deciding factor in the article's nomination, as the format is still being debated and a resolution has yet to be reached. --Antrophica 12:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Zzzzz, I've gone through most of your issues, the significant ones. --Antrophica 06:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - as I mentioned in Wikipedia:Peer review/Christian Bale/archive1, I'm dead against using film titles as headers because it is highly POV. I can completely understand though why User:Zzzzz suggested using American Psycho as a header "because it's too long anyway". I think the real problem is that American Psycho and Batman Begins are discussed in too much detail, and although using the film titles as headers solves the problem of the overly long sections, it highlights the fact that both film sections are out of proportion to the rest of the article. There needs to be balance. I think that the headers are far less acceptable than the ones I originally objected to because now you not only have an American Psycho section but a Post-American Pyscho section. It creates the impression that Bale's entire career orbits around that one film and that the article also uses that one film as its core. I see this as a major problem in a very well written article. I also agree with Zzzz in saying that the filmography is "back-to-front". I don't believe that it should be grounds for objecting but I think it's fair to state as part of an overall objection. You are correct in saying that it is being discussed at the moment without a clear consensus, but I feel that it is better to follow the format that is most widely used, and although there is no "rule" on how to do it, the oldest to newest style seems to be used more often. Just a suggestion/comment - I won't support or oppose on that point. Rossrs 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll revert the film title headers to nonexistence, but you two had better make up your minds and come to a resolution, because I can't please both sides. --Antrophica 09:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right you can't, although there may be a satisfactory common ground. I'll go through it and copyedit it when I have more time, and perhaps there's a way of using a more generic type of subheading that doesn't rely on the film titles themselves. That may be a way of satisfying both objections. Also could you please have a look at the use of language in the article - I think it's mostly good but anything like "tanked" should be replaced with a word that's less colloquial. It's just one word that jumped out at me. Thanks Rossrs 13:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just now realized that "tanked" is too informal. Anything else that needs fixing? --Antrophica 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I figure, at the very least, your objections have been taken care of, Rossrs. Turn your vote around? Or are there other issues? --Antrophica 06:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

Well written, complete, many pictures, very deserving. --Hezzy 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object — for an article of this size, there are not many references. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now I was working on this article a few weeks ago when it was the United States Collaboration of the Week. Although content wise, it is FA material, much of the material still needs to be referenced. I was going to work on it more when I have some time, but I just haven't had the time lately. I would like to see it referenced more thoroughly, because it is so close to FA status. However, I cannot support it until proper referencing is done. PDXblazers 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object, needs more time to reach FA standards. Lacks of inline citations, needs to be referenced. --Terence Ong 14:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per points raised above Aspern 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per the concerns about the referencing, and I also think that the history section is a bit too long (Does the relocation of the Expos need to be here?) seeing as it has it's own main article. The Halo (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object (pretty much exactly) per PDXblazers. Andy _t 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape

The article is very well written, and I think it is finally stable. It has been improved very well, and it is very informative. Someone who didn't know the game could probably learn the game inside out just by reading this article. WIKIPEEDIO 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Apart from a tiny criticism section, there is no critical reaction to the game whatsoever. I know that a browser game is going to get less traditional reviews as retail games, but with 2 million active players, it will not have gone unnoticed in the press. - Hahnchen 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with the above comment.--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I can help I remember the Criticism section used to be much longer than it currently is. I remember contributing information to the Criticism section on 10 April. A few days after I made that edit, someone removed most of the Criticism, retaining only a tiny Criticism section. I once nominated a similar article, NeoPets, for Featured Article status. It was rejected for reasons exactly opposite to those mentioned there. The Criticism section of NeoPets was too long, lacked reference and used weasel words. My response is: it is difficult to find reliable sources criticising an online game. NeoPets practises censorship, and most of the criticisms would come from users which have been frozen. I hope you bear this in mind regarding the Criticism section of RuneScape. I am willing to upload "proof of concept" screenshots to the article. Do you think it's currently good enough for Good Article? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What you need from a critical reaction section, isn't just criticism. It's what good external sources thought of the game. Things like weasel words and unsourced complaints are not the kind of thing that should go there. I do understand that a browser game is going to get less attention than a retail release, but surely there has to be some articles about it somewhere. For example, it mentions that the game has an optional paid members section, what was the reaction to this? Was it not documented anywhere? If the Horse Armour addon for Oblivion can cause an absolute outcry in every piece of gaming press, surely this showed up on some radars?- Hahnchen 10:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, whether you choose to believe it or not, sourced criticism for this game is rather hard to find. I mean, the only place I can think of is these Runescape-Hater websites, but that isn't actually criticism. I also know of some common stuff that my friends and neighbors and schoolmates tell me, but those will get removed because I don't source them to a website. So my question for you guys is: Does something need to be posted on a website to exist? Because that is what you are implying. WIKIPEEDIO 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly. That's what I mean. Most of the criticisms are player opinion, and will not be found in sources that pass the reliability criteria. Hate sites, perhaps. Forums, yes. In-game screenshots, yes. Could these be used as sources? Remember, NeoPets also failed Featured Article for reasons underlined above. I am willing to contribute information to the RuneScape article, particularly the Criticism section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support It's come a long way since it was semi-protected. Some more criticism would be nice, it is usually quickly deleted though. It is an extremely great arcticle though. --pevarnj^(t/c/@) 19:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• OPPOSE It's horrible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.109.206.88 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Not that it matters or anything cause it kinda looks like this article won't be featured, but the vote above was by an anonymous IP (who probably hates RuneScape), therefore it should be ignored. WIKIPEEDIO 21:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article and its related articles contain a lot of information, but being one of the top 30 or so edited articles, there is not enough coordination amongst the information to be considered a good article. The RuneScape articles mirror too much what happens in the game and not enough about it's status as a computer game. It is a mismatched collaberation of a game guide and player reviews. It should be rebuilt from the ground up, but even then, I don't think it will be good enough to be featured. --Chris 23:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A very popular article is not always a good one. I think making this a featured article will put it on the fast track for more vandalism than it has previously seen, which is quite a lot given its semi-protected past and continued tendencies for vandalism. Most of us have seen what happened with the Pink Floyd article when it was featured, now multiply that by a million annonymous immature RuneScape players instead of a few people that don't care for a particular band. --yaninass2 | talk 02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You do have a point there. Hmm... WIKIPEEDIO 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is unstable, currently protected, lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD, few refs, Criticism section is very small and unsourced. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The main objection seems to be the Criticism section. It is a good article otherwise. I am nominating it for Good Article. Someone please pass it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Not nearly enough inline citations for such a big article. --Rory096 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with that one. Hyenaste ^(tell) 14:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose For many of the reasons outlined above. I also feel this article is not very encyclopedic often having a gameguide feeling to it. (Koolsen0 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
• Oppose very instable. Computerjoe's talk 15:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The only thing it should be featured for, is an example of how letting anonymous users run amok is a stupid, STUPID policy, wouldn't have half the edits, if it wasn't for the need to keep reverting silly vandalism and misguided expansion. The criticism is another area where nobody seems to agree. Ace of Risk 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree I think people might like to see a game guide. (Except for the fact its mainly a child's game so adults who mainly look at Featured articles wouldn't be too thrilled.)Eugene0k2 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Complutense University of Madrid

Self-nomination. Extensive rewriting and reformating over the past few weeks. Recent pictures, as well as well-balanced information, substantiated by facts. Let's see how it goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmcneilwhistler (talk • contribs) 20:47, June 4, 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Out-of-control image crowding. Normally that would just be a "comment" from me, but this is exceptional. Make a gallery at Wikimedia Commons and link to it from the article if a media presentation is desirable. Images also need proper source and licensing info. Jkelly 20:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support - fix image crowding, get some references and cite them in-line, and then do a thorough copyedit. Judgesurreal777 20:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. You will need some inline citations. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way too much image crowding --Geoffrey Gibson 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, images are a mess. Phoenix2 22:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Peer review first. It doesn't comply to almost all the criterias. Lincher 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. What everyone else said, and the lists need to be converted to prose. — Wackymacs 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Myanmar

Myanmar's article is well written, providing a history of the country, the junta now in power, the regions of the country, and the short-lived free elections that the junta cracked down on shortly thereafter because they were not pleased with the results. SushiGeek 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There are "citation needed" templatees somewhere and one section is marked as to be wikified. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Insufficient inline citations. Fieari 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This article should go through both Peer Review and have a good copyedit first. There are several problems with this article, including:
  • A section is marked to be wikified, per Grafikm
  • Inline citations are insuffiecient, per Fieari
  • The country is alternately referred to as Burma and/or Myanmanr in several sections
  • The article is very list heavy
  • No explicit references section

This could benefit from a Peer Review, before renomination. RyanGerbil10 04:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- ref to PR. The article can be expanded further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose seconding all concerns raised by User:RyanGerbil10. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment-Weak opening needs to be fixed. Culture section is a bit short and lacking. Perhaps integrate origin and history of name into opening as well. Tombseye 23:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Incorrect name. Henry^Flower 14:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  What's incorrect inthe name? =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  I think that he's meaning it should be called Burma, but Myanmar is the official name given to it and applied to it, so I don't really think this oppose is valid Darkhooda 21:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object, needs more sources. --Terence Ong 13:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Grille (cryptography)

This is superb coverage of a now essentially obsolete crypto technique, with connections to signficant mathematicians, politicians, and jurists of European history. Nicely done, well illustrated, full of interesting and obscure facts. Worth featuring. Unlike many crypto articles, I've not made a single edit to this one, so my nominational motives are pure. ww 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Lead is nonexistant, and no inline citations. Fieari 18:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead fixed. Inline citations are a bad fit given the antiquity of use and obsolescence. References and links have been formalized, however. ww 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Lead is still insufficiant, and inline citations are not a bad fit, in that they connect references to the specific facts claimed. There are too few sections, I cannot believe that this is all there is to say on the subject. What about history? How about some more about its cryptanalysis? Some of the sections are too short. There is information contained in the lead that is not covered in the article, and the other way around as well. Four references may be insufficient for an example of our very best work. Fieari 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Unlike many topics, crypto history is largely covert and opaque; so literature references are sparse. Especially for old and now obsolete crypto techniques. The additional details suggested (eg, on cryptanalysis) are usually objected to when present in crypto articles (see Cedar-Guardian comment below), and so there is a compelled tendency to try to avoid technical material on the part of crypto editors. An annoying Scylla and Carybidis! The links to other articles, in the lead and elsewhere, are largely expected to slake curiosity on those points. Too short sections can be remedied, but risk including 'too much' technical detail. ww 21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support now! Sorry, but Object:
  • Per WP:LEAD, you must have a lead adequately summing up the article.
    • Done ww 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOS, a section title should not start with "the" whenever possible.
    • Done. ww 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Inline citations seem to be a sine qua non condition nowadays... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As above, inline citations are a bad fit given the antiquity of use and obsolescence. ww 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Much of the formatting is non-standard: the redlinked heading in 'Grille Ciphers' for example; plus the bullet points in 'References'. (Use *) --BillC 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • • Fixed. ww 14:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No inline citations. Text looks like a usage guide rather than encyclopedia article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure how to address the 'usage guide' objection. In some sense, cyphers are nothing but an algorithm; as such, illustrations of the algorithm will be obligatory, and probably look like a usage manual from some perspectives. The history and connections given here provide some context, and the cryptography section discuses grille cyphers' value as against the Opposition. To wit, basically nil. Suggestions? ww 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As the proposer, and responder to the objections above (which have each been addressed in the last few days), I think the article has been imporved and is an excellent example of a good WP article, a featured quality one. ww 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: FAC isn't a vote, so there's no need for the nominator to formally support like that. Just for future reference. We assume you think it's ready because you nominated it. Fieari 22:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object. The article is too technical and does not provide sufficient context. There is no definition in the lead about what is a cipher, a Cardan grille... When I read the lead begining with Grille ciphers are written with cardboard sheets that have holes cut in them at regular or irregular intervals. I never would've though about a crypto technique. The first section starts with Although Francis Bacon used... Who's Francis Bacon? And many other examples. Plus there should be an image in the lead. CG 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The objection as to overmuch technicality is a problem. See comments by Fieari above is that there is too much. The lack of local repetition of contnet from other articles may not be. The links to other articles are expected to be used by the curious. I will suggest (or do it myslef) a first sentence along the lines of "In the history of cryptography, a grille cipher is ... A Cardan grille is the first known implementation of such a cipher..." This should address this concern. I will also suggest moving an image higher into the article. Lead, perhaps? ww 21:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We could add some explanatory context, but probably not to the extent of defining things like "cipher", which would encumber it considerably, IMO. — Matt Crypto 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now. Good article with very nice diagrams. Featured Articles do need inline citations, and there's plenty of specific facts which could be sourced. — Matt Crypto 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Roman naming conventions

If you look at this articles talk page, you will see that I have fulfilled the previous criteria given for the failure of my first nomination. I have also attempted to add more interesting topics and I feel it is an excellent example of what a FA should be. Rrpbgeek 17:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Current unanswered issues for nomination:

• Absence of inline cites
• Shortness of sections, esp. lead
• Improper source formatting

• Object. The article has no references,(Fixed Rrpbgeek) and many sections, including the lead, are too short. RyanGerbil10 17:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice start, but the footnotes need to be listed in a separate section, the lead section needs to be expanded, and the sections themselves shouldn't contain so much bolded text. Keep up the good work, RyanGerbil10 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lincher 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons :

• • Fix the prænomen and praenomen, which one is the good one.
    • Fixed Rrpbgeek
  • More info on the nomen gentile as per why these name, what is the origin and where the -ius comes from.
    • -ius comes from the masculine form. Shown in history. Rrpbgeek
    • More info on Nomen Gentile and origins. Rrpbgeek
  • Support information with inline citations. Lincher 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The footnotes go nowhere (fixed Rrpbgeek) and there's no book sources.(added Rrpbgeek) Also, prænomen needs to turn into praenomen,(done Rrpbgeek) and more details need to be added. Might be more appropriate for WP:GA. UnDeadGoat 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In the Foreign names section the article reads "A number of the names below are of Greek origin..." but there's nothing listed. Should this link to a separate article? Very interesting topic, but the article needs a strong copyedit. --NormanEinstein 14:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No inline citations. Most of the sections are so small that they should qualify as stubs. Probably more suitable for WP:GA per UnDeadGoat. And please respond in a separate paragraph and don't include your responses inline. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not sure that all of the references were actually used in the creation of this article. For example, I have significant doubts that the "list of roman derived names" is a references rather than just an external link inadvertantly labeled a reference. Also, the article would be improved by adding inline citations and also formatting the references properly, see WP:CITE. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Syd Shores

I believe Syd Shores is an informative and well-written article about legendary-in-the-industry yet unsung-among-fans comic book pioneer who went into obscurity since, until the last decade or so, comics historians were rare; indeed, despite all my sources, I could not a specific birth date for Shores, but just a year. This article also exemplifies a mix of both print and online sources. -- Tenebrae 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose and Peer Review. The article has few references, no inline citation, some inline links (which are just yucky), stubby sections, lists, and just generally needs a Peer Review. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has 11 references, both print and online — is that really considered "few"? — and only one list (singular). I do agree a Peer Review would be great. -- Tenebrae 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

11 is pretty low for a featured article, and without inline citation to show multiple uses then absolutely. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Article has only one footnote in the name of internal referencing. The article's lead is very short. Writing is generally poor with too much boldface and italized text. The list is poorly formatted (actually it shouldn't exist at all). Too much attention given to his quotes. Many more issues. I suggest a Peer Review first. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is all good to know. For the record, just so we're on the same page, the short lead follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars#Comics_creators. That latter source also advises that a bulleted bibliography actually is expected to exist. If this particular list needs work, that's a whole 'nother thing, obviously! :-) Thanks for the input. -- Tenebrae 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Toledo War

Partial self-nomination. This article has undergone an extensive amount of work, by myself and many other members of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Michigan. It has undergone a positive peer review, and has already achieved Good Article status. Project members will address any comments or concerns. Thanks. Hotstreets 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Minor object on a few points:
  • The contents of the "See also" section are already linked in the article, and should be trimmed.
    • Trimmed these to items not linked within the article.
      • I'm not sure how useful a link to Military history of the United States is from here, since that article is extremely general. The categories seem much more useful in a case like this. Kirill Lokshin 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The Military History article has blurbed the Toledo Was as part of its content and we thought it helpful to link to where there's some additional background to the the time frame where the militias were forming post War of 1812 and pre-Civil War.
  • The use of "Ibid." in the footnotes is fine, but are there any style guides that still permit "op. cit."?
    • I'm working off the 1998 MLA Handbook. AFAIK, opus citarse still remains a valid citation form.
      • Ok. The 15th ed. CMoS urges avoiding it, so I wasn't sure if anyone else still used it. Kirill Lokshin 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • All of the sources used for the article should be listed in the "References" section, if one exists separately from the footnotes.
    • I added the Way book into the Reference sections since it was originally a hard copy book. For the small number of other web-exclusive sources, these are linked in the footnotes as well as in external sources.

Overall, though, the article looks very good! Kirill Lokshin 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Feedback Jtmichcock 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Poorly written. The lead provides many examples.
  • "The matter went unresolved until Michigan began to press for statehood in the early 1830s." "was" preferred to "went". Do you mean that when Michigan began to press for statehood, the matter was suddenly resolved? Surely not.
  • "The dispute originated from conflicting state and federal legislation passed between 1787 and 1805 that left the exact location of Ohio's northern boundary uncertain." Fuzzy. Surely the dispute originated from the conflict: the grammar gives the wrong emphasis. Try "The dispute originated from the conflict between state and ...". Can you remove "the exact location of"? Same for "Overall".
  • "The situation on the ground remained a standoff for over a year." Do you mean "The result was a standoff for more than a year." What does "on the ground" mean here?

The rest of the article has lots of fuzziness and awkwardness. Please get someone else to cop-edit it thoroughly. Tony 04:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through the article to address your specific concerns and to parse back the writing. The introduction and balance of the article reads much better now. Please let us know what you think. Jtmichcock 12:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal Grammar School Worcester

This is a self-nomination for an article I have been working on with several other editors. I feel that it meets all of the FA Guidlines and that it is a very useful addition to Wikipedia. From looking at several other school articles I feel this is of a very high standard, both in its content, research, and also style. I'd welcome any constructive comments if you feel that it is currently not at FA standard. --Wisden17 17:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Needs footnotes, and possibly more references. RyanGerbil10 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:WIAFA requires inline cites, but not necessarily footnotes. There's some paranthetical citation in the lead, which is acceptable, but I agree that facts throughtout the article definitely need to be cited using an acceptable method before this article is considered. The Disco King 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, when just tidying up the article today I was debating whether to use footnotes, but went instead for the Harvard style. Could you perhaps give more example of the facts which you feel need direct citation? --Wisden17 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Outside of the lead paragraph, I count one paranthetical citation. All facts and claims need to be cited. It's easier to read if you use footnotes, and they really aren't that hard, but paranthetical citation works too. The Disco King 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Have just added Footnotes to the article, and found one more reference, so hopefully this address the original concern above. --Wisden17 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Conditional Support. My referencing concerns have been addressed, the only thing left is that the article has too many lists, some of which do not display very well. For example, the "School houses" list looks very sloppy on my configuration, Internet Explorer with a 1900x1280 resolution. The houses list could be expanded and explained more thoroughly as well. Happy to be of help, RyanGerbil10 21:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
          • The problem is, some of the green dots are lost behind the picture of the small version of the school's crest. RyanGerbil10 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Much better. The houses section is great. However, Scm83x brings up some good points. RyanGerbil10 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No fair use rationales, also not comprehensive. Messy formatting and one sentence paragraphs abound. Take a better look at Hopkins School and Caulfield Grammar School. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale now added, and more info added to remove all one sentence paragraphs, plus some ideas gleaned (e.g. maps etc.) from the two FAs suggested. --Wisden17 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Scm83x, and also am not a fan of the non-standard infobox (best to use {{Infobox Secondary school}}). Although, as always I am greatly appreciative of fellow editors working to improve high school articles to such levels on Wikipedia. Harro5 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• The non-standard infobox is still a sore spot with me, and Scm83x's opposition on the grounds of poor prose in areas remains. Harro5 01:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support varied article with history and good pictures about a well known english school. --Newton2 20:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson

The largely unsung Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson is first publisher of an American comic book containing exclusively original, non-newspaper-reprint material. The company he founded evolved into the major media corporation DC Comics, yet he was forced out by business partners and went into obscurity until the last decade or so. This is one of the few available articles anywhere on Wheeler-Nicholson, and this article also exemplifies the use of print sources, which many Wikipedia articles do not use, relying instead solely on online sources. -- Tenebrae 18:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The lead section is not of sufficient length, for one thing. Other problems include, but are not limited to: too few footnotes, no explicit references section, and doesn't seem comprehensive. The section concerning the man's life seems terribly short, if there really is such a poverty of information about his personal life, an explanation as to why there is so little to mention is needed. Should be referred to WP:Peer Review. RyanGerbil10 20:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There actually is an explicit References section, at Malcolm_Wheeler-Nicholson#References -- Tenebrae 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Under-referenced. Has stub sections (including the lead). External links in article text. WP:DATE not followed. Suggest Peer Review. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Another observation. Please explain what "Ibid." stands for. I think its a shortening of the name of some book. Atleast expand the first occurance. Suggestion to get my support (I thought it would be no-brainer): Convert the external link within text to inline reference as footnote. Merge "Other works" into any other section. Explain the meaning of "Ibid."; and you will get my support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support offer. "Ibid." is a standard footnote reference, widely used in all types of research writing, meaning "in the same place". It serves to keep a researcher from typing out an entire citation repetitively time and again whenever one quotes more than once from the same source. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify!-- Tenebrae 13:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to Ambuj's point about WP:DATE not followed: This task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I should have been more clear. The point that I raised is that why are lone years wikified? And that too inconsistantly. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right; there's wikidate overlinkage. I wasn't watching the article carefully enough for edits. Removing them now. THANKS! -- Tenebrae 19:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. If you want to delink lone years, feel free. The 'dates' tab tool described above will make it easy. bobblewik 19:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Everett M. "Busy" Arnold

Arnold is a publishing pioneer involved in the creation of the comic-book medium, and of great historical importance in publishing. -- Tenebrae 18:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too short lead for a FA. Over-use of Fair-use images. External links in text. Too much use of quotes in the text. Should be replaced with sentences in third person with reference given. Many more issues, but first take care of these. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per Ambuj Saxena. Should be referred to WP:Peer Review, and then resubmitted here. RyanGerbil10 20:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The reference list is formatted slightly differently than usual. --Osbus 23:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew grammar

This article gives lots of information, in a non-biased and clear manner. It uses Wikiformatting in a good way, and is divided into quick sections. It doesn't have pictures, because it doesn't need them. At the end, it clearly lists its sources. I therefore think that it should be a Wikipedia Featured Article. What do you think? Daniel (‽) 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support as the proposer. See reasons above. Daniel (‽) 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now.

I'm a fan of that article (I should be — I've contributed to it a lot), but I'm not sure it should be a featured article at this point. My concerns are as follows:

1. When I go to edit the article, I get a message reading, "This page is 41 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." (That said, this is rather easily remedied, by splitting up the article into subarticles, and using summary style.)
2. Yes, there are references at the end, but the article doesn't actually cite any of them. (This is much more work to remedy; people with relevant reference works will need to make sure the article is in accord with them and cite accordingly.)
3. A lot of major points are missing. For example, there's no discussion of pronouns; someone could read the entire article without learning that object pronouns are suffixes rather than separate words.
4. Pronunciations are given using an ad hoc romanization. As it happens, I think the article's romanization is actually a good one; but it's never explained, and it differs from the one that's used (and that is explained) at Hebrew language. (I think the best fix here is to change the romanization at Hebrew language, and to state at Hebrew grammar that we're using the romanization described at Hebrew language.)

(To be honest, I think these are things that should be fixed regardless of whether this becomes a Featured Article; but your proposal gave it some urgency.)

Ruakh 19:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I have a basic understanding of Hebrew language. From the factual standpoint this article is very good and if FAC were purely about information, this would have my support, however, there are elements to how this is presneted which go agasin't wikipedia policy and which don't look good. The lead section is very short, and the text it does have is not an introduction, but rather somewhat tangantial. The table of contents is massively overwhelming. Most of it's sections are very short, so I sugest doing what World War II did, and replace the minor section headers with bold text, so that the table of conents isn't grabled with minor stuff. With most articles I would say that you need more than 2 refs, but this one is an exception. Most Hebrew speakers (My guess is that the people writing the article speak Hebrew) can write this article from knowlage, thus I don't think verfifibiltiy is a huge problem here, but I do think that the refs you do have, which are necisary to fulfil wikipedia policy are good, but not presneted right. Usualy, numbered refs are unsed when di0splaying inline citations. Since this article has none, the refs should just be displayed with bullet points. I think that an admazing amount of the text in this aticle is displayed in lists. although I think that list are a good way to display information, and an easy way to find information, this article uses it to the extreme. There are some places where the bullet points should just be made intro paragraphs. Lists are good here and there, but this isn't a featured collection of lists canidate, it's a featured article canidate, meaning that it needs more text. The lists are great supporting it, but it's too much. Also I disagree with the nominator in that I think that this article needs pics desprately. This page looks dull as it is. Giev it a few pics for color. It will be more attarctive, and will make people want to read it. Also, an article can't be on the main page without at least one pic. If these objections are adressed, ill change my vote. (I admit, this is long, but I felt passionate about this one.) - Tobyk777 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Move to peer review.
  • The lead should be in accordance with WP:LEAD.
  • Subsections should utmost [sic] be one-level deep.
  • One can think of book cover images, or screenshots of grammar checkers, any special orthographic detail - (the RTL to LTR shift during code-switch?)

Will support once these issues are fixed. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Question. By "utmost," do you mean "at most"? If not, could you explain that sentence? Thanks. Ruakh 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I meant at most. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly object: it seems to be based on the article on English grammar, which is in a mess. This FAC portrays Hebrew grammar in a very narrow sense, i.e., in terms of word classification, based on no larger structure than the sentence, and assuming that the written mode is the only one worth discussing. So much is missing that it fails Criterion 2c by a long shot. It ends up being superficial. Tony 10:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rapping

• Archive at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rapping/archive1

This article covers the topic completely. It is well written, accurate, sourced, and readable! Chubdub 21:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Urthogie 10:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Looks like a good start, but some sections, including the lead, could be expanded. RyanGerbil10 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The stubby summary sections and the lead could be expanded, as said above. However, my largest objection is that there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of criticism of rap. I personally have no problem with the music, but there is a massive group of people who dislike it or find it morally reprehensible, and not even mentioning is missing a big piece of the subject matter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. Rap isn't a music genre, so the criticism would be found at hip hop music. To criticize rap would be like criticizing guitar, or bass. However, I will work on expanding the lead.--Urthogie 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Incorrect. Rap is often included in hip-hop, but all rap is not hip-hop. I agree with the comments below, and I stand by my statement that this needs a social discussion. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think if there is no criticism section under that justification, then shouldnt most of identity be in Hiphop as well? Also, I think having the Vanilla Ice image is inappropriate. Cvene64 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A rock guitar is included in rock music, should we have criticism on the guitar page? The reason identity is included in this page and not hip hop is because there isn't a big controversy over white dj's like scott storch or the alchemist-- the controversy is over vanilla ice and eminem, and that controversy is sourced.--Urthogie 13:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object - For the following reasons:
  • Not comprehensive, as above; it definitely needs a discussion of controversy, including more about the "rap culture", with both sides of the issue presented, and presented neutrally. The "identity" section begins with an assumption that the reader is already familiar with the topic, and as such begins with what amounts to a non-sequitor. There is surely MUCH more to be said with regards to "identity". I bet you could find entire sociological disserations on the subject if you looked hard enough. I mean, just the concept described in the quote you've included, "I hate when white people try to sound black"... that merits discussion. "Sounding black"? And there's a whole racial divide thing here to talk about!

Good points. I will work on adding a cultural criticism section, and I will try to add more analysis to the identity section.--Urthogie 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Lacks "compelling, even brilliant prose", using informal language in many places. The article makes assumptions not backed up by sources; the assumptions probably shouldn't be made in the first place. Example: a fact often unrecognized outside of hip hop culture is that not all rappers are MCs. How do we know this is a fact? You have references for this, but how do THEY know it's a fact? Do they even use the words? Can you just turn this into a quote?

I'll turn this into a quote. How else could I make the prose more brilliant?--Urthogie 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Insufficiently referenced. I've put a few {{fact}} tags in on some obvious spots, but I haven't gone over the WHOLE article with a fine tooth comb yet, and there may be more references needed than I've tagged. Of course, when you've made the article more comprehensive, the additions will obviously need to be sourced too.

I'll work on referencing them. Perhaps you could help by adding more fact tags or even helping reference things?--Urthogie 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Could use more images to go along with the expansions you need to make. Pictures of rap, possibly of crime, since that's another topic that needs to be added.

Finding images of rappers (and celebrities in general) is difficult because of fair use restrictions. But finding images of related things shouldn't be very hard.--Urthogie 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Lead section will need to be expanded when the article gets longer.

People said the lead is stubby. What could I add to make it better? (Aside from adjusting it to incorporate the new section[s] you've suggested)?--Urthogie 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• • More discussion of specific rappers could be included.
• In general, it needs more work. Not ready for FA yet. Fieari 19:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are too many citation neededs. --Osbus 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, they just got added, so we'll work on citing them.--Urthogie 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B

Self-nomination: I have finally gotten through subtitle B of Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act. I am submitting this to FAC as I think that it is well written and comprehensive. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Very interesting. michael ^talk 13:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because it doesn't do what an encyclopaedia article should do. It doesn't explain the thinking behind the sections under discussion, doesn't mention who was responsible for drafting them, where the impetus came from, why each section was considered necessary, what criticisms there have been, and so on. All it does is very dryly give the author's interpretation of what each section of the act means, and as such it's well short of being comprehensive. Worldtraveller 14:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well. You've already tried to get such articles deleted, so I was waiting for your opposition. You really do contradict yourself though: you are basically asking for analysis, which is the very thing you are opposed to. I doubt I'll be able to satisfy you. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Original Research is not allowed. michael ^talk 14:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not asking for analysis - I'm asking for an encyclopaedic article. Have a look at two FAs relating to laws - Parliament Act and French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools - and you can see they discuss the relevant law, its background and consequences, rather than simply offer an interpretation of the law in plain English. None of this sort of discussion is present in this article so it clearly is not comprehensive. Worldtraveller 15:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Let me get this straight, they discuss the law? Under your narrow interpretation of original research, that's a strict no-no. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
        • You're not even trying to understand my opposition. Just look at the TOC here - does it look like the article makes any attempt to do anything other than describe the law piece by piece? It's as if our article on Hamlet just had sections entitled 'Act 1, scene 1', 'Act 2, scene 2', 'Act 3, scene 3', and so on, which described the play, without any decription of where Shakespeare got his ideas from, contemporary reactions to it, influences on other works, and so on. As for the token criticism section, it really isn't adequate. What about public opinion and newspapers? What about such things as Michael Moore and the congressman who told him he hadn't read the bill before voting on it? Why is all this omitted? Worldtraveller 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Public opinion and newspaper polls were not done specifically on Title III, and certainly were not done on Subtitle B alone (feel free to prove me wrong). Therefore it follows that opinion polls should be discussed in the main article USA PATRIOT Act. As for Michael Moore and the senator who didn't read the Act: yes, I saw Farenheit 911 also, and you know what? I was outraged at the time, but now I sort of wonder if Michael Moore didn't read the Act himself... anyway, I digress somewhat. My point being is that this sort of commentary is best left in the main USA PATRIOT Act article. This article is about Subtitle B, and I'm darned if I'm going expand its scope to material that is better off in another article. As for your comparison of the Patriot Act article I've written to an article I'd write about Shakespeare's Othello (f'rinstance): well, I might well do things differently. But then again, they are two entirely different articles, about two entirely different subjects. I don't find the comparison valid. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, so it seems that what you're saying is that there's really nothing to be said about title III subtitle B - that it's not a significant thing in its own right, but only within the context of the whole act. So, why split it from the main article? Worldtraveller 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Excuse me, but I never said it wasn't significant. Worldtraveller, I know you've been on Wikipedia for a long time now, so I know you are fully aware that when an article becomes quite large that it is normal practice for the article to be split. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Yes - but normally what's split off is expected to be an encyclopaedic article in its own right. What you're saying here is that all the discussion and comment that one would expect to be reported here only applies to the act as a whole, not to this one bit. So, why was this split off? If all the comment and reaction only refers to the act as a whole, isn't it better for an encyclopaedia to have an article on the act as a whole, rather than having articles on several arbitrary bits of it that don't tell the reader anything about the act as a whole? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldtraveller (talk • contribs) .
                  • I don't get what you're saying. TBSDY is saying that most of the criticism of the PATRIOT Act applied to the Act as a whole, and not to this piece, and as such it does not fall within the scope of this article. This is an article about Subtitle B of Title III, not criticism and comment of Subtitle B. What you're asking for is a total red herring. Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • Not to mention the fact that this article covers all associated reports and studies that were ordered in Subtitle B. I really can't include this much detailed info in the main article, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, because it would make it far too long. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see how what Worldtraveller is asking for is original research, provided sources are citable (which they probably are). I can't believe this section of the law was totally uncontroversial when it passed - surely it would have been debated, even a little? Is there any criticism we should know about? The impetus for the law would also be good to mention, as the article seems to assume some familiarity with the PATRIOT Act itself. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought I had actually provided the impetus for the subtitle: "The second subtitle, entitled Subtitle B: Bank Secrecy Act Amendments and Related Improvements, largely modifies the Bank Secrecy Act to make it harder for money launderers to operate, and to make it easier for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to police money laundering operations." As for it being uncontroversial when passed: the Patriot Act was passed with very little debate I'm afraid. But I'll do some more digging and see what I can find. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, here's the facts about this part of the Act: Basically this bill passed in the House of Representatives: 412-1. There was only one senator who dissented from passing the Act,a and that was Texas senator Ronald Paul, who stated the following (which I'll see if I need to update in the article):

          "The so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.

          "Unfortunately, instead of focusing on reasonable measures aimed at enhancing the ability to reach assets used to support terrorism, HR 3004 is a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs. Many of these proposals have already been rejected by the American people when presented as necessary to `fight the war on drugs' or `crackdown on white-collar crime.' Even a ban on Internet gambling has somehow made it into this `anti-terrorism' bill!

          "Among the most obnoxious provisions of this bill are: expanding the war on cash by creating a new federal crime of taking over $10,000 cash into or out of the United States; codifying the unconstitutional authority of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to snoop into the private financial dealings of American citizens; and expanding the `suspicious activity reports' mandate to broker-dealers, even though history has shown that these reports fail to significantly aid in apprehending criminals. These measures will actually distract from the battle against terrorism by encouraging law enforcement authorities to waste time snooping through the financial records of innocent Americans who simply happen to demonstrate an `unusual' pattern in their financial dealings.

          "HR 3004 also attacks the Fourth Amendment by allowing Customs officials to open incoming or outgoing mail without a search warrant. Allowing government officials to read mail going out of or coming into the country at whim is characteristic of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.

          "The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) is a package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens. (source, thomas.loc.gov)

          Ta bu shi da yu 16:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

          • OK, this is now updated. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks! I'm a bit concerned about the section appearing out of place, though. Still, it's better than nothing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
              • No problem. If you think it's out of place though, I should get it moved. What's your thoughts on that matter? I thought that this would be appropriate in it's own section, after all, Ron Paul is the only one to object in Congress. That's fairly notable in its own right, I'd have thought. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't know, it just feels odd, considering it doesn't fit in with the other sections of the article. Perhaps if it was meatier it might look less out of place. Johnleemk | Talk 18:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • I'm contemplating the irony of dissent in America looking out of place, because there was precious little when the Patriot Act was originally passed. Anyway, I'm not rightly sure that there is a more appropriate spot to put that info. I do see what you mean though, but there is no elegant solution to this one I'm afraid. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The only issue I have with this article is that now that I am part of several translation WikiProjects, the prospect exists that I may have to translate this into German someday. That might be enough to make me contemplate WikiSuicide. Other than that though, excellent work. RyanGerbil10 16:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Oppose This article DOES NOT comply with condition (e), that being that it has not shown its stability. This article is only 1 day old! It needs more time to be worked over, and in places, simplified. If this article were to appear on the home page, image going through so much information: sometimes, it is just too much. That being said, some excellent work went into it: it just needs some fine-tuning and simplification. -- Chris Lester ^talk 18:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's not entirely true. Yes, it is one day old. However, please review the first edit in the history: I split it from USA PATRIOT Act, Title III. That material has been in there for quite a while: have a dig around the history if you want to confirm. If you can tell me the areas that need to be simplified, however, I'll try my best to sort this out. As for it having too much information... sorry, but I really don't see how I can do much about that! In order to understand the Subtitle you need to provide information about all the aspects of the subtitle. Out of interest, what information did you want me to remove? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that there is limited scope with regards to what you can cut out, however to put this as a front-page article will simply not work, as the average citizen may simply not be interested. The information is too specific for such an award. Most people will be interested in a parent article of, say USA PATRIOT Act - this is far more relevant. -- Chris Lester ^talk 12:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Just because an article is an FA doesn't mean it will appear on the front page. Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • As John says, I don't really believe it should be main page material. However, all articles that are not deletion candidates should have the ability to become FAs. Also, it is quite normal for an article to be split into daughter articles if the parent article becomes too large. Obviously a split article will have more of a reduced or focused scope than the parent articles, which is meant to be more comprehensive and cover more aspects of the topic being covered. Incidently, apologies if I seem combatitive (I am a little when I'm on FAC), it is nothing personal. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Several FAs I've helped write passed on their first nomination, which came on the day of their creation. Not once has anyone suggested that they were ineligible for stability issues. You may be right on account of it needing work, but that's a different issue in itself. A one-day old but brilliant article can certainly be made an FA. Johnleemk | Talk 20:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The concern of 1-day runs deeper than purely time. Remember that other editors have not gone over the article in great depth: thus extensive changes may be neccesary. -- Chris Lester ^talk 12:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The idea is that FAC provides them a chance to do just that. If extensive changes may be necessary, it's not a stability issue, because it indicates that the article has major structural problems. Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have changed my stance to NEUTRAL. -- Chris Lester ^talk 15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object when I read this article I feel like I was on findlaw.com. I totally agree with Worldtraveller comments above. This page is just not up to FA quality. Remember what the F in FA is for. JohnM4402 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am well aware what the "F" in "FA" means. I have been a sole or major contributor to at least 11 of them. Now, could you please be more specific? Funnily enough, many articles on findlaw.com are of high quality, and had they been on Wikipedia I would have submitted them to FA. Please state exactly where the problem is, as this does not give me enough to fix any issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Great article, but I miss legal opinions about this section of the act. Have there been no articles published in legal publications? The only sources I see are government sources. Garion96 ^(talk) 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This reads more like a Wikibooks commentary/explanation on the act itself, not an encyclopedia article. There's little reference to cases involving the act (are there any?), there's little on the process or thinking that went into writing this section of the act...it seems that there's little more than a lay explanation of the act itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object per A Man in Black. Needs more on the history, e.g. one might be interested in questions like "On what date was this act passed?" More importantly, the article gives the impression that effectively no qualified sources have commented on any aspect of this piece of legislation. As far as I can tell, every one of the sources is a product of the United States government or government officials -- the breadth of sourcing needs to expand or it should be explained that there are no alternate POVs on this issue. I understand the Patriot Act to be fairly controversial; perhaps someone, somewhere, has commented on these provisions? As it stands this article severely fails the comprehensiveness requirement. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. History is better in the main USA PATRIOT Act, Title III article, IMO.
    2. The date that it was passed would also be better on either USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, or even USA PATRIOT Act.
    3. Needs more sources that commented on it. OK, fair call. Will look into this further. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The article need not contain a complete history but should include basic details like dates and margins of passage, authors and key supporters, etc. along with any information of particular importance to this title of the bill. All this information amounts to a paragraph and is very useful background for anyone linked to this article who is unfamiliar with the PATRIOT act. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs more references other than the text of the act itself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I already see one problem. From Template talk:Did you know, which you never bothered to go back to address the concerns of DYK and mine:

  Isn't this the part of the act that also makes it harder for coin dealers and people who deal in bullion because they need to keep meticulous records concerning certain transactions, namely the aforementioned bullion sales, and also transactions like junk silver? Or is it another part of the act?

  Also, to recopy the concerns in DYK:

  * his is way too political (and IMHO, inaccurate, and slanted to be pro PATRIOT ACT) for me to ever pick it, although I can't speak for others. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  * Technically its also not a new article, it was just cut out of a longer related article.--Peta 06:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  I mean, if you can't even bother to address that minor problem with DYK, what makes me think that this article is even FA worthy??--293.xx.xxx.xx 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • • I've been very busy, and I didn't notice the comment on DYK. I added it because I thought it might be something we could use, you seem to be taking it as a personal affront that I missed your comment. Technically it actually is an article in it's own right, so I dispute this assertion. Can you point out the inaccuracies, and where I am being political? I'd also like to point out that it is not too pro-PATRIOT Act, though if you can give me parts that are pro (or even anti) Title III, Section B then I'd be very interested in rephrasing or improving whatever you pick out. Incidently, nothing in Subtitle B deals with moving currency. That's the first section of Subtitle C. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Montsalvat

Montsalvat is an artists colony established in 1934 near Melbourne, Australia. It is one of the most noteworthy and well known artist colonies in Australia, and there are over a dozen artists of varying media still residing and practicing there. Exhibitions and performances of all sizes and styles, as well as weddings and receptions are held at Montsalvat today. It is perhaps most notable for it's unique style of buildings constructed of many different materials from all around Victoria.

Self-nomination: I believe this article has what it takes to reach featured article status. It has been in peer review for a while, and I took every suggestion seriously and made some major changes ad alterations. Peer review didn't seem to attract the audience I was hoping for, but what audience it did attract, their info and advice was very helpfull and greatly welcomed. If it is suggested I improve some of the pictures, I can with some time. I understand my grammar and spelling isnt as good as most, so a basic read through would be welcomed to get a neutral opinion and to an outside source to check spelling etc. Any other suggestions would be greatly apreciated and warmly welcomed, taken seriously and acted upon in a professional manner. Nick carson 05:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I'm not sure that this article is comprehensive, it seems like it could have more references and longer sections. RyanGerbil10 05:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It could diffinatly have more references but not hat much information exists out there about it in referencable form so I wish I could add in more but I can't. Fortunatly though, the references I do have are of a very high quality and come straight from the source itself. And don't forget my first hand expirience, just because I started writing the article dosent mean the information I can contribute should be discarded. I kept the sections a bit shorter as I didn't want the reader to be too bored with things, I offered further reading and external links if you want more information and pictures. By the way your a very fast reader ;) Nick carson 05:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Inconsistant ond often poor style of referencing. Please fix inline citations as well. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the articles on referenceing and citing sources, I also looked at other FA candidates and articles in peer review, and I got the general impression that there are multiple methods of referencing, some articles even employ methods that are unique to that particular article. So I tried to combine everything I've seen and read and cite my references in as simple a way as possible, if there are better ways or ways I am yet to figure out how to do then I would be more than welcome of them to be incorporated into this article.Nick carson 10:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The referencing is now fixed, but I am not sure if such a small article (~13kb) can be comprehensive. If this is all what is relevant (most likely because its about a colony only and not a town or city) and the editors find it complete, I suggest that it be nominated for good article instead. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article looks great, but it does have only two sources. I've made them into "cite" style, but that's just polishing a blemish, really. I am quite certain that there exist unbiased sources for this, given it's place in an extensivly documented period of australian art. - brenneman ^{L} 11:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object - I'm just uncomfortable with the use of only two sources. If those sources aren't 100% completely reliable and without bias, that could look bad on this article. FAs are supposed to be our -best- foot forward. Too much a risk. Fieari 19:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Obejct—Criterion 2a. Grammatical errors and redundancies throughout. For example, in the lead, what are "richly established gardens"? "Melbourne and it's surrounds"—rather exposed boo-boo at the top. Why square metres vs acres (should be hectares vs acres). "Visitors can pay a small fee to walk throughout its historical gardens, artists houses/workshops and explore the surrounding buildings." Oh dear, apostrophe again; remove "can"; "through", not "throughout"; insert "to" before "explore". "It's grounds and buildings today are used"—learn about apostrophes, please; remove "today". Tony 14:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well excuse me for not getting A+'s throughout english, for having poor spelling and grammar. I wont remove today because it refers to the present day not an ambiguous point in time. I should have added a comma in like this "It's grounds and buildings today, are used..." and yes there are further words after the word "used", please cite examples correctly. Richly established gardens are gardens that are fully established, can't understand my phrasing then change it to "Fully established gardens" or "totally established gardens" or any other way that would be better understood. Thankyou for your comments, if you were 100% positive of your objections you can of course change them yourself at any time. I might also add that I did make it clear that this article needed somone with better english skills than mine to do a proper spell/gramatical check. Nick carson 06:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears

This is the article about the American Pro Football Team. It is a well-written article covering all the basics about the franchise and its illustrious history in the National Football League. In my opinion, I believe that it is even better than the New England Patriots article, which has gained featured status. I have worked hard on this article and it other Wikipedia members. This is a good article and it will hopefully become featured.

Previous Nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive1
--Happyman22 01:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object, and not beacuse I'm a Packers fan. The in-line citations are applied inconsistently throughout the article. Some sections have quite a few, but other sections have almost none. Also, only thirteen in-lines for an article of this length seems too few in my opinion. There are also a lot of short paragraphs which need to be merged or lengthened, and the end of the article seems list and table heavy, although given the topic I'm not sure how you would remedy it. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added more in line citations to the article, and the article is less table and list heavy than the New England Patriots article and that has earned feature status. --Happyman22 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: I don't think there's a way to keep the information in any better form than in the tables that are currently presented. Themillofkeytone 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above Anonymous__Anonymous 11:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object "The Bears in popular culture" could use a complete rewrite, and large blocks of text are completely unsourced (and I would think finding sourcing for info on a large American sports team would not be hard). Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Clarkson Gibbs

It brings attention to a pivotal figure of Reconstruction. - Self-Nomination

• Very Strong Oppose This is a stub, I think that says it all. --Wisden17 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Snowball Oppose per Wisden17. Computerjoe's talk 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii

Highly detailed article with mmuch reference and factuality. Dbertman 16:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lead is too short, see WP:LEAD. Lack of footnotes and proper referencing, see WP:FOOTNOTE and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations for help with citations. Lists need converting to prose, and some subsections are too small and should be expanded or merged into other sections. — Wackymacs 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - only one reference and no inline citations. Pagrashtak 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

I believe this article has reached the point now that it is ready for FA status. It is perhaps the best article with respect to a spacecraft on all of Wikipedia, and has recently been revised to include all of the necessary things. I believe it to cover the important information on the topic, cover it accurately, and with a neutral standpoint. Tuvas 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review is here. Jtmichcock 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Looks like a pretty good article, but given that the mission is still in progress, and in its eventful early stages, I don't think we can consider this "stable" (criterion 2e of What is a featured article?). Statements regarding the current activities of the spacecraft (e.g. "Aerobraking is currently being conducted") will need to be substantially altered in the future to reflect changed events. I'd recommend holding off on this and waiting until the spacecraft has entered the later stages of its mission. --Robth^Talk 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 2(e) states as follows:

(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.

As described in the article, the Orbiter is operational and circling Mars presently and is intended to reach a fixed orbit in November of this year. So the threat that it would "change significantly from day to day" is not present. Likewise, there have been no "edit wars." So I can't see 2(e) being directly applicable. Like the Hubble Telescope, which is a featured article and where research is ongoing, new discoveries are always being made and added as appropriate to the article. Jtmichcock 14:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, and I agree that a case can be made; this is, however, a different sort of case than the Hubble, since the Hubble has reached a stage in its mission where the regular routine has been long established, and major changes to the article are not likely to be necessary; this, as I noted above, is still in the early stages of the mission, and a large portion of the mission description is focused on events still in the future. This will need to be reworked and quite possibly substantially altered in the relatively near future. So that's my take on it; if, however, most other people feel that it does meet the criterion, I'm wiliing to withdraw my objection. --Robth^Talk 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Object—needs a good copy-edit. Examples from the top:

• Second sentence: why write "dollars" and "$"?
• "hi-resolution"—nope, not like "hi-fi".
• "The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) launched"—Why tell us for a second time at the top that "MRO" is the abbreviation? Why spell it out here, anyway? Below I see that it's in italic. Please use a consistent term throughout. "launched" is not intransitive (it must be "was launched").
• It could do with more commas, e.g., "Fifty-six minutes after launch the Centaur completed".
• "The launch was postponed from the previous day"—Which word is redundant?

The whole thing, not just these examples, needs fixing. Tony 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Object Per Tony Chipka 15:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it appears as though it still needs a bit more work. I guess I'll toss it back to the peer review for a while, to try and get some things a bit better. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia, this is the first time I've come close to trying anything such as getting a FA up there, guess I'll wait and try again later. Thanks for the input! Tuvas 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Singlish

I think this is complete. Nothing to say. Maybe some sounds would be an improvement. ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 11:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Object Intro too short, TOC too long, no inline cites, way too many lists, article a bit long. Rlevse 11:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Object reasons above -ScotchMB 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Object per Rlevse --Wisden17 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I can't seem to find a peer review, either. Was it reviewed? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Object per above. Regarding the article length and the length of the Table of Contents, reccomend breaking off details (especially lists) into other articles, providing only a summary in this article, with a link to the new subtopic as the "main article" on that subtopic. Also reccomend a peer review. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of procedures on English wikipedia. Can you launch a review then? ♦ Pabix ^ℹ 15:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviews aren't technically required for FA status, but they are helpful. You'd get a lot of the same comments you've been getting here, but in a way more focused towards helping you improve the article than objecting to it becoming an FA right now. It's normally customary for someone involved in the article to launch the peer review (since you will be the one(s) responding to suggestions), but if the procedure confuses you, I could do it. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've made the Peer Review for you. FYI, you never put a FAC tag on the article. I've also removed this from FAC for you. Rlevse 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Charlemagne

Very long and well-detailed article, and has few flaws. Well for flaws, I never really checked, but its extreme length definitely makes it quality. --NicAgent 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. For starters, the lead is far too short and references are insufficient. There are no inline citations. —Cuiviénen 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object for no inline citation and 57 kb length, right to begin with. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Image:Charlemagnecrown.jpg needs proper tagging/Fair use rationale. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I generally agree with the above, but this one has a lot of raw material and is well worth working on. This can be gotten to FA status with effort. Sam 14:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I was just thinking the same as Sam, that this article would be well worth bringing to FA status. But as for nominating it now, especially on the argument that while it hasn't been checked for flaws "its extreme length definitely makes it quality" — uh, that's more a case for removing per WP:SNOW (=not a snowball's chance in hell). I have suggested to the nominator on his page that he might like to de-list it for now. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

If delisted now, I would support for an Article Improvement Drive. Sam 14:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The nominator very reasonably agrees with de-listing it and has placed a speedy tag on this page (which I've removed, there's no need to delete it), so I'll just remove it from the FAC page now. Bishonen | talk 18:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

Chris Benoit

Chris Benoit exemplifies the best in professional wrestling, and his article exemplifies one of the best written articles here on Wikipedia. about a wrestler. Chad1m 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article lacks references as required by FA criteria 2c. The image Image:Benoit & Woman.jpg is lacking source information. The "Wrestling facts" section also needs to be converted from a list format into text. --Allen3 ^talk 03:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Allen3. Also needs proofreading.--Bcrowell 03:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object, as above. Also, is there any information on him outside of his career? Childhood, inspirations, influences, that sort of thing? Fieari 04:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per Fieari and Allen3. Some sections, like records and trivia should be converted into prose. RyanGerbil10 04:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Refer to WP:PR - this is a nice-looking article, but the lists are excessive ("Westling facts", "Trivia", "Championships and accomplishments", "Championship succession") - please move to a sub-page, or sumamrise as prose here, or both. References are also essential. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object, just doesn't cut it as written. -AKMask 19:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. Staxringold 16:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• This was referred to peer review from FAC, because it clearly has a snowball's chance of being promoted. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• This article was returned to FAC because peer review is not a dumping ground for failing FACs. If the submitter wants a peer review he can request one himself without the cluttered text from a past FAC review (that said linking to the past FAC nomination is fine). Cedars 08:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• I have de-listed this nomination from WP:FAC, noting that it doesn't have any chance of succeeding, and also that the nominator seems to have nominated and then abandoned it. Please compare the page instructions: "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." The nominator is kindly advised to take it to Peer review provided s/he is motivated to work on the article to improve it. Bishonen | ノート 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC).

Wilhelm Hasenclever

This article is a translated German featured article. This article is also well written, and featured quality in my opinion. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 21:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC) I will wait. ~Linuxerist A/C/E/P/S/T/Z 21:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. You will need at least some inline citations. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Big-assed oppose
  • article was translated and created today
    • Probably still needs some copyditing.
  • Article is currently uncategorized
  • German book titles should be given English translations.
• Circeus 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)