Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2005

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations

Tecmo Cup Football Game edit

Self-nomination. An one-man effort on a rare Sega Genesis game.
This article has already been on;

Peer Review (with a grand total of no comments),
CVG Peer Review (with a whopping 1 comment).

Taking the silence to be a sign of satisfaction, i'm nominating it here. Please bear in mind that this game is extremely rare, and only 4 sites even mention it. This accounts for the short number of references and external links. LordViD 19:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor object. Several problems with the style and wikification. This article doesn't entirely comply with WP:MOS. Several basic dictionary words such as success are linked for no reason. Trivia section is too short, as a two item list. Fair use images do not have fair use rationales. Very good effort though, and I'll support when the things I've mentioned are fixed. — Wackymacs 19:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the irrelevant links and added the fair use rationale to the images. What do you suggest should be done with the trivia section? Should it be merged with other sections or removed completely? Also, you mentioned that this article doesn't comply with the MOS. Any specific points?LordViD 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Though this might sound like nitpicking - the References section should not use small size type for just three references, and should be placed before the External links section. The External links section should also read External links, not External Links (this is mentioned in the manual of style, I believe). I suggest you merge the Trivia section into another section. — Wackymacs 20:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There, all done. Will you support now? Pretty please? :) Thanks for the comments. LordViD 20:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Though I hate to say this, there is one thing still keeping me from Supporting this article. There are possibly too many sub-sections, because each section should ideally be two/three paragraphs long according to guidelines, and short sections look bad. I suggest that you remove the sub-sections. — Wackymacs 20:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too many sub-sections? I can only see one, which is the Guts system section. I've merged the content and removed it. All other sections are over two/three paragraphs long. Perhaps you are also referring to the Characters section? But doesn't the table compensate for that? LordViD 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks pretty good, though someone else might have objections that I haven't noticed. I might also note, I changed the HTML table into a Wikitable because it uses simpler syntax and looks better. — Wackymacs 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • thank you for taking the time to review the article :-) LordViD 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Theres just not enough there for me to support. 2 of the references are to GameFaq walkthrough/reviews, there really is absolutely no point in referencing a gameFaq review. Anyone can write them, they're not professional in the slightest. I mentioned in some music FACs that we should have mainstream reviews for them over internet ones, and it applies here. You say its a rare game, and I'm sure it would be near impossible for you to find some published critical feedback for the thing, but still it stands. Also, on googling the thing and looking around, it seems that there was a NES version of this game released called "Tecmo Cup Soccer Game", which isn't even mentioned. - Hahnchen 23:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the gamefaqs review reference, and added info on the NES version. LordViD 12:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object -- The article doesn't do enough to put this game in a larger context of Sega Genesis games and soccer games. Of course, because of the relative rarity of the game, some of this information may not exist. I think that, at minimum, I'd like to see --
  • Historical context. Are sports games common? Were they common in 1992? Was this a popular sport at the time, particularly in these countries? You could have a section that goes into more detail about the success of Captain Tsubasa games, the article doesn't explain what "Captian Tsubasa" was. Are these kind of "clone" games common?
  • Impact of the game on the genre. In this case, you might mostly be talking about the *lack* of impact. You might be able to cite poor sales figures, a lack of published references, lack of marketing on the part of the publisher. Even if the game was published with no impact whatsoever on anyone, there should probably be a section mentioning this, with references.
On a side note, the sidebar mentions that this was published only in Europe? If so, you might want to mention that in the text, perhaps in the first paragraph. -- Creidieki 00:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All valid points, but what you're asking is impossible. The internet has proved useless for me when writing about this game, however, i'll try as much as I can to incorporate all your points. In the meantime, I can clearly see that this article is going nowhere but to the trash heap. LordViD 10:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not to the trash heap! not every article can become featured because, in this case, the subject is very rare and difficult to write a lot about. Its a good article, but I doubt it will get the featured article status. — Wackymacs 10:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sure the internet has been next to useless in searching for references to this game. But since when were featured articles just a collection of all the things found on the internet. It might be impossible for you, but for me, a featured article on a computer game should have a critical reaction section with reviews from popular gaming magazines and possibly sales figures. I mean heck, I'm finding it a hard time looking for magazine reviews of games that came out in 1998, let alone 1992, but still. - Hahnchen 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry if my comments seemed harsh; I hope that you won't be discouraged by them. I believe that this article could become a featured article, and I trying to give suggestions for how to flesh it out. My first request was for a History section, to tell the reader about the status of Sports games in 1992, and other related issues. That section wouldn't need to have information specific to this game -- it just needs to *set the stage* for the game. The reader probably isn't a sports video game fan living in 1992, so you can get a lot of milage with "obvious" statements like "Sports video games have been one of the most popular genres since the beginning of video games, and in 1992 were the second-most-popular genre after Action" (or something like that, I just made that up). Wikipedia might have most of this information already.
And my second suggestion was, if there was no effort to promote the game on the publisher's part, try to mention that...Your local librarian (public, school, or university) can help you find any magazines of that time period with reviews of the game, and can probably get copies sent to you, quite possibly for free; one or two of those would go a long way towards supporting a section that says, "This game was poorly received and had little impact on the industry.".
So I *do* believe that you can have a Featured Article on a topic like this. At the moment, the article is too short and doesn't cover all of its bases, and it'll probably take several hours of research to get it there. But I disagree with Wackymacs; I tend to think that every article can become featured. -- Creidieki 06:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments weren't harsh in anyway. All you say is completely true. But I think you severely underestimate the rarity of this game. I've looked everywhere; books, magazines, the internet. No luck. This wasn't a game that made any news, top ten lists, or even got reviewed. It's as if it didn't exist. As you and the others have pointed out, a game article could never be featured without proper sections about its impact, critical acclaim etc., and so I'm withdrawing the nomination. LordViD 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Dennis Enviro 500 edit

Self nomination. This article has been peer-reviewed and the introduction section is expanded. 61.10.4.84 05:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - After reading this article, I know much more about low-floor buses and trains (but only because I got curious and looked it up). I'd love to read a great article about a bus I've neither seen nor heard of before, but on this one, much work needs to be done to get there:
  • The writing is sloppy - In places, sounds a bit like rough translation: integrated with all advantages of Transbus and its subsidiaries or and good reputation was made by the passengers.
  • Much of it is lists - Most of the article is listings, in one format or another, of various technical details, with little to no context.
  • No overall context and history - It's a doubledecker bus. Why was it built? What niche does it fill in the World of Buses? What is its design history? Is it in a class of its own for some reason, or which are its competitors? How much does it cost? What is it particularly good at? These are some of the questions that should be answered. As it is, this bus doesn't come to life for me whatsoever...
There is more, but I think the above already requires significant work beyond tweaking. --Tsavage 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collyer brothers edit

I just discovered this article today: A fascinating and little-known story of two urban hermits living in New York City in the 1930s and '40s, obsessively hoarding tons of junk in their brownstone. Very well-written and well-organized biography, with free-use photos and a lot of Times articles listed in the references section.

  • Oppose. Unfortunately I see no evidence those images actually are free. It appears they are all mislabelled. Great topic, though.--Pharos 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize many of these images from Corbis. Modern photos are of no use; there is nothing but a little park on the site today. The story is interesting but works much less well without contemporary pictures. Also, the term "Collyerism" has been used to refer to a pathological refusal to throw things away. Uucp 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Very interesting article, but the lead is too short and some of the images do not state where they are actually from originally. I am eager to support when the issues mentioned are fixed. — Wackymacs 22:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and, the ' House contents' and 'Contents of House' sections should be merged into one section. — Wackymacs 22:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is looking much better now, but I think the death sections should be merged together and named 'Deaths'. I will then support. — Wackymacs 08:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Fascinating article, but as above, the lead is too short. And just a small note, I'd say that a disambig is needed at the top, the Collyer brothers can also refer to the guys who created Championship Manager. Google Oliver Collyer Brothers and you'll see some links. - Hahnchen 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may be generational: anyone over the age of 50 will have no doubt who "Collyer Brothers" refers to. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have made the following improvements to the article:
    1. The lead section has been expanded slightly. I don't think the lead needs to be very long, and it's not, but it has been lengthened to provide better summary of the brothers' situation.
    2. A disambig has been added per Hahnchen's suggestion.
    3. The four images used in the article have been re-tagged as fair use. One is from Corbis and I'm in the process of finding out where the other three (stated to come from the NYPL) really originated.
    4. The "House contents" and "Contents of House" sections have been combined. Redundant descriptions have been dropped (although a few additional items described in the Times articles, like the eight live cats that the police found, have been added.)
    5. A sentence from one of the Times pieces has been added for closure. Andrew Levine 05:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Could I suppose be a bit longer, but this makes for a fascinating read and is well-written. Ambi 01:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Entertaining article, the length supported by the morbidly fascinating story. I have one major objection, and a couple of minor concerns. I also made a few minor edits and copyedits rather than include those here.
The article and its references seem rather close to the this article "The Collyer Brothers" in Useless Information. - I realize there can only be so many ways to write the story chronologically, but these articles are very close in content throughout, some of the sentences are very close in wording, and there is at least one identical list of items removed from the house. As for the References, are these direct sources used in the Wikipedia article, or is the list simply copied from the Useless Info article's reference list? I'm not sure what the policy is on rewriting other articles, where's the line? Or was that article written from this one?
The account of the tonnage of junk removed is unclear. A first figure of 103 tons is cited, next, an additional 19 tons is mentioned, then 103 tons is mentioned again. It's unclear what the final total is, and this makes the chronological sequence fuzzy as well, from "House contents" through "Manhunt" (the account was strictly chronological up to that point).
Reason for "Manhunt" section unclear" - The term "manhunt" doesn't seem justified by simply the bus rumor, and the police going back into the house. It seems to make more sense to include the following "Langley Collyer found dead" section by deleting that second heading (i.e. "manhunt" is a dry reference to the renewed house search, culminating in the body). (Perhaps irrelevant here, and in poor faith, but "manhunt" would better apply in the Useless article, where a repeated "where's Langley?" device was used, and in addition to the bus sighting, a dead body found in the river and briefly thought to be him, was mentioned.)
Is "disposophobia" a recognized medical condition? - A quick Web search, and the name itself, make me think not, but it's not made obvious either way. This should be clarified. The way it's written now could be interpreted to mean that this...behavior resulted in its very own clinical condition.

--Tsavage 03:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link from your first objection and found it very serious indeed: It looks like one of our article's authors simply took the Useless Information summary, stripped out the idiotic attempts at humor, and rewrote what was left slightly to avoid blatant copyvio. With that considered, I am withdrawing my nomination of this article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the immediate source was the Useless Information article (someone should look throught the article's history and see if this is likely), it should certainly be credited as a reference. Also, for any references that were not directly checked, but are merely "as cited in Useless Information", that should be explicit. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Southeast Asian Games edit

The Southeast Asian Games (also known as the SEA Games), is a biannual multi-sport event involving participants from the current 11 countries of Southeast Asia. The event also features new comer East Timor. Its the right time to feature this one. Homboy 17:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Mainly consists of lists, no references, the fair use images need fair use rationales and at least one of the images has no source/license. It needs more context, refer to WP:Peer review for specific suggestions on what can be added.— Wackymacs 18:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Wackymacs, and also wish to point out that the games haven't even happened yet, and so this article is certianly not stable is it is not yet complete. Harro5 09:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object More suitable for current events box, rather than feature article. - nathan (currently doing the Arnis in the 2005 SEA games article)
    • I remember someone requesting this to be a featured article or "In the News" on the help desk a few days ago. Someone said it wasn't notable enough to be there, but I disagreed. If it is sufficiently updated, it could be a news item. - Mgm|(talk) 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (boggles) 11 participating countries doesn't count as notable? Dayem, that reasoning sounds just whack. --Tagasilab 07:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object aboslutely. It is far from being an FA article in terms of any criterion.--Huaiwei 14:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Opening of the SouthEast Asian Games, except for the introduction of a FAKE President
  • Please remember this is a not the talk page, so do not write things here. Terenceong1992 16:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. save the commentary for her own article here--Tagasilab 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The SEA Games haven't ended yet, and want to make it a featured article, maybe later or something. Also, the quality is not very right yet for FAC standards. Terenceong1992 16:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The SEA Games have to be over first, then the article has to go through peer review and only do you end up on FAC. Follow the process. ;) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 11:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-American relations edit

This article describes Sino-American relations, and has references. I think this will meet the FA status. 202.40.210.244 05:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • object due to stub sections. --Jiang 05:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • object can't agree more with Jiang -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article was generally written from an American point of view, and to a certain extent, focuses too much on the contemporary relations with the PRC. There's far less coverage on the relations between the United States and Qing, and its successor the ROC. — Instantnood 12:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Makes no reference to the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski. —thames 23:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine edit

I'm nominating this. It is a comprehensive article, which is well-written, referenced, sourced, picture-ied, discussed etc. I've implemented most of Peer Review's suggestions, and I really see no reason why Palpatine couldn't be a Featured Article; it would be pretty neat- AFAIK, our first Star Wars FA. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The additional material was really unnecessary. It was a good, though bloated, article beforehand. Today's changes have largely succeeded in making it fatter with poor grammar and a variety of short, choppy sentences in the opening segment. - Anon
I feel I should note that the preceding comment is from an anonymous user's whose removal of references and other edits to Palpatine I've reverted several times now now. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Palpatine/archive3 -maclean25 11:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Is it not possible to fork this article out? It's so long, 100 kilobytes, and looks very text heavy. - Hahnchen 16:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Impressive, but much too long. It needs a good copy-edit to get it down to a decent size. — Wackymacs 18:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per above. Article is three times as long as it should be. Jkelly 21:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you two point out specific areas of bloat? --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For ideas on how to trim the article without sacrificing any important information, see articles that make heavy use of sub-articles like Charles Darwin. It's slightly unusual to do so with a fictional character, of course, but hey, I'm all for it. Sub-articles let Wikipedia please both the people who only want the basics on a figure and the ones who want all the nasty little details. Best idea since sliced bread and templates, I says. -Silence 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A division between film and expanded universe material would be a great start. - AWF
I'm not sure that's possible. I suppose one could divide by sections, and anything that is not a movie-section would be EU. But EU would inevitably contaminate (or vice-versa) the movies- how on earth could one possibly explain the opening of Episode III and General Grievous without drawing on EU knowledge of Grievous and the events of the Clone Wars micro-series? etc etc. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I suggest that we do just as you say: have one article for each of the six Star Wars movies he had a major appearance in, if there's enough information to justify making a new article. Then have a separate article for "EU" stuff in general, or something similar, again depending on how much noteworthy information there is (obviously not everything currently on the "Palpatine" page is noteworthy, like the move-by-move battle description; this is a science fiction movie, not a world-famous chess match or a Civil War battle), and mention the EU stuff on the movie pages only where it's directly relevant. Anyone have any problems with that idea, at least as a starting point for cleaning up this page? (The only people I expect to have any strong objections are the "fancruft" police who will demand that this page be scourged of information. :) But even that will be much easier to do once it's subdivided into different articles which can be individually checked for relevance.) -Silence 22:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me: I was saying that splitting by movie was not a good idea because Palpatine as a subject cannot be easily split that way. It is not a natural way to divide and categorize (albeit the current chronological, then subject, system is not perfect, it is a lot better than splitting by movie) by canonicity, because most people do not care about "Palpatine as solely an EU character" or "Palpatine as solely a movie character". Indeed, the meat of my previous statement was that the fundamental flaw of dividing suchly may be simply that it is impossible to divide the information that way- that the movies have come to inextricably be supported and explicated and borrowing from and nestled within the EU, that there is little relevance to the EU/movie distinction anymore, that effectively the prequel trilogy is simply EU in another medium. Grievous was just an example. But anyway, the battle descriptions you denigrate are largely gone: there has been a lot of editting on the article to try to address the concerns adduced here. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the current system is unacceptable. Little effort seems to have been put into Wikifying most of the Palpatine page, or properly moving sections into new satellite articles (in fact, the new attempts to move the article into new subarticles seems amazingly rushed, with absolutely no effort put into setting context for any of the articles, and the abrupt moves shattering numerous footnotes). The more I read this article, the more I feel that it needs at least three or four "cleanup" tags, not Featured Article status. "Palpatine becomes Chancellor" violates WP naming standards of using gerunds (it would be "Palpatine becoming Chancellor"), and is much clumsier than Palpatine's Chancellorship or similar. The liberation of Naboo needs the "the" removed from the title, and doesn't seem significant enough for its own article right now anyway. The article topic "Palpatine as a ruler" also doesn't make any sense; why is "Palpatine as a writer" a subsection of this? This article has lots of great information, but its presentation is a true mess; it will probably take months of work to get it to acceptable quality. -Silence 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. That would be my fault. I'll fix it tomorrow.--User:Jedi6 November 27, 2005
Maru: you do understand that StarWars.com has two different articles on Palpatine, correct? Under his entry, they have "film" and "expanded universe," each a distinct piece written for its own purpose (hell, they even have two more for "Darth Sidious"). As far as Palpatine's abduction is concerned, the opening crawl of the movie explicitly states what happened. You don't need EU material to explain it anymore than you would for the article on Revenge of the Sith. These are very poor justifications on your part. - AWF
What is right for SW.com is not necessarily right for Wikipedia. And a bare mention in the crawl does not explain and justify Grievous' entire stoyline or influence. It is your justifications which are sounding weak here. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
StarWars.com was used as an example. It's actually quite simple to divide information provided by film from information in EU material and I'd certainly be curious as to why that "isn't right" for Wikipedia. As far as the Chancellor's kidnapping is concerned, I'd also be curious as to how so many who saw the film had no trouble grasping this concept. There are millions worldwide who have never read a Star Wars novel or viewed the Clone Wars micro series for themselves. - AWF
  • Yes, and you may even want to try having one Palpatine page for each Star Wars movie he played a major role in, considering how much information there clearly is to pass around. More room to grow, anyway. If you do decide to try our suggestion, then once you've decided what satellite pages to make, I'd consider moving most of the information there, and summarizing it on Palpatine with an average of 2-3 paragraphs for each section and a link to the main article using Template:Main. Also, of course, you should make sure to keep the satellite pages in good condition along with the main page; too many articles develop a large quality difference between the top page and the sub-pages, it's best to avoid that if you want to get Palpatine Featured in the future. I think the satellite pages idea is a good one. Even if it ends up being decided that the pages are too trivial and should be deleted (which I'd oppose), the process of making them and creating summaries for them will let you end up with a good, much shorter page anyway. So it's probably the best course of action regardless of what the decision ends up being. -Silence 02:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How would the footnotes work? --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The same way they work in Hugo Chavez, an article that is very long, very heavily footnoted, and uses a large number of satellite articles. How else? -Silence 06:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is very hard for me to do, being a Star Wars fan and having editied this article myself before. But, my reasons are:
  1. It's been said before, and I'll say it again: length. Length, length, length. Unfortunatly, when you split up an article it isn't much use as featured.
  2. I agree with the above user that the article goes into too much detail with the fight scenes, but that's not it. The article gives a detailed synopsis of all of Star Wars. The article should be focusing on Palpatine and him alone. Touch, but do not elaborate, on the other incidents. To use the above example of the Yoda vs. Emperor fight, how about this: Yoda confronts Palpatine, and they fight thier way into the Senate chamber. At this point, both combatant lose thier sabers, so the fight continues with other Force powers. Eventualy, Yoda escapes, and Palpatine orders clone troopers to try to find him, to no avail. Palpatine senses Anakin is in danger. Palpatine goes to Mustafar, where Anakin has suffered severe injury at the hands of Kenobi and the lava. Palpatine rescues his apprentice and gives him his distinctive breathing suit.
  3. I do not think this article uses too many pictures, but if you need to eliminate some, sacrifice the less canonical ones from sources other than the movies.

I still think you can do it...there is still good in the article...--HereToHelp (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are no "less canonical pictures." They are all in the same continuity. The Wookieepedian 06:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Take a look at the information on Star Wars canon, right here on Wiki. The ultimate form is considered "G-canon," meaning the content of film. Expanded Universe material is considered secondary and void altogether if it contradicts any material provided by Lucas himself. - AWF
    • Oppose - The entire article is under a spoiler warning except for the first sentence. This is carrying the concept of spoiler warning to a ridiculous extreme. It should be quite possible to create a non-spoling lead paragraph, at the very least. Furthermore, the basic facts of Palpatine's biography are common knowledge to practically anyone who cares to read this article. Balcer 05:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has been fixed so I withdraw my oppose vote. Balcer 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I disagree. Numerous articles have only the first line or two non-spoilered, and then have an immediate spoiler tag that continues for the whole article. It's impossible to write about the details of a fictional character without giving away spoilers, and even the most basic elements of Palpatine's character can be considered "spoilers", since his very identity is one of the big mysteries of Star Wars. I agree that it's a bit silly (if the entire article is a giant "spoiler", then how can we use a spoiler-warning when really bad spoilers appear in the article, to warn off people who know the basics but not some important details?), but it's also quite standard. -Silence 05:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you consider certain factoids non-spoilers, then I could remove the spoiler warning: a fair summary/introduction. If Palpatine's dual identity as the Sith Lord Darth Sidious is not a spoiler, if taking over the galaxy is not a spoiler, if who kills him and when and where, is not a spoiler, I would be glad to move the spoiler tag further down. --Maru (talk) Contribs 06:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply like to have something like what we have in the Luke Skywalker article, for example. A few sentences at least to indicate the importance of Palpatine as a character. I stand corrected though. The spoiler warning can be carried to even greater extremes: consider Anakin Skywalker.
The reason I am sticking to this point is simple: if this ever becomes a featured article, the lead of the article will be put as an abstract on the Main Page. And surely we cannot put a spoiler warning on the Main Page (at least I have never seen that done). Balcer 07:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, that's nothing to worry about. If we included this on the main page, then we wouldn't worry about spoiler warnings, because our concern would be giving people a taste of the article's info so they'll want to learn more, not protecting people from the very info that we intend to tease them with. I see no problem with having a spoiler warning for almost the entire article itself on the page, and no warning at all on it's main page if it ever appears on the main page, especially considering that while a spoiler warning on an article stays forever, a main page appearance is only a single day's event, and thus shouldn't overly influence the content of every FA article in existence.
  • Oh, and I've fixed the Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader articles, in response to your point about the "soft redirect" silliness. :) Let it never be said that Silence isn't an impulsive (and compulsive, and perhaps even repulsive) editor! -Silence 09:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object mostly on length concerns which other people raised above. The EU material should also be better separated from the film material (the cultural awareness gulf between the movies and the EU is really, really big). I do not have high hopes for this article right now, even though I'd like to see a Star Wars article of high standards to which we can then compare the others. Please note that I condensed the Yoda-Palpatine fight scene description as Carnildo suggested (in fact, using Carnildo's words verbatim), and the old description is now back. See this diff. I don't have the time or the patience to wade through the entire edit history, but I would like to offer my personal opinion: just because "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", we are not freed from the obligation of making it a legible one. Oh, and just to provide a bit of information, remember what David Brin says: The whole Luke-Vader-Emperor scene in Return of the Jedi is IRRELEVANT! It makes absolutely no difference to the success of the rebellion. The only characters who matter a bit in the actual plot climax are the wookie and Lando!" [1] Anville 12:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Anville, from an EU viewpoint Brin is wrong; that objection has been rendered moot by the retconning/addition of Battle Meditation- in essence, the TIE fighters were empowered by the Emperor, and had he not been distracted/killed, would certainly have smoked Calrissian (as you will notice they were doing quite adequately till they crashed themselves). That also goes for the fleet- the Rebel fleet would defintely have been pulped by Executor and associated vessels had the sudden withdrawal of Battle meditation not led to Excecutor crashing into the Death Star II and the fleet panicking. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any basis or source for this? What information ever claims that the Emperor was using "Battle Meditation?" (Especially considering that he was occupied before the battle began to even take place). Frankly, it sounds made up on your behalf. - AWF
Heir to the Empire. Thrawn Trilogy. --Maru (talk) Contribs 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why that scene had to happen in the last movie, not the first one. It requires that you care about the specific characters involved to have any tension, since the fate of the universe doesn't in any way rest on what happens in that sequence of events. :) -Silence 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Mint edit

Self-nomination. I think most of the issues that can be resolved for this page have been resolved. There's no way to get around the "long list at the bottom" unless you just cut that out of the article, which makes no sense, because it's relevant encyclopedic information. Anybody have ideas about how to reference information found in the Min Museum itself? That's honestly the references that need to be added. [posted by Absecon 59 00:14, 25 November 2005]

[See Old nomination]

  • Comment. Why didn't you submit this to Peer Review after that was suggested in the previous nomination? This nomination seems to be an attempt to get feedback on how best to handle various problems with the article (like the fact that half of the article is a ridiculously enormous list; note that there's a separate FA for Wikipedia:Featured lists), not an attempt to nominate an article as one of Wikipedia's best. -Silence 04:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is in a poor textual arrangement. The images scatter haphazardly. The long lists at the bottom can be tabulised. It's better off to fix the article, getting things shipshape, before the nomination.
  • Object, same reasons as before:
    1. The images Image:1907 NOMintpostcard.jpg has no source information.
    2. The image Image:NO Mint Booklet 2.jpg is claimed as GFDL. However, it appears to be a "slavishly accurate" reproduction of a two-dimensional work, and thus is not eligable for copyright. Further, the subject of the image may be copyrighted, in which case the only possible license terms would be "fair use" (which would be hard to claim, as this image is not essential to the article).
    3. The image Image:NOmintpostcard.jpg is missing.
    --Carnildo 19:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bohuslav Marashek edit

Bohuslav Marashek. This article should be featured. That's all that needs to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.40.197 (talk • contribs) [2]

  • Images are not actually a requirement for a featured article. — Wackymacs 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per above. You might want to enter it for WP:Peer review for specific suggestions on what can be done. — Wackymacs 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus rex edit

Self-nom. (a little bit) This article is very detailed and informative while not being too wordy for non-scientists. Covers scientific debates as well as the T-rex's image in popular culture. Presents all sides of all debates. Article is well-refrenced. The article has had two peer reviews, one recently. Banana04131 18:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Ramallite (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Wackymacs 19:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks comprensive, but I think there should be added something about geographical distribution. Currently you have to read between the lines to find out that fossils are restricted to North America Fornadan (t) 20:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
added a sentance to beginning of Discoveries section (forgot to sign) Banana04131 22:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Last peer review -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment even older peer review just in case. . . Banana04131
  • Object All the internet refs need to be footnotes. Also the text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis. The T. rex in Jurassic Park section has absolutely no reason to be there, it needs to go. This article has nothing to do with Jurassic Park, thats like using the Great White Shark article to disscuss the shark in Jaws or the RMS Titanic to disscuss the 1997's Titanic. Also Other giant theropods section uses Jurassic Park 3 as an example, again using a film as an example is inappropriate.
Biology has mostly minor style issues. Sometimes it feels like an essay, but since most everything about a dinosaur is speculation its not that big of a deal. I'm mainly concerned with things this sentence in Predator, Scavenger or Both? section: "But why be so well armed if T. rex were a scavenger?", asking a question for it to be answered later in the article is not encyclopedic. I'm not thrilled with the subsection using questions as titles either for the same reason. Its a good article and its close, but not there yet. MechBrowman 03:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have renamed the sections so they are not questions, which I disliked as well. I have also removed the Jurassic Park paragraph since it is not needed. I might take a look at copy-editing the Biology section myself a bit later on. — Wackymacs 09:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution license, but does not have information on the creator. This is a violation of the license. --Carnildo 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object. While the science is comprehensive, T-rex's image in popular culture is scant. This probably deserves an article of its own (and not just Jurrasic park) with a summary in this article. -- Samuel Wantman 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article neglect the "Popular culture" section. And why is there a "Other tyrannosaurids" and "Other giant theropods" sections? shouldn't they respectively belong to Tyrannosauridae and Theropoda? CG 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, prose is not clear enough in places. In particular, the second paragraph of Discoveries ("In 2000, there was a controversy regarding its name...") is very opaque to those of us unfamiliar with these matters. Which June were these discoveries made in South Dakota - 1892, 1900, 2000? Exactly how could the 2000 discoveries possibly have caused a fossil named in 1905 to be renamed, if the rules hadn't prevented it anyway? This paragraph needs clarifying badly, and perhaps even rewriting with a clearer, better-organised argument. — Haeleth Talk 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, my criticisms from the peer review still stand, also there should be one consistent referencing system applied to the article with the html links in text given full citations for tracability.--nixie 04:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very compreshensive.--Smerk

Hollaback Girl edit

I decided to clear out this nom and start it over with a clean slate. It has changed significantly since it was first nominated (so I'm not sure which objections are still applicable). In addition, there were several objections I found inactionable. The old nomination can be found here. Raul654 09:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remark: "It is cited as the musical descendant of Toni Basil's single 'Mickey'" is painfully over-erudite for an article about a pop song. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you're right. I made a change for clarity (of course, not just because it's a "pop song"). --Tsavage 19:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark - Wouldn't it be more constructive to refactor the original nomination, rather than remove it entirely? The inactionable, and the protracted sidebar conversations, could go. The central objections, mine, at least, still stand (or would have been amended if they were still here), as the article has only changed in terms of the objections (a significant part of that due to changes I've made, in response to my own objections). This seems like wiping the slate clean to avoid dealing with the process as it's unfolding (although, I don't know anything of the history of FAC...maybe this is normal?). --Tsavage 19:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done this before. It's unusual but not without precedent. Raul654 19:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've not commented on an FAC for a song before, but here's a point, and I think it applies to many Wikipedia articles of this nature. The critical reaction section of the article only mentions a few online pop websites and maxim. Now, of course I respect Allmusic, I use it all the time. But, say in the UK, no one really cares that much about what websites say, compared to the specialist music press. I'd much rather see reviews quoted from NME, Q Magazine, and other US publications, like Rolling Stone. I've written a few new articles on some computer games, and where possible, I try to reference print magazines over things like gamespot and IGN. I know it's a lot harder to reference print reviews, but in my eyes, they are more established, professional and respected in the music world. - Hahnchen 19:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree 100%. That was exactly on my mind, but (as I maybe do too ofen), I deferred to my possible ignorance, figuring maybe Pitchfork, et al, were pretty well central these days. In the old days, (circa 1999-2000, I guess), it was still about (in the English-reading world), in the US, Rolling Stone, Spin, maybe Village Voice, and some big paper critics as the mainstream first line of music crit (for better or for worse). And in the much more print-oriented (and, um, literate?) UK, NME, Melody Maker, Q, Record Mirror (RM), etc, were the first to turn too. And then, there were always a few high-profile "underground" titles of the moment that generally had very relevant critical comments for their time. And yes, for all that is available on the free Web, I think if the editors don't have personal, first-hand knowledge to inform their research and synthesis (e.g. here, about, the music industry, music production, entertainment media, etc), it's hard to construct something really in-depth, to a Featured level compared to the many generally solid and informative articles on Wikipedia, from readily available online sources only. Case in point, omitting the remix history for a contemporary pop hit where remixes are available creates a major hole in the coverage, but someone who doesn't have an idea of the industry and subculture aspects of modern big label 12" remixes could easily not see this, as the broadcast edits of song and video would seem to be the "important" aspects. If each new FA reestablishes the standards, then I guess this is an attempt to establish a higher one for songs to come. (I dunno why I've become so attached to this one FAC, maybe its the sudden cold snap that's keeping me from the fields...) --Tsavage 19:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is already featured-worthy. --DrippingInk 20:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't personally care about where the review comes from. All that matters is that the song was critiqued, and was published. The point about the remixes and such is somewhat true and somewhat false, although I really have no idea what to do about its presence in the article. --Hollow Wilerding 21:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, it's not a major point, and there is already a lot of information on the article. But I would just prefer more in depth coverage from established music publications. I know it's more difficult to find for a single, as they are rarely published online, but something like referencing some of the magazines as mentioned above would mean the article would have some unique information not found elsewhere on the web. - Hahnchen 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I hate the song, but this is a remarkably thorough article. Mareino 21:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - After the recent changes, I'm close to supporting, except for these specifics:
  • The recent reversion of chart position notation from numeric (#1, #82, etc), to written out number-one, number eighty-two reduces readability and should be reverted. I don't know if there's Wikipedia style guide guidance for this, but the using numerals for positions is quite common, and employed elsewhere on Wikipedia.
  • You're picking your references. There's no consistency on this in Wikipedia. The Billboard Hot 100 article uses both, FA "Layla" uses numbers (#27), and so on... Billboard itself uses "No. 1". I'm suggesting that, in a dense chart data section, the abbreviated, easy-to-read format makes sense. "#88 with a bullet" vs "number eighty-eight with a bullet". No. 88 is OK, too. (BTW, reverting w/o comment is kinda rude.) --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some singles articles have it typed one way, while some the other. I don't see what the fuss is all about. I'd prefer it to be typed in standard English because "#1" or whatever suddenly throws the reader off into a world of numbers before resetting in English again. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setting aside the issue of consistency across Wikipedia, my point here is not to push for My Favorite Format, it relates directly to the issue of the long, unrelenting Chart performance section (addressed below). This is a reference article. Try this: scan the section and locate number eighteen and number four, and so on. Try it with #18 and #4. It's readability, or scannability, whatever. Anyhow, IF you deal with the other chart performance issue below, I'll drop this point, as really, it is WHATEVER as far as a standard format... ;) --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the changes, at least, in the Chart perfomance section, and you summarily reverted them. Again, I believe I'm working within the process -- this objectinon is directly based on the amount of chart data included (and not a personal format preference), which as I've noted below is excessive for the info it contains. As it stands, "Chart performance" accounts for 25% of the article by word count, and most of that is US straight Billboard data. I find that unbalanced, most of it could be summed up in a paragraph or a simple footnoted list; one step would be to at least make that stuff readable. --Tsavage 00:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the "#1" style should be avoided because it will not be understood by many non-U.S. readers. If Billboard use "No.", then that would be a good choice, since it is more widely understood. (I would agree, by the way, that numbers should be used in preference to text for chart placement data.) — Haeleth Talk 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Remixes section should be in the main body of the article, not appended to the lists and stats section. (If there is a convincing reason why the Remixes are not a part of the general production and promotion story, I'll strike this objection.)
  • Well how about due to the fact that remixes after often materialized after the release of the single? A single is never produced alongside its promotion. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is totally incorrect. Remixes can and do appear before, at the same time, or after a radio single is released. A remix may even be the "primary" single as far as play or publicity. If for editorial guidelines a "reference version" of songs had to be defined, there's a good argument for LP/EP version over the radio single (for one, since the radio edit--and music vid--tend to have profanity excised). Parallel example in film: if there are major differences in, say, US and Euro releases, do you pick one and footnote the other, or cover all the versions as part of the main article? --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough; remixes will be placed in the body of the article then. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Critical Response should be more representative of the music media. If it is meant to portray the fact that critics had diverging opinions, then this material should be otherwise presented. Some of the major music media response has to be included, such as Rolling Stone, NME, etc (see previous comment), at least a couple to augment the current selection. Considering the chart section deals with millions of units and radio and video impressions, the media coverage covered should represent the same scope.
  • I honestly don't understand what you mean by this. Could you explain it more thoroughly? --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's kind of apples and oranges. Hollaback is a Big Hit. Critical Response should therefore at least include Big Media: Rolling Stone, Vibe, MTV, whatever, critical response from the media that presumably reach the same mass numbers that the song racked up in sales and airplay. Otherwise, a selection of quotes from college newspaper critics, for example, would be just as appropriate as Pitchfork and AMG (they're published, often well-written and well-circulated). And it's not online-offline, it's size and stature that should be relative to be representative. --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. A review is a review. Whether it's big media or small media, it's the same can of worms. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's preposterous. Think about it... --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it's the same can of worms, the same field, the same thing: just a bunch of reviews. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tsavange on this one - a review on Joe-Nobody's blog does not have the same weight as a review in Rolling Stones does. A request to use more mainstream, weighty sources is a totally reasonable (if difficult to fulfill) one. Raul654 10:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you might be in charge of this FAC, Raul654, but just because you've made a comment doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly change my mind. --Hollow Wilerding 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but if you are going to be obstinate about the constructive criticism you are being given, then it sort of defeats the purpose of having your article reviewed. Raul654 02:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, like I've stated above, a review is a review: it doesn't matter if the source is not well known, because the result is going either be good or bad. I don't see the reason to include one musical source if another one is going to be excluded; I hope the article nomination does not fail because of this reason — that would be faulty generalization. --Hollow Wilerding 00:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Music Video section needs a bit more detail, at least the video director's name, and the shooting location (town or city). If this section is to be as long and prominent, it should match the length with depth.
  • I've addressed your objections, however I cannot locate the city or town the music video was shot in. The only information I knew about its filming whereabouts was the state of California. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection satisfied. --Tsavage 05:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chart Performance section is padded with irrelevant info, and needs a good edit:
Please note: Forcing all of this detailed explanation (below) may obscure the core objection for some (it's directly above), or make it/me seem overly picky or "against" this FA for personal reasons. I hesitate to think it's a tactic. The items below are examples, not a strike list. The fundamental problem is a section that takes up 25% of the article (a third if the redundant Charts section is included), while focussing primarily on US Billboard charts (the article summary states this is "an international success"). There is some notable, interesting info, like breaking the million download mark, but all of that can be expressed MUCH more succinctly. The peak position and trajectory data is also repeated in the Charts section. And much of it is so fleeting in nature, it is difficult to decide what couldn't be included here: e.g. fastest-rising single on the chart in 2005, as of when? still? we're IN 2005. IMO, basic editorial perspective and judgement needs to be exercised, to put this in line with the rest of the article. --Tsavage 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is US-centric; too much Billboard, too little rest of the world.
  2. Why references to Mariah Carey and Kelly Clarkson, etc. In the case of breaking someone's record, maybe, but even there, the stuff considered here is changing monthly, annually. And I don't get the point of noting which song replaced which, and only arbitrarily (why what replaced Hollaback, but not what Hollaback replaced...?)
  3. Why the reference to the ARC Weekly chart? It more or less says: In case you don't trust Billboard, here's another chart that says the same thing? Not justified.
Overall, I understand and support the value of a thorough section for chart fanatics, but this isn't it, this is mainly a lot of words about a bunch of Billboard charts and should be edited down accordingly.
  • Why not list what songs replaced it? Why not list what records it broke, what records it didn't break, etc.? Also, most of what is written just comments on the song's that exceeded its time at the number-one position, and cannot be replaced monthly, annually, whatever. And why not mention the ARC Weekly Top 40? It's just another chart; we're not attempting to ask users to visit the website if they find Billboard is in a minority. --Hollow Wilerding 01:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, what kind of reply is that? It doesn't address anything specific in the objecton. For example, what is the purpose of stuff like this, how does it further comprehensiveness, usefulness, interest value?:
  • It maintained the position for four weeks before being replaced by Mariah Carey's sixteenth U.S. number-one single, "We Belong Together".
  • It's comprehensive because the song replaced it at the top position. Had the song peaked at number two, then the point would be irrelevant. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then isn't it just as important/interesting/"comprehensive" to know what song Hollaback replaced to make it to number-one? --Tsavage 23:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the week ending 29 October 2005, "Hollaback Girl" slid off the Hot 100, along with Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone". Although "Hollaback Girl" had been bigger, "Since U Been Gone" remained in the top fifty of the Hot 100 ten weeks longer.
  • Longevity. Hollaback Girl was expected to attain the longest run of any single on the Hot 100 in 2005. However "Since U Been Gone" accomplished this instead. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect to live to a hundred, but...so what? Who expected Hollaback to attain the longest run? --Tsavage 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This made it the fastest-rising single on that chart in 2005; once again, Mariah Carey's "We Belong Together" replaced it, and remained at the top for ten weeks. --Tsavage 03:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, which song replaced it at the top, and the fact that it was unable to spend the most time at number one in 2005.
  • Yikes. I don't know what to say, other than, two down and four to go (and that there should be version timings in the track listings, and which version is 3:20 noted in the sidebar), and Carey and the others are irrelevant as presented... --Tsavage 23:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The length timings would be nice to have, but they're just far too difficult to locate, especially if you live in Canada (like myself). The CD single is no longer in shops, and Amazon.com does not display them. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not sufficient. Because material is difficult to locate does not invalidate an objection. None of my objections that have to do with content require ridiculously impossible actions, they are the type of thing any diligent researcher/writer would source as a matter of course (for example, in order to present a paper in school for grading, or an article to a professional publication). If I wanted timings, I'd contact the record company, the publicity department handles stuff like this all the time. If I wanted a basic music description, I'd contact someone with the skills to provide a technical breakdown that could be verified by simply listening to the song. (Please note, I have contributed new material and copyedits to this article over the course of this FAC as time permitted, but my priority isn't too make sure this article becomes an FA, otherwise, I would resolve all of my own objections. Trust me, it's all pretty standard stuff...) --Tsavage 00:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing a basic description of the music: song structure and recording. (This was in my objection in the previous nom proceedings, archived a few hours ago.)
  • Having edited the "Versions and remixes" section and repositioned it back into the main body, the absence of a music structure section is now glaring. I thought about why this article seems so wrong: it is largely because it is written "fan-style" (whether or not the prime editors are fans) or just in a very contextually unbalanced and uninformed way, with a wrong weight and filtering of facts. The writing makes what has been given attention seem inappropriately lavished upon, like the drone-on about chart performance, and this sets off warning alarms, I imagine, with any truly interested reader. The same factual material, written with the right balance and tone, would maybe have gotten my support, if it "read right". Right or wrong, we are not data-filtering machines, presentation is of course CRITICAL... There is a reason why some people write, others don't. Of course that doesn't invalidate global participation in Wikipedia or the fine quality that comes from such but it does set up a barrier -- a much higher standard -- for FAs. Looking at "Cool" as today's main article is a little embarassing from the perspective of having given this FAC some extra thought. I checked a couple of previous song FAs (mainly, Beatles) and found basic syntax errors and typos just for a start, as if an FA couldn't be run through a spellchecker.... Anyway, on with the fight for, um,...BASIC QUALITY IN FEATURED ARTICLES. --Tsavage 14:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're objections continue to grow and I've reached the point where I'm about to give up because I'm exhausted from attempting to make this article as perfect as I can. Please note that There is no such thing as a perfect article. I will remedy only the objections that you posted before the sixth. --Hollow Wilerding 21:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. There is no such thing as a perfect article. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which is no reason to let clear imperfections slide. Does the impossibility of true perfection mean that we don't have to check our spelling? That we don't have to be comprehensive? That we don't have to cite sources? I'm confused here. Anville 22:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is comprehensive. Spelling we should check — nobody's perfect. Our sources are cited. Is that better? --Hollow Wilerding 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect, I cannot consider the article comprehensive in its current state. Tsavage made a very reasonable request for "a technical breakdown that could be verified by simply listening to the song". The way the article is now, I can't even tell if the song has an instrumental bridge. Why should I care about the many remixes if I know nothing about the original? Any article on a song should provide this sort of information before it can become an FA. This information might not be online, in which case a Google search won't find it. So whoever said writing a Featured Article was supposed to be easy? In each of the three articles I've pushed to FA status, I relied upon non-Internet sources. Consequently, each article contains information the Web could not provide elsewhere, making them de facto unique and valuable resources. The editors reviewing "my" articles held them to high standards; this may sound selfish of me, but I don't see why the bar should be lower for any other article. Anville 17:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Six actionable objections... --Tsavage 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm through posting to this FAC thread, except in response to direct actions against my objections. The objections seem to be clearly worded and easy to understand, as those who have commented on them, or posted below and acknowledged them, don't seem to have had a problem with their meaning. Thank you. --Tsavage 00:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC) I struck rather than deleted; in any case, on the point of my general comments here (which is unrelated to the FAC proceedings proper), I changed my mind! --Tsavage 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. --Hollow Wilerding 00:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very thorough. I personally don't agree with any of the five objections listed above, but that's just me. B1oody8romance7 02:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral based on mixing external links and references within the body. Choose one system. The content itself I think fine having gone over it. Marskell 09:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I placed the references where they belong and the external links where they belong. Would you like to upgrade your vote? --Hollow Wilerding 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was only neutral to begin with so my strike through oughtn't alter things. I hestitate to move to support, however–the comments from the main supporter for the article are, shall we say, needlessly aggressive. I don't want to vote on FAC based on attitude, but given that I don't actually have a substantial vote I feel comfortable simply striking out my comment and leaving be. Absolutely kudos on making the change though. Marskell 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be aggressive when the situation requires it; this isn't one of them. --Hollow Wilerding 23:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your comment is indicative of a very poor understanding of what FAC is. 'Nuf said (as they say). Marskell 22:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why man is entitled to assume — it doesn't mean he is accurate. --Hollow Wilerding 00:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point proven. Marskell 05:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. More than anything else, I concur with the last three standing objections raised by Tsavage, of which I find the final one most compelling. In addition, the claim about the (ahem) scatological expletive made in the lead still has to be justified. This may be a remarkable density of profanity for a pop song, but it certainly isn't for pop culture. The claim may be entirely valid (assuming good faith, I'll grant that it probably is), but the article doesn't back it up. The derisive comments in "Critical response" say that the song's general lyrical quality is low, but they don't make a point about one particular word being used more frequently than the pop-song average. The Urban Dictionary "reference" also doesn't do anything for me. (Note: I've never heard the song, and if nothing else, this article convinces me I haven't missed too much. If that's not what the intended effect was, well, ...) Anville 10:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra strong SUPPORT! Since I just had to return to see Cool on the front page today, I decided to drop by this article's nomination. Seeing how it was reset (odd?), I figured I might add my two cents: I don't know how much information is expected to make up Hollaback Girl, but its current state is good enough. I worked hard on it, but some users threw me into a wall, which led me to quiting Wikipedia — so I return today for one last vote to the article that will be featured on the front page within the next few months. Hollaback Girl became my pride, devotion, and insecurity (literally, please). So please don't leave a message on my talk page relating to this issue, as I give User:Hollow Wilerding full permission to erase the page if necessary. If anyone fails to believe that, lead them to this nomination page. I support this article and hope that the majority of above objections are ignored. The article is complete. GOOD WORK EVERYBODY! GOOD WORK! --Winnermario (Goodbye's the saddest word)
  • For the vote, thank you, Winnermario, for the comment about me allowing you to blank your user talk if necessary... thank you... I think... --Hollow Wilerding 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided that you put a footnote directly after the comment about Toni Basil, to provide a specific example, so it doesn't appear to readers as just a baseless claim. -- user:zanimum
  • Oppose, sorry, but I don't find the writing to be FA quality. I'm not knowledgeable about this subject (not at all enough to copyedit it myself, unfortunately), but I have to agree with Tsavage about the presentation. I'm registering this objection because the bolded bits quoted by Tsavage above ("being replaced by Mariah Carey's sixteenth U.S. number-one single, 'We Belong Together'", etc) caught my eye, and I'm quite taken aback that such irrelevancies are offered in a FAC, and that good advice about them, such as Tsavage's, is slighted. Also, checking out the section "Composition and meaning" in the article, I find the prose rather incoherent, especially the first paragraph which is a collage of source text fragments slightly (too slightly, I would call it plagiarism) reworded, and combined without enough regard for what words and phrases referred to in the original context. Bishonen | talk 01:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the excess information, except for "We Belong Together" replacing it on the Billboard Hot 100. For now, that is all I can correct. --Hollow Wilerding 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as the article is fantastic. Too bad the song is the pits..... 64.231.163.172 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Let's have more like it! We should be demanding of quality, but let's not get hung up on every little point. Remember you can't get everybody to agree on everything—trying to do that just means frustration. What's important is that everyone is broadly satisfied that this is a high-quality article. Everyking 01:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good comment, Everyking! :) I bolded your support so that it can be located with less effort. --Hollow Wilerding 02:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to avoid hurtful remarks, but if my oppose above is taken as suggesting that I'm "broadly satisfied", I'll have to be more blunt: the article is not well-written. In places, it rips off its sources, while degrading the style and structure of them. I also see serious objections remaining from others, especially Tsavage. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object based chiefly on featured article criterion #2a: "A featured article... should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. 'Well written' means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant."
  • First paragraph is poorly-written. Second is well-written, but "Composition and meaning" has quite a number of poorly-written lines. Few errors in "Versions and remixes", but more in "Chart performance"; largely minor. The "tongue-in-cheek" bit is a bit lacking if it's trying to provide evidence of tongue-in-cheek moments (why is a cameo "tongue-in-cheek?"), and doesn't really flow with the rest of the section; it's in the same paragraph with the completely unrelated info about the music video's success, presumably to avoid being too short of a para on its own. Also:
  • "Lyrics that are apparently directed straight at Love include:" must be substantiated with a citation, or at least some reasoning; I see no reason to assume they're targeted specifically at Love, considering how generic they are.
  • Requirement unsatisfied. Stating something doesn't make it so. -Silence 21:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend moving second image to "Versions and remixes", where the version used internationally is briefly discussed.
  • I also agree with several past objections, such as the ones regarding a lack of high-profile reviewers (Rolling Stone, MTV, etc.), and don't understand why Hollow claims that "A review is a review."; a more well-known source is always better than a less-well known source with the same credentials. Even more important is "Missing a basic description of the music: song structure and recording." (and instrumentation and etc.) — a Featured Article about a piece of music should spend at least a couple of paragraphs discussing the music itself, regardless of the situation, to meet the "comprehensive" requirement.
    • A review is a review. Rolling Stone reviews don't amuse me anyway. --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether they amuse you or not has nothing to do with whether they're as noteworthy as possible, which is what Wikipedia cares about. I find it vaguely ironic that you'd justify an editorial decision based on personal preference for a certain magazine over another, when you've (rightly) attacked everyone who's criticized the article based on subject matter, because of their own personal dislike of the song, rather than on the article itself. Still, since you do have a good number of reviews, one or two of which is sufficiently noteworthy, I'll change to "neutral" if you can meet my other concerns, even though ideally there'd be more mainstream reviews—as has been said above, the article doesn't have to be perfect. (The lack of information and analysis on the music itself is something that bothers me, though. How hard information is to find is irrelevant to FA nominations, only how important information is matters.)
  • I will attack someone when it is necessary — that has yet to come. Okay, I will look for some other reviews for "Hollaback Girl", including All Music Guide. (Although I think those reviews are complete nonsense; The Emancipation of Mimi had tracks "It's Likte That", "Mine Again" and "Say Somethin'" checked as the best tracks on the album; after the successes of "We Belong Together" and "Shake It Off", the two tracks also had check marks, while "Mine Again"'s had disappeared. Rather fishy.) --Hollow Wilerding 21:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, thanks. -Silence 22:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, the Fair Use Rationale for some of the images seems rather dubious; note the fifth rationale in Image:Camera2.jpg and Image:Hollaback Girl music video shot.jpg, "I believe that this music video screenshot should be used as fair use because it adds variety to the Hollaback Girl article." I don't think any court would find that convincing. Hollaback Girl screenshots would "add variety" to my line of counterfeit T-shirts too, but that doesn't help make them "fair use". -Silence 07:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence you typed makes no sense whatsoever, but judging from what you wrote preceeding the questionable comment, I removed the line "I believe that this music video screenshot should be used as fair use because it adds variety to the Hollaback Girl article.". (I also corrected a humiliating typo I previously did not catch.) --Hollow Wilerding 21:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's questionable about it? I gave a valid reductio ad absurdum to counter a bogus fair use rationale you'd provided. :P But yeah, that satisfies this requirement. -Silence 21:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling Stone was just an example of a mainstream publication, its specific status is irrelevant, though there is an article in any case. -Silence 22:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not provide a review on the song. Despite that it does hint its presenece, it fails to communicate a complete message. --Hollow Wilerding 00:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I would like people to begin pointing out where the article is not well-written. Every time I read it, I have no issues. Remember that there is no such thing as perfect English. --Hollow Wilerding 00:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's just silly. "Perfect English"? That argument almost sounds like a parody of the "perfect article" claim, comparable to responding to requests for references to "remember, there's no such thing as perfect references!" The request is for Good English, not "perfect English". And, again, one FA requirement is "that the prose is compelling, even brilliant". -Silence 00:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would really prefer that people do not ramble about something unrelated to my question — because this appears to be a trend on Wikipedia: I ask questions, I receive an answer that has nothing to do with my question. User:Silence, could you please point out some of the English that you think does not meet the criteria of a featured article? --Hollow Wilerding 01:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Stefani's debut solo album Love. Angel. Music. Baby (2004).
  • The song features a limited range of instruments, and a hip hop-influenced production, courtesy of producers The Neptunes (Williams and Chad Hugo).
  • The lyrics indicate that Stefani insists she is not a "hollaback girl", a response to Courtney Love, who labelled Stefani as the music industry's "cheerleader".
  • a tough task, considering she felt there were already too many tracks to begin with.
  • The song is known for its repeated use of the word "shit" (which is sung thirty-seven times), and appears most frequently in the bridge
  • Love had publicly accused Stefani of being a "cheerleader" for the music industry, essentially, an artistic sell-out.
  • Lyrics directed straight at Love include:
  • the bassline from the Queen single, "Another One Bites the Dust", is played.
  • In a dark-humoured, line-by-line analysis of the song's lyrics,
  • I don't see what is incorrect about this sentence, but I've fixed it. --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • was produced by No Doubt bassist and former Stefani partner, Tony Kanal.
  • came courtesy of Diplo, a Philadelphia-based DJ/producer with a Miami bass background, known for fusing
  • Thank you for pointing out some of the errors, and you are correct. I suppose my eye cannot catch every little detail, but it seems as though yours can! One concern, however: for Stefani's debut solo album Love. Angel. Music. Baby (2004). If there is anything wrong with this sentence, I might as well sink a ship. --Hollow Wilerding 13:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a review from Rolling Stone. If this pleases anyone, feel free to scratch your objection. --Hollow Wilerding
  • Oppose Its simply not encyclopedic! Gwen ain't that important musically. It would be diffrent it it were an article about Ozzy, Rush, Madonna, Elvis, or even Bjork, but not Gwen. Plus, this is exactly the article I'd write if I were being paid by an independent promoter (ultimate scum of the music industry) to write an article. We need to prevent advertising. If Gwen were to someday lead to ska overpowwering dance music or something, great, her article should be improved and FAed, but not the individual songs. JeffBurdges 12:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think your objection is actionable, and is therefore irrelevant. I might be wrong though. Raul654, is this not the same issue that was raised by a user during the old nomination? --Hollow Wilerding 13:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not call me a promoter until you locate the proper evidence. --Hollow Wilerding 14:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hollow Wilerding is correct - this objection is not actionable. Raul654 18:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am objecting that this article does not "exemplify our very best work" because it is "not encyclopedic", which is a grounds for deletion. Gwen herself is obviously encyclopedic, but it seems work is being directed at individual soongs, not the author. I've not accussed any specific person of being paid by independent music promoters, but the pattern of work, such as targeting individual songs instead of the artists own page, is clearly consistent with such an agenda. Anyway, if my objection is ignored, it should still be taken as a request to mark the article as "not for the front page" JeffBurdges 19:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rule of thumb where the featured articles are concerned is that: theoretically, anything that can survive VFD could concievably become a featured article. If you think this article is unencyclopedic, then nominate it for deletion (I'm confident it would end up being kept). This is not the proper place for objections that content is "unencyclopedic" Raul654 19:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an article is encyclopedic enough to exist, it's theoretically encyclopedic enough to be FAd. If you think that an article about a Gwen Stefani song is so trivial that it shouldn't even have an article, then the place to bring up that complaint is on the pages discussing what Wikipedia's notability standards should be, not on a specific FA vote, because currently a #1 song is always an acceptable article subject, and almost anything that's an acceptable article subject can, theoretically, become a Featured Article if it's made expansive, in-depth, and high-quality enough. You should be happy that we're discussing whether or not to FA "Hollaback Girl", rather than something like Bulbasaur or Porthos (Star Trek). Trust me, it can get much, much worse. -Silence 20:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Bulbasaur is probably more encyclopedic than Cool; the pokemon phenomena was quite a bit more influential than Gwen; athough Porthos (Star Trek) is clearly not that big a deal. IMHO, this article should obviously not be deleted, quality should trump some other concerns. But not using encyclopedic for "featured" status lends considerable support to the deletionist cause. It would be different if "featured" was simply called "well-written" or "quality". Anyway, i'll be happpy as long as I know how to vote against the article for front page status. JeffBurdges 21:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that none of the criteria on Wikipedia:What is a featured article in any way relate to the subject matter of the article. I understand your concerns, but our job here is to try to interpret the current FA policies and requirements in terms of the specific articles that are brought here, not to try to change how FA works on an individual level. If you believe that we should add a new criterion to FA that requires the article reach a certain level of "noteworthiness" above even that required to exist on its own as an article, then you should probably bring that up on that page's Talk page, and perhaps start a petition to get this requirement added. Fighting against a single article's FA is a minor and short-term goal compared to the change you seem to be advocating. -Silence 22:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I snipped the "Chart performance" section. --Hollow Wilerding 14:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have any actionable objection. But if it were up to me I'd like this article not to become featured. Almost every featured article is interesting to me and presents me with something I'd like to know but this one doesn't. In fact reading the lead leaves me with no interest in reading the rest of the article and forcing myself to do so anyhow presents me with little memorable content. I supported "Cool" because every concrete objection I had to it was fixed. But I didn't much like to see it on the main page and I would like even less to see another song by the same musician there. Don't get me wrong - I think it's great that Wikipedia has good coverage of contemporary culture. And maybe lots of people feel the article is a compelling read, even though I don't. At any rate I can't oppose because I don't see anything specific that should be fixed. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every Featured Article goes on the main page (not for a long, long time, anyway). If you think this article is FA-quality, but just don't like the subject matter and wouldn't want to see it on the main page because it's embarrassingly trivial, then I don't see any justification for not voting "support" for it. On the other hand, I do agree with you that the article could be more compelling and interesting; at least the "Cool" article told me a bunch of tidbits that I didn't know, but the Courtney Love backstory is comparatively simplistic, and many aspects of the song aren't explored at all, like the reason for all the "bananas" references, the random visit to the supermarket, etc.. (And there also don't seem to be any genuinely positive reviews for the song on the page: three reviews are treated as though they're "positive", but they really just come across as neutral descriptions of the song's style, which are then immediately followed by passionate denunciations of the song.) But "not interesting enough" is too vague to really be an actionable complaint either, so I'm not basing my objection on that. -Silence 19:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, all of them. I indeed don't so much mind this being classified as a good article but I would mind seeing it on the main page. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Silence's correct observation about the "positive" reviews: Checking the sources, in all instances (LaunchCAST, AMG, Smirke/PlayLouder), they are taken from album reviews, and in context, serve primarily as brief song descriptions. Quoting them in a way that implies upbeat excerpts from positive reviews of the song, as is the case here, is inaccurate. The whole mixed critical reaction/polarized critics thesis, while quite possibly accurate, is not supported here. As presented, the info is at best misleading. This also calls into question the corresponding note in the introductory summary. --Tsavage 22:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe lots of people feel the article is a compelling read, even though I don't - IMHO, if you take the time to comment, it's probably worth taking the time to formulate your comment into a Support/Object format. An important point here is that Wikipedia potentially makes "everyone an expert", so, while it would be obnoxious for people to constantly comment on things they "don't know about", it's not very functional to rely on "experts" coming in to make sure things are right. Here, for example, if you examined why you don't find the article "compelling" (I'll take the liberty of interpreting that as simply "interesting"), perhaps on a careful readthrough, you might notice that the "interesting bits" (unique, relevant facts) are few and far between, and also that some sections require significant reading time, while not adding anything that seems to you to be meaningful. These observations might in whole or in part correspond to a couple of my central objections, namely: 1. no coverage of the music structure and recording ("almost no information on what the song actually sounds like"), and 2. the long Chart performance section, followed by a Charts sections ("the positions and weeks and trajectories on so many different charts seem overemphasized/largely trivial"). I'm not trying to get you to object, this is a general comment, in that, if in practice, "actionable" is given too limited and technical an interpretation (as in: change this, footnote that), it becomes an avenue for an individual or small group to compromise the consensus/vetting process. If someone does not have specialized knowledge, common sense and editorial judgement are also useful tools for formulating both support and objections. Anything that's really off-base from a specialized POV should be easy enough to answer, in a way that allows other non-experts to evaluate, e.g. "All those chart positions are important because..." (Sorry if I'm going off on things that have already been discussed, or are self-evident from FAC actions elsewhere, but FAC is all new to me as of the last week, and Hollaback is one of the first I've participated in!) --Tsavage 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those points are also very good. I would like some sort of meaningful analysis of the song. Why should I care about it? What's special about it? I think Rambot writes more engaging articles than this. No, sorry, that wasn't fair. But since, as you have perceived, I know very little about current popular music I hesitate to be too critical. I found it sort of interesting to read a detailed treatment of one song ("Cool") because ideas like "chart trajectory" were new to me. But seeing the exact same thing again makes me feel like I'm reading a bot-written article. I still don't know if I can formulate a vote on this. Maybe I'll sleep on it and give the article another read tomorrow. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object until all aforementioned problems are addressed. To Hollow Wilerding, you do not own this article and cannot force people to agree with your views, particularly regarding arguments about poor writing style and choice of reviews. Please don't tell experienced and respected editors that they violate FAC rules, but rather work towards a future FAC which can have consensus support. Thanks. Harro5 23:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment is offensive as I never stated anywhere on Wikipedia that I own Hollaback Girl. Do not call someone out in a negative form when you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. –Hollow Wilerding 23:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been watching this discussion (out of interest). Hollow Wilerding has never said that he/she/it owns the article. Hollow is the proponent of the article through the FAC process. This process requires a proponent to take a sense of ownership over the article to satisfy objections. However, Hollow's conduct has not impressed me, so I agree with the rest of your statement. --maclean25 02:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any other objections that should be corrected? --Hollow Wilerding 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, per outstanding objections of Tsavage, Harro5 and Anville. Ambi 01:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that could be posted below this message that should be changed in the article? The nomination is going to finish within the next day, I'm sure. Judging by the current state, the article is either going to be featured or not be featured. So any final objections should be raised now. --Hollow Wilerding 02:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy to keep this open as long as there is activity going on here (e.g, fixing valid objections and raising of new ones). I don't think you should write off ambi's comment like that. Raul654 02:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, thank you. Um, and you're right, I shouldn't have. Nonetheless, I will continue to attempt to correct all objections. --Hollow Wilerding 03:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this is to be an article improvement edition of FAC, here's another point: In "Meaning and composition", I'm not sure how the Highlander item was obtained, but if it's based on lyrics only, the song says, "There can only be one" whereas the signature Highlander line is, "There can be only one!" (the pronouncement that explains that the immortals have to kill each other off until only one remains). So, unsupported, that seems a bit of a stretch in interpretation... Is that plain wrong information? --Tsavage 05:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Somehow, I'm getting in deeper and deeper... I borrowed LAMB (the LP) and, based on listening to the album version of Hollaback, posted my question about/problem with the Highlander comment to the Talk:Hollaback Girl--Tsavage 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, I've finally got around to reviewing the article again and it has improved, but I'm afraid that I still have an outstanding issue with it. The Musical structure and recording section is only a sentence long, this needs to be expanded before the article can be called comprehensive. Leithp (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reached the conclusion to take a break from the madness that has become Hollaback Girl. I will renominate the article within the next month. –Hollow Wilerding 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Céline Dion edit

Self-Nomination. This article has come a very long way. I mean, a VERY long way. I discovered it in the summer, and was appalled at its state, so I decided to improve it (even though school got in the way). Ive worked laboriously, seeking the help of User:Mel Etitis and User:Extraordinary Machine, both of whom have provided valuable feedback. It was also submitted for peer review, (though only two users replied--User:Jkelly and the aforementioned User:EM). Here is the article before the others and I got to it: Celine Dion in August, and here is the finished product: Céline Dion. I think it displays one of Wiki's best work as it's comprehensively written and meets all the FA criteria. If you disagree, please provide constructive criticism and I will be sure to address them and resubmitt. Thanks Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 19:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. C'est magnifique! However, there are some consistency issues: francophone and anglophone are written in the article with both capitalised and uncapitalised initial letters.--cj | talk 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent work. Balcer 01:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Enchanting article. Although I would advise you to place the "External links" section at the very bottom. Amazing work! --Hollow Wilerding 01:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? I did not know this. Then that's fine. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Good job! --Hollow Wilerding 02:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Learn something new every day. I didn't know that either. Jkelly 03:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I too was surprised to learn this. I've posted a comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings) asking about it. --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is better than most of her songs, really. :) Halibutt 02:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objections: 1. Most of the images lack detailed fair use rationales. 2. I respect Stephen Thomas Erlewine, but there is far too much dependence on his and other All Music editors' reviews. 3. Focuses far too much on dry awards and sales information with only vague notions of the interesting aspects: What does her music sound like? How has it progressed between albums? What themes do her lyrics cover? What is the recording process for her albums like? What musicians does she work with on the recordings? Article also appears to not mention what label(s) she's been signed to and how they've worked out. 4. Lead section is choppy and needs to be tightened -- listing every specific award she's won and the year she won it isn't particuarly effective in hooking the reader to read the rest of the article. 5. Many albums aren't linked to, I assume because it would create glaring red links throughout the article. If that's the case then why not create stubs for them? 6. For discography section, suggest not listing compilations and the like, focusing only on her main albums, and save the rest for the discography page. —jiy (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feed back. I will address those concerns posthaste. I also encourage anyone to help. 1) For the images, would you specify which ones in particular? 2)I know that the article focuses on AMG reviews, but that site is one of the most authoritative for reviews. And even if you search the net and find reviews, at the end of each would read ...All Music Guide. Ive tried incorporating Rolling Stones (they have only reviewed one of her albums), and Amazon.com Editorial reviews (which sometimes borrow from AMG.) 3)Now that you mention it, the article could talk more about her themes etc. However, most of her collaborations are listed in the article (or the ones worth noting), but thanks for pointing that out. 4) The article does mention her label (Columbia)-- as early as the lead section. 5)The lead section isnt the greatest, but its not choppy. I think its a matter of personal style, (that especially why there's no such thing as a perfect article) Again, thanks. Hopefully, my changes will persuade you to change your vote. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 03:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, but for a performer who so many people find bland and artificial, especially in her English-language material, you would think from this article that she was a critics' darling, which on the whole she is not. -- 08:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • support but not strongly yet.. good article to read / excellent referencing, easily better than many existing FAs but probably the previous vote is right that more negative responses to her work should be included. Mozzerati 21:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very encyclopedic. Has someone fact checked all the information? Wikipedia needs articles of this quality on all major people so we're not caught flat-footed when they're above the fold news.--FloNight 22:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --User:UrineForGas 15:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--compelling article. Most of the issues that User:Jiy had problems with seems to have been addressed. I think that it's a great article. Khalif 20:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, I think jiy's points are well-taken and most of the issues have not been adequately addressed to this point. Relying on Allmusic blurbs for critical perspective is like quoting from Amazon staff reviews; this is not the stuff of a serious encyclopedia. This is part of why the article fails to synthesize its material so as to allow the reader to evaluate her career, instead filling out primarily with awards, chart positions (CHR Audience Chart? BDS era? What are we talking about here?), and gossipy personal factoids. The fact that the authors seem ignorant of the difference between Rolling Stone and (The) Rolling Stones is symptomatic of the problem. For somebody with an extended career that has received a tremendous amount of media coverage, there's a large pool available of significant, generally professional, critical material with both positive and negative assessments (hint: not all of it is available online). This article barely dips a finger into it. --Michael Snow 21:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object After reading the article I can't but agree with the anon's and Michael's objections above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. There's far too much overreliance on AllMusicGuide and Amazon staff reviews to give any really deep sense of critical reception, especially for a singer with a strong reputation for producing bland schlock. 90% of it reads like it was written by her publicist, and the other 10% like it was written by the staff of People magazine. Andrew Levine 18:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, as per Michael. Give us more meat in the references and notes sections. --Spangineeres (háblame) 20:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I understand all of the comments, but the people magazine thing was a stretch. Ive really worked hard on the article, and none of the constructive comments seem to point out anything good about the article i.e. what should stay/what works etc, then go on to what's bad, poor ect. Now, Im not angry or anything (in fact, Im far from that), but I beleieve that you could be a little more sensitive. Now, on to more important matters: I know that the all music guide references are a stretch, and Ill remove them, and find other ones. (Again, I ask for help). Maybe the article was prematurely nominated, I dont know. Anyway, there were some who thought that it was excellent, or atleast, very good.
Also, why does everyone think that Dion makes mediocre music (User:Andrew Levine and others)? The lady has won five Grammys. Can mediocre music win Best Pop album, Best pop vocals,(twice), and the most coveted Album of the year and Record of the year awards?. I really don't think that theres much pov in the article. Before the 2000s, Dion did make good music (as can be shown by her awards→Grammys etc), she does have a good voice (shown in the fact that she was voted as the 9th greatest voice in popular music, and the 4th most outstanding pop vocalist on earth). And please dont be against the inclusion of album sales in the article, its shows the fan's reaction (popularity), just as how the reviews show the critical reaction. I agree that since the millennium, she had lost her spark (for lack of a better word), and she has gotten unfavourable reviews. Ive included all this in the article: Rolling Stone reviewer calling her music "schlock pop". Ive used quotes that proves that her album/singles are "uninspiring", "lifeless", disastrous , "forgettable" "predictable", "inconsistent" and a host of other words. The fact remains, however, that she is not as loathed by the critics as you want the article to potrey.
Ill see what I can do. And i would encourage people to give other ideas of how it can be improved (instead of joining the band wagon by saying as per Michael ...) Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate you regard the criticisms of the article as insensitive to your efforts. But we have to be firm and rationale here. Let's face it, the article needs more research. There's nothing wrong with that -- featured articles should not be rushed.
Maybe a different approach is needed for addressing the article's critical eye. Critical perspective is not a simple matter of seeking a representative for each extreme and quoting them. Perhaps a broader perspective could be achieved by reading multiple reviews and extracting the common criticisms and accolades between them, then formulating it into prose. It is not a matter of just "good" and "bad", either, but also how her work fits into the overall framework of music. Industry awards and sales figures are not indicative of artistic worth, and the reader cannot infer worth from these aspects alone.
Before things get too far out of perspective, though, we must keep in mind the critical side is not the only aspect to focus on. There are no interviews (in other words primary sources) in the reference section. Surely a more detailed and accurate picture of this woman and her career, in terms of biography and history, can be extrapolated from the various interviews that have accumulated over the years. By using VH1 and fansite biographies for this purpose -- secondary sources -- we are basically summarizing summaries. Perspective, detail, and accuracy is lost in this way.—jiy (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I voted as I did because Michael said what I thought. FAC is a process that relies on consensus, and if I did not voice my agreement with Michael, it would be as if only Michael felt that way, which would increase the likelihood of the article being promoted without our concerns being addressed. --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thats totally understandable. Sorry for the outburst . like I said, Im not angry :). Now, come to think of it, the article could use some improvement, I been rereading it (especially the last part) and Im not too happy with it. Im gonna make sure that it does reach FA status. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, because the article is very well thought out! 64.231.163.172 23:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article, lots of information. Terenceong1992 17:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A very good article, but could use a good deal of expansion before it satisfies the "comprehensive" requirement. Could also use a good copyedit, lots of strange word choices like "Though her albums were relatively successful, it seemed as if Dion had already reached her plateau since the late 1990s, and her albums failed to really ignite critics and fans." Is this saying that Dion is living on a plateau because of the existence of the late 1990s, presumably to hide from prosecution for setting her critics and fans on fire? Less casual and vaguely POVed terms in general will help give the article that extra inch it needs for FA. -Silence 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Reads quite well, long but there's a lot to cover. My two specific objections echo some of the objections above:
  • Almost no coverage of Dion's MUSIC. After a brief mention of her genre influences, the rest is mainly the critical and sales performance of her recordings, and other details of her personal and business life. There is nothing about her actual singing: her voice and her approach to making music. As it is now, I suppose this format represents one type of "accepted" music biography, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to promote it as a Wikipedia standard, not if it could clearly be improved as far as comprehensiveness. For example, on Wikipedia, I looked up the first dozen or so names of popular musicians and singers that came to mind, and found among them two articles which do attempt to treat the music; neither are very well done, but I think they illustrate the missing dimension that should be a part of all MUSIC articles...coverage directly related to the music itself: Billie Holliday, The Edge.
  • Over-reliance on AMG and use of Amazon.com. - If critics are to be quoted, there should be a reasonably representative variety of sources, not almost exclusively one writer from one source. Using Amazon.com as a source of critical reviews doesn't seem right, as these reviews appear on the pages devoted to selling the product that they are covering...
  • Comment: I heavily disagree with this specific part of your objection. There is no rule on Wikipedia that states "articles must have reviews from various music/film/food etc. critics". As long as there is a review featured from a specific source, the story is settled, and it adds to the article. Having "over-reliance" on certain reviewers is a POV-reason to object. However, I partially agree with your other objections, though this article already meets FA status in my eyes. —Hollow Wilerding 23:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Tsavage 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I think Ive addressed many of the concerns that arose from the article. Ive removed the superfluous A.M.G reviews, and I found some other reviews, Ive spoken about her music, and the transition of her albums, the instruments used etc (and removed most of the dry awards and sales). Ive linked the albums, provided firuse rationales for each image, oh, and the Intro is changed a bit. Ive used the Kylie Minogue article (a featured article) as a model for this one. Does anything need further attention? Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Pacific hurricane season edit

Attempt 1
Peer Review

Second try. It is well-referenced, meets standards for the appropriate WikiProject, has many PD pictures, covers everything in detail, has appropriate use of spinoff articles. This is a self-nom. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Good. Everyking 01:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good work but there are several stub sections, short paragraphs and short sentences. — Wackymacs 07:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Looks excellent now. — Wackymacs 20:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expanded the sections on Tropical Depressions a bit. Could you please name which other sections you find too short? Some of the sections are short because there isn't really a lot to say about a cyclone that lasted 2 days and never threatened land. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Almost all the sections are too short, because there are too many subheadings. For example, 'Tropical Depression Three-E' and Tropical Depression Five-E' are both only one sentence long. Each section should be up to two paragraphs long. If there isn't enough context to put there, then they should not have their own sections. — Wackymacs 07:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I'd recommend expanding the stub sections. –Hollow Wilerding 14:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- would it be possible to reorganize the article so that the storms are treated by maximum intensity? That is, first cover tropical depressions, then tropical storms, then hurricanes, then Paka. Keep them in chronological order within each section, but cover all the tropical depressions in one section (no subsections) so that there aren't any super short sections, as there are now. --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put the depressions in their own section after the named storms. The named storms are in the order they formed during the season. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle
      • That's a start. Now I'm wondering if separating it by month would be helpful... the bottom line is that this article has a really big table of contents for the amount of information, and that means that sections should be consolidated. I'll make the change so you see what I mean. --Spangineeres (háblame) 22:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the navigational structure of the article so that there aren't any short sections, so I'll support now. --Spangineeres (háblame) 20:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the radical and bold changes, this article is very different from when it was first nominated. For that reason, I am closing the nomination and sending it to Peer Review because some of the original comments may not apply to the changed version. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delrina edit

  • Self-nomination. A fairly exhaustive article on the company that was best known for being the creator of the original WinFax product, but influential in many other fields. It is well researched and backed by appropriate references, and contains information not collected together in a cohesive format anywhere else that I have been able to find. Have found interesting and representative screen and product shots to illustrate the article. Has already gone through a peer review and have plugged most of the more-pertinent dead links, as well as other suggestions. It is what I hope is an interesting slice of software corporate history, for which there are not too many examples on Wikipedia (at least when it comes to "dead" companies). - Captmondo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well done. The only quibble I have is the large amount of red links around the second half of the article; having those cleaned up would be nice. Otherwise, excellent work! The Catfish 03:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. Good-looking article I'd be happy to support if it had some citations to printed works, e.g. articles in the business press. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A point I hadn't considered, and I can see the point. Ideally a range of sources is a good thing, not just those found on the Web. Guess I'll have to head down to the reference library sometime soon and brush up on my microfiche-reader skills... ;-) Captmondo 22:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But in this modern age, printed works are searchable on the web! Try Google Print... I've only glanced at the results, and they're not all relevant, but you may be able to tease some citations out of there. — Haeleth Talk 23:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the suggestion Haeleth! Have managed to find about four *relevant* print links, which I will be adding to the article in due course. I was really surprised, since I doubted very much that there was much out there that wasn't strictly product focused that would be in print. Captmondo 10:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Print references now provided. Captmondo 03:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A fully-written article on a relatively significant company. Amazing that the company was essentially based in my backyard, and I used their products, yet I've never really heard of them. This article just helps to prove my ignorance! -- user:zanimum
  • Object I think it's a great article for content. It seems to provide a thorough profile of a notable software company. But I have two points:
Writing needs cleaning up - Overall, it's OK for readability, but there is quite a bit of loose construction: a couple of typos, word redundancy, etc. The whole thing needs a once over, and particularly the lead paragraph should be tighter.. Examples of sloppy construction:
  • Over time, parts of the company would be sold, such as the sale of Delrina's Group Electronic Forms Division to JetForm in September 1996.
  • Other than WinFax, perhaps the other best known product Delrina released was its series of screensavers products. The original purpose of any screensaver product was to ensure that there would be no phosphor burn-in of images left on a CRT based screen of the time, but Delrina added sounds and some interactivity with its series of screensaver products, arguably qualifying it as an early form of multimedia.
Were there any common-industry-knowledge issues/controversies or other negatives associated with Delrina over its history? - I ask because, the flying toasters and Opus aside, this is a notably clean, trouble-free corporate story. Was a decision made to write this strictly on a "business facts" level, omitting other "newsworthy" stuff that may be of interest? For example, big companies like Symantec often bought out smaller competitors or would-be competitors to kill off the competition. Was there controversy around the sale...? Or, was there a notable problem with, say, a version of WinFax that people might remember? I'm not looking for, or expecting "dirt", just wanting to be assured that this isn't a selectively clean version.
--Tsavage 00:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The first point is well-taken -- I am my own worse copyeditor. ;-) The second point is harder though, and while I don't doubt that there was controversy, I couldn't find it. I don't doubt that there were bad reviews and a few problems with the software *are* noted, and the relatively well-known court case over the screensaver is noted. At some point this becomes more an exercise in journalism than in encyclopedian-ism, and in some cases absence of dirt may simply mean that there were none to be found (or at least, that was publicly documented -- this should not be a place for conjecture).
Will spend some more time with this article before resubmitting as a FAC and see what I can find by way of further info, and will try to clean up the text as well. Cheers, and thanks for the constructive criticism. Captmondo 21:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I just skimmed the article again (I read it the first time), and it does seem to be THOROUGH. It's the kind of piece I'd like to find if ever I needed to look up Delrina... Once the copyediting is done, should it be resubmitted to FAC, for what it's worth, I should have no problem with supporting it. Later on... --Tsavage 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen Beetle edit

Beetle is a pop culture. Feel free to leave comments. 202.40.210.178 02:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - No references. Pentawing 02:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FAC is being taken over by anons nominating unreferenced articles! Help! KingTT 15:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - No references, several short sections and short paragraphs. Needs a lot of work, refer to WP:Peer review for more comments. — Wackymacs 19:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help edit

I would be willing to offer major help with this article. If anyone with a good knowledge of VW and Beetles is willing to work with me, I'd like to contribute all my knowledge and combine to make this article submitable for featured article status. Nick carson 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Corrigan edit

After peer review and a few subsequent enhancements this seems a complete account of an interesting individual. —Theo (Talk) 17:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Nice article indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object until a fair use rationale is added to Image:Wrong Way Corrigan.jpg. Support. The article is very good: concise and comprehensive. — Haeleth Talk 00:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained why I believe the newspaper page to be fair use. —Theo (Talk) 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Objection struck. — Haeleth Talk 22:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. How/when/why did his name get changed from Clyde to Douglas? Also, I would try to combine or expand sections to avoid one-paragraph sections, although in an article this short, they might be OK. I'm also worried that the shortness of the article may indicate a lack of comprehensiveness, but I don't know enough about the subject to say either way. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my understanding that Clyde Corrigan Jr was called Douglas from childhood and had his name changed legally as an adult. I have expanded the article with additional details in most areas. —Theo
  • Theo and all - I am related to Corrigan, being a second cousin twice removed. The name change is indeed fact, although it began much earlier in his life, when his father (Clyde, after whom he was named) deserted the family. His mother informally "changed" his name to Douglas out of disdain. He was probably ten or younger at the time. I have sources for this which I will add to the article, and I will attempt to verify when the actual legal name change took place, if possible. I do not have his autobiography; maybe it states this somewhere? Toniskids 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk) 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support based on a great article which is well-written. I will assume that the image issue will be resolved — InvictaHOG 21:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Neutral: It's an interesting read, but there must be a lot more to this man than this, to be an FA biography which this is supposed to be it should cover a lot more aspects of his life interesting or not. Regarding the flight, there could be a lot more press details etc. If he had not prepared for such a flight, what condition was he in when he landed, what condition was the aeroplane in. If it took him 23 hours to notice he was going in the wrong direction, how long should the flight have lasted had he been going in the right direction. What's the name of his biography, surely that would answer a few questions and give some material to fill this page out a little more. Giano | talk 18:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the expansion just made address your concerns adequately? —Theo (Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm afraid it doesn't its still very short and only two images for a man who lived to be 88. Reading between the lines there is a lot more to be told.
  1. "The company disapproved of his attitude to risk"
  2. "His favourite stunt"
  3. "Corrigan moved from job to job"
  4. " Corrigan made repeated modifications and reapplications for full certification, but none ::succeeded."
  5. "his aircraft was refused renewal of its licence"
  6. "Known to be exasperated with official resistance"
  7. "he ran for the U.S. Senate as a member of the Prohibition party but was defeated"
It seems the man was a maverick so lets have the full autobiography or rename the page to be solely about his amazing flight. Giano | talk 21:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking your points in order:
On the matter of images, I am not sure what his longevity contributes to this. Do you seek images of the man at various stages of his life? Sadly such material is not yet in the public domain and it is hard to argue fair use of multiple images. Similarly, I can find no public domain images of his aircraft.
As for the article's length, I do not know what level you seek. From your numbered comments I think that you want the implicit made explicit. This may be no more than a matter of style but I have respected your opinions elsewhere so I would appreciate your clarification. Specifically:
  1. "The company disapproved of his attitude to risk" because he stunted in their aircraft. This was already stated in that paragraph but I have recast it to make this clearer.
  2. "His favourite stunt" was there to add colour by showing that he had a repertoire. Listing more of his stunts seems redundant to me. (No, I would like to know what they were, were they dangerous? Irresponsible? Dull? Clever? Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  3. "Corrigan moved from job to job" has now been clarified to indicate the type of job. Although we can infer that he moved on because he was fired, there are no sources to support this. The sources show that he had several jobs but give no details. (This suggests a transigent, or beligerent personality, there must be written comments on this somewhere Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  4. " Corrigan made repeated modifications and reapplications for full certification, but none succeeded." This arises from a combination of causes that are implicit in that paragraph: Corrigan was prepared to take greater risks than the authorities could accept and at that time the flying regulations were being tightened constantly. Corrigan's attitude to authority kept him a step beind the flying authorities. Is this not clear from the article? (We are back to his charater again Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  5. "his aircraft was refused renewal of its licence". See previous comment.
  6. "Known to be exasperated with official resistance". What more is it appropriate to say about this? (How did he show this exasperation? Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  7. "he ran for the U.S. Senate as a member of the Prohibition party but was defeated" seems to me like a full statement. Like many celebrities, Corrigan ran for public office. Original research of political records might reveal why he chose a minor party. (Prohibition Pary? The link tells me little other than a dilike of alchohol, why that party, was he a rabbid teatotaler, or a hypocrite or very religious - it's certainly not the party most of the Irish Catholics of my acquaintance would choose to join - So why? I dont know and this biography should be telling me Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
I do not understand what you mean about the "full autobiography"/ Necessarilly, his autobiography ends at the point that it was written. It is very heavily focused on the flight. (Sorry, that was a slip of the mind I meant biography. Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
—Theo (Talk) 12:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theo, I have addressed your points in italics for clarity above. For this article to be an FA biography it needs so much more detail and information. What is there is good but limited, it suggests that there is a lot more to tell. He ran for the Prohibition Party. I know nothing of that party - the links suggests abstinence from alcohol was he a rabid teetotaller? like so much not in the page I don't know, and this biography is not telling me. Did no one write an obituary appraising his life at all, it would be odd if no one hadn't, but if there really are no more facts and details available to you, then perhaps this is not a subject for FA - just an interesting, better than many ordinary, page. Giano | talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giano, I have now addressed your objections as far as my sources will allow. I have increased the emphasis on his waywardness and irresponsibility. I can find nothing that portrays him as belligerent: quiet rebellion seems to have been his style, but this is all implicit. Rather than describe his stunt repertoire I have emphasised the inherent risk of such activity. I have attempted to further clarify the reasons for his failure to achieve certification of "Sunshine". His exasperation was expressed in his autobiography so I have made that source explicit within the text. I can find no clue as to why he ran on a Prohibition ticket. The party espoused Right Wing Christian values and advocated state support of Bible reading as well as the more central platform of alcohol prohibition. None of my sources (including his autobiography) allude to his attitude to alcohol or religion. I think that on this point I must acknowledge that your curiosity (and mine) is unlikely to be assuaged and that the article cannot currently mak featured article status until some other source surfaces or his daughters comment publicly. Thank you for all your comments. I am sorry that we end up with an objection that cannot be resolved. I have flagged the article for expansion in this area. —Theo (Talk) 23:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I'm afraid you probably won't find a daughter, as to my knowledge Corrigan had none, only three sons. However, I am a cousin (see above). ;-) His running for office under the Prohibition Party is news to me. However, I do believe I've heard/read that he did indeed have a lifelong distaste for alcohol, and that one of the reasons for this was because his father, who abandoned the family when Corrigan was a young boy, had a drinking problem. However, I have no sources to support this at present, so will not add it to the page. I can say that his paternal grandmother came from a strong Indiana Mennonite (earlier Pennsylvania Dutch) background, and like the Amish, the Mennonites tend to eschew alcohol. Thus, it can be postulated - but not conclusively substantiated - that his religious background and family history may have contributed to his political and personal views and beliefs. Toniskids 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - It a tight, readable article that I'd support, except, I more or less agree with the comment above: it seems a little sparse, both with details of the flight, and about his life apart from his big flight. Case in point, I made some minor additions, like: the name of his autobiography, the name of the plane(!), the fact that the plane travelled with him by ship back to the US. There were some other interesting bits, from other sites, and some discrepancies, that I didn't include because they were one-source, but still, interesting, e.g. he made $75,000 around the trip (for the movie, etc) compared to $50/week as a pilot-mechanic; his plane cost $900 at auction, not the $325 as reported. These may be wrong, but they're out there...
  • More important, Corrigan's characterization is underplayed: I read an in-depth article on the flight that painted a more vivid picture of Corrigan as risk taker, which if correct is largely missing here. He liked doing stunts, to the objection of fellow pilots, and had to be officially forbidden by the company he worked for (Ryan, the Spirit of St. Louis builders) to do them. His plane wasn't licensed fly on the trip prior to the crossing (so if that was originially going to be the crossing trip, he'd have been in a plane deemed unsafe to fly), and eventually it was grounded by aviation officials; he only finally managed to get an experimental license (i.e. his plane was just hanging together; another source has his extra fuel tanks as a bunch of gas cans welded to the front of the plane). Then, he developed a gas tank leak on the way to New York, which he didn't fix. That turned into a big leak, he was flying over the Atlantic with an inch of gas in the cockpit, had to punch a hole in the floor with a screwdriver to drain it, and finally revved up to burn fuel faster rather than lose it, reversing his strategy of flying slower to conserve. Also, the same article has him barnstorming, hustling plane rides for cash with his friend on the East Coast (the article talks about running a small town shuttle service). If accurate, this adventurer-wildman aspect should be reflected in the article...
  • Later life doesn't seem to be, as the article portrays it, exactly a "simple life": Corrigan tested bombers for the Government during W.W. II and also flew in the U.S. Army Ferry Command. In 1946 he ran for the U.S. Senate on the Prohibition ticket, after which he worked as a commercial pilot--this time for a small California airline. In 1950, he bought a 20-acre orange grove in Santa Ana, Calif., settling down there with his 3 sons and his wife Elizabeth, who died in 1966. - http://www.trivia-library.com/a/where-are-they-now-flying-irishman-douglas-corrigan.htm (Also, the article says it's an 18-acre farm...).

So, some work necessary. --Tsavage 01:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your extensive and helpful comments. I wish that I had these when I had the article on peer review. I have expanded the article and attempted to address the points that you raise. Fasolino's "in-depth article" was one of my sources; I omitted much of his detail because previous FAs of mine only got there after extensive condensation; I can see that I overdid this and trust that I have now gained a more appropriate balance. I chose the $325 price for the aircraft because that is what he gave in his own book and The People's Almanac has proven unreliable elsewhere. Inconsistently, I have now used their $75,000 earnings figure because it fits with comparable fees for other late thirties movies and news stories (as does $50/week for a mechanic). His wartime experiences were new to me and I am glad to include them. His political failure is born out by other sources. I prefer the 18-acre size because the source for that is a Santa Ana local. I guess that The People's Almanac authors rounded up to a neater number. I hope that you can support the expanded version. —Theo (Talk) 20:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By me, it's almost there. I struck many of the specifics. I still have a small problem with the writing style. I went through and copyedited a bunch of sentences, which hopefully made things read a little smoother (this is a difficult way to edit, compared to rewriting). What I left in the objections are relatively minor:
  • I do wonder still about his apparently short-lived political career. As soon as one mentions political activity, new questions about "what the person was really like?" tend to come up. This is the effect of the very brief Prohibition party mention. If no additional material is available, short of doing personal interviews, it would probably be enough to get basic info on the Party, and also maybe include, "although his personal motivation isn't entirely clear from the records..." That sort of thing. At least knowing what the Party was about gives a clue...
  • The Clyde name-change bit (not explicitly mentioned above) also sticks. I see there is a hidden note; perhaps that should be worked into the text. As is, it's a point brought up and left hanging.
  • The description of the big flight, and the work-up to it, could probably use a standard rewrite: more paragraphs? rebuilding sentences? It has the feel of a lot of facts strung together so as to be readable, as opposed to a smooth recounting of the events. The information is there to paint the apparently appropriate picture of Corrigan as maverick, but it doesn't quite come across easily, as is. A relatively minor reorganization should do it.
My overall objection is pretty much consistent with Giano's above. However, I don't agree with many of the latest specific points brought up there. I don't think much more need be told in this context. I believe the central editorial point is: Corrigan is an interesting figure, mainly for doing one thing. Perhaps painting him as a "maverick" only by referring briefly to unlicensed flights, forbidden stunts, barnstorming, cobbled-together plane, is too one-dimensional, IF we wanted to know every minute detail of his life; for an encyclopedia article, the level of detail should simply match the subject. "He took some risks, was one of the first to fly across the Atlantic alone in a possibly death-trap plane, and became quite famous (and paid) for his trouble", seems to sum it up, which this article does, giving much additional info with which to assess is life and character before and after, cradle to grave. The more detail that's included here or there, the more the entire article has to be rebalanced, and I don't think that's warranted to the degree suggested by some of Giano's specifics. So, IMO, it's now mainly a couple of points of info and of style. (I checked a few other FA bios, and the type of content varies, as far as balance between personal detail, and accomplishments. Past FAs are not the standard, I know, still, the ones I read were all quite good. Karl Dönitz is perhaps a relevant example, where the article seems to work well, while concentrating almost exclusively on events, with little personal background commentary (although that article might work better with much more personal detail, given his life and, um, crimes...) --Tsavage 16:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was about to go Neutral (which probably wouldn't matter as Giano's objection seems pretty extensive, but I just read this (which is cited in the References), and much of the article here is a pretty close copy of that piece. That perhaps accounts for the stilted flow, as words and phrases have been changed so as not to make it identical, and extra bits of detail inserted, but IMO it's essentially an alteration, not a rewrite. --Tsavage 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what little it is worth, I can only assert that I did not start from that article or any other single source. I started from the original stubby article, read most of the cited sources (many of which are cross-cited), built the outline and then wrote a first draft. I then did some googling, which turned up most of the other sources. The stilted flow arises from my inadequacies as a writer. Sadly, I recognise that such an accusation of such subtle plagiarism is impossible to refute except by extensive work by a third party, so I will stop further work on this. Given your opinion, Tsavage, I think that it would be appropriate for you to flag this as a copyvio (although I do not share your opinion). —Theo (Talk) 09:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your reply. On my part, I don't think an apology is exactly the thing here, but I do want to let you know that I didn't have any intention of in any way attacking you/your editorial integrity personally (an article is a collective endeavour and all that). I also didn't carefully comb through the history, which perhaps I should have (I wasn't thinking in terms of a "charge" at the time, despite how it sounded). I stumbled on FAC only a week ago, and I'm sure that charging in there with that newcomer ENTHUSIASM is something that gets tempered if one sticks around. Perhaps I could've put it more mildly. I've since posted a very similar comment (FAC Collyer Brothers), and I'm not at all sure that's the case there, either. It's very tricky with this online research business, for example, there are a number of high-in-the-search-rankings reference sites that use Wikipedia as their content, as I'm sure you've noticed, and while in those cases, it's obvious, it kinda highlights how the recycling of info is bound to be a much bigger obstacle in this online research environment, than "before". I'm not going to copyvio Corrigan (I haven't even read up on the criteria for copyvio... ;)). Perhaps in the FAC I should have written something more like: "Seems pretty close to this cited article?" with the link. I'll reread what I wrote just yesterday at Collyer. You should resubmit, maybe take another pass at it first, this process probably only made it better?!... --Tsavage 20:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moments later and, re the aforementioned Collyer Brothers FAC (I went to review my objection), this response just posted:
I followed the link from your first objection and found it very serious indeed: It looks like one of our article's authors simply took the Useless Information summary, stripped out the idiotic attempts at humor, and rewrote what was left slightly to avoid blatant copyvio. With that considered, I am withdrawing my nomination of this article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Tsavage, I appreciate your explanation. The articles do have similar structures. I imagine that the Centennial of Flight essay particularly resonated with me when I was sourcing the research. I know that I did not start from a single source. All of this is moot, however, because I cannot resolve Giano's outstanding objection about Corrigan's affinity for the Prohibition Party. I do not think that it can be appropriate for me to resubmit the article to FAC with Giano's objection unresolved and I cannot face rewriting the article yet again knowing that it is fundamentally flawed by an omission that I cannot rectify. I agree that the article is much better than it was when first submitted. But it can never be good enough without original research so I regret wasting all our time on it. Ho hum. —Theo (Talk) 23:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, on that point, for what it's worth, I felt the same way about wanting to know more about his lifestyle (as I did note), until I thought about it. There's no hard-and-fast standard for "comprehensiveness". First, in this case, the Prohibition Party might seem weird, if one assumes a maverick in one area is likely a non-conformist, let-people-do-what-they-want type in others. But that's an easy presumption; people usually aren't so consistent in their behaviors. Corrigan may well have been a straightlaced guy, except for his flying thing. Second, everything isn't knowable, else there could be hardly any "good" bios. In this case, his flight, and career in aviation, are the main parts of his story, and they seem knowable and well-covered. Perhaps simply treating this character issue directly would resolve it: "Little is known of his personal life. His autobiography doesn't say whatever, and other published accounts shed no light. He will be remembered for his flight." That sorta thing. IF that's held up by research, I don't think it's a cop-out or whatever, it's a legitimate treatment. OR, this being the World Wide Web, there's every chance you could get in touch with some of his contemporaries or their relatives, by Web then email. That'd be cool...! It'd only take a few words from one first-hand source: Was he a boozer or a Bible thumper, or both? --Tsavage 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC) - comment edited --Tsavage 15:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now, don't solicit original research. But I agree that the particular standing objection shouldn't neccessarily DQ the article's FAC. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, strike that last part! (Unless, of course, for personal reasons, you just gotta know...) --Tsavage 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I would be fascinated to know his personality seems to be contradictory - go on Theo (I dare you) phone his mates up and ask, we are all dying to know! Seriously though, I'll write down here as it's getting very busy up there. People have rather jumped on my use of the word maverick, perhaps that was not the best word to use, but I did qualify it by "it seems to me" so it was my opinion rather than general fact. I appreciate you have made valiant efforts to improve the page, and improved it certainly is. If there really is no more information then no more can be done. I'll change from oppose to neutral. Not because I don't like the style or prose, and I've no opinion on the copyvio issue (I've never understood the complxities of the subject). However, I do feel though an FA biography should be comprehensive, if insufficient information is available on a subject then that must preclude their biography (IMO) from becoming an FA. I know this is not the response you are going to like or want Theo, but a biography must be just that, not just a limited collection of available facts. Giano | talk 12:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Target Corporation edit

Self Nomination. This article has gone through significant improvements over the past year, including adding references and balancing the article's POV by adding a criticism sections that is backed up by references. I feel this article would be a good choice for featured article status as it would show Wikipedia's diversity of articles (it seems most featured articles are about things or events). Wikipedianinthehouse 21:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Issues I spotted are:
    1. The history section is composed largely of one or two sentence paragraphs. These short paragraphs should be combined to form larger paragraphs.
    2. The article mentions the existence of several divisions other than the retail division (Target Financial Services, Target Commercial Interiors, Target Brands, ...) but only gives a one line description of what each does. The descriptions of each need to be expanded. Some information on the distribution network and back office operations that support the retail stores would also be useful.
    3. There are multiple examples of peacock and weasel terms in the article. Some examples in the Philanthropy section are: Target Corporation is ranked as one of the most philanthropic companies in the country (who did the ranking and when was it done?) and Many religious organizations objected to this decision (Please name two or three of the many religious organizations). The claim in the lead that Target is the second-most successful discount retailer in the United States should also clarify what is meant by "successful". Does success translate into total revenue, total profit, or something else?
    4. The Diversity, Major sponsorships, and Target International sections all need to be expanded from one to three short sentences to at least two good sized paragraphs in length.
    5. The lead is currently on the small size, and after the above issues are addressed will certainly need to be expanded.
    6. As per WP:CITE, the Books section should be renamed either References or Further reading depending on whether the cited book was actually used as a source for verifying the facts presented by the article. Complete citations for the sources references via the footnotes sections should also be provided.
Overall I found there was a lot of good material in the article, but it has a ways to go before reaching FA status. --Allen3 talk 23:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a closer look at the references used for this article, I noticed that one of the references, [3], is from a blog on a website maintained by a group with a well-known political agenda. This does not appear to meet the standards at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources, so another source should be found for information referenced by this source. --Allen3 talk 12:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is some information on distribution centers in their corporate fact card. I've already cited from it in the article. Target's use of information technology systems can be included, since this article seems to include none of it. 68.226.61.4 08:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple paragraphs on distribution centers, in addition to some of the information technology that supports the retail stores. 68.226.61.4 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the part on subsidaries some, however there is still plenty of information that could be added that I left out from the sources that I used. Also, I don't know why it has to be in the History section. 68.226.61.4 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the History section by adding content and combining paragraphs, and I've moved the book in question to the Notes and references section since it was used in the article. 68.226.61.4 07:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Before this article can even be considered for featured article status its one-sentence sections must be fixed. Cedars 09:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English language edit

English language is the world's most widely taught second language. One-third of the world's population can speak some English. There is no reason that there are objections. 202.40.210.164 09:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object: a couple of things to begin with. 1) No clear references section. 2) Lack of flow to the structure. Some sections (e.g. the Constructed variants and Sounds sections) are just thrown at the reader with no introduction. Too many list-like sections. Some very short paragraphs. Overall, not a very good example of the English language. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: a complete, well-written article, but there is no References section, and there are very little graphics/no photos. Ronline 09:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Just as a matter of interest, what photos would you expect to see? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) question answered below. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object I agree with the previous points raised: poor flow, lack of clear references, too much list-like prose. The "history" section, at the very least, could be illustrated with photos of significant manuscripts (from Anglo-Saxon on up). It's always worth combing Featured Pictures to see if anything is germane. Anville 09:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Gallery of illuminated manuscript images may also be a good place to start a hunt for appropriate images. If none of the images in this gallery, or the galleries listed in the See also section, are appropriate then the image description pages should provide useful links to libraries and museums that have images of historical manuscripts available. Another possibility is authors who have had a major influence on the development of English such as Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare. --Allen3 talk 23:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I HIGHLY encourage a part discussing the impact Chaucer and Shakespeare had on the language, as that is sadly little known. I have studied both extensivly in university classes and have come to the conclusion that English would look nothing like it does today at all without these two men. According to many sources, Chaucer is responsible for the vast majority of England's interest in the language. That is to say, many people who spoke either local celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, or other languages learned English specifically so they could read Chaucer. My understanding is that before him, it was mostly just a language used for trade and not used much in private. As for Shakespeare, I've heard the play Hamlet alone contributed 500 new words to the English language. In fact, were it not for him, we would be retireing to sleeping chambers at night rather than bedrooms, as the word bedroom did not exist before he used it. Out of all of the authors who have ever written in English before or since, Shakespeare's works contain more total vocabulary than any other. Contrafool 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. The main reason you nominated it was its epic importance, so we shouldn't let it be featured until it is at the very paramount of our standards. -- user:zanimum
  • Object The article does a fair job, but most of the objections listed above do seem quite valid and proper considering the nature of the article itself. To my POV, Filiocht says it best here: "Overall, not a very good example of the English language." One part that really irritates me about the article (aside from the quality of the content dealing with earlier incarnations of English) is the "External Links" section. It is begging for a Wiki-scythe to come sweeping away the weeds. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Columbia disaster edit

A major bit of history and a tragic event. Deserves to be on the frontpage for a day - User:Tom_walker

  • Object. It could be great, but there are several problems that are sticking out currently:
  1. Image:TIME_feb_2003.jpg has no fair use rationale.
  2. Lead is very short for the size of the article.
  3. References are missing. What was used as sources to write this article? Newspaper articles, books, etc?
  4. Layout could do with some working, all of the images are of different sizes and it looks messy.
  5. 'Response from the President' section is a bit short.
  6. A few sentences in the Memorial section are sort of choppy, it doesn't provide a nice flow.

I couldn't spot anything else from my look at the article. You might want to refer it to WP:Peer review for more comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 19:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insulin edit

This article is very well written and informative. It is a jewel of Wikipedia that should be considered for featured article status. --153.104.27.107 01:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Lacks references. KingTT 02:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No references. Andrew Levine 05:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sufficient references, I think. There's a reference to a book on the history of the discovery, some links to various historical sites, and so on. This is not a topic about which controvery demands copious references. It's pretty well settled what the substance is, how it's produced, and what it does; little dispute there. This stuff is important enought that it has earned 3 Nobel Prizes for scientists studying it. ww 07:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No references. --Oldak Quill 10:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Lacks references. --Hollow Wilerding 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Let me be slightly more detailed than those above. Put references in a "References" section, as per FA requirements. Make sure there are sufficient references. The reason references are required, even in non-disputable articles, is due to the fact that ANYONE can edit this encyclopedia. If we don't prove that what we say is true, how can anyone be sure that they aren't reading, for example, sneaky vandalism? We need to be verifiable in every aspect. Fieari 15:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unreferenced, even the easy-to-find ones (such as the Banting-Best paper cited in diabetes mellitus). It makes no use of the subarticles intensive insulinotherapy, conventional insulinotherapy, could use a microscopic image of the islets, etc. JFW | T@lk 16:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. Good-looking article, it just needs a bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Article incorrectly suggests insulin therapy is limited to humans. Article also needs at least short systematic discussion of the various types of insulin formulations (e.g., NPH, Lente, ultralente). Monicasdude 04:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smotherbox edit

  • Self-nomination. I'm very proud of the article. I could not find a way to improve it, so I had a peer review for the article, which revealed only things that can not be easily helped ( Requests for information which may or may not be known to anyone and photographs many of which are not published because the subject is quite intimate ) So I think the article is as good as it will get for sometime, yet I hope it will still get improved in the long run. --Easyas12c 20:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Difficulty of obtaining information doesn't exclude a featured article from requiring that information. Yeah, that means that it might take some herculean tasks to make this featured, but not every "good" article is featured quality. Featured is the best. This isn't there yet, I don't think. Fieari 23:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The things "missing" don't leave the article broken. They are just features, nice to have along with definition and explanation of the subject. Wikipedia:What is a featured article states "It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet." As one of the main authors of the article I strongly doubt there exists another such compilation of objective information for the subject anywhere else on the Internet. --Easyas12c 00:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Far too short, no references, poor naming of external links, lacks quality information, isn't the best example of a web source on the subject. Basically, read Wikipedia:What is a featured article and carefully address each point, but you're nowhere near there yet unfortunately. Harro5 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Featured article definition states that a featured article should be comprehensive, this does not mean that it would have to be long. It just has to be complete instead of one-sided. It also states that a featured article "should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic". It seems that the reference to smothered.com (which is included as an external link in the article) is the most academic reference you can get for a subject such as this. I renamed the links, if they are still not good, feel free to show how to exactly do it, by editing the article. What do you mean exactly by "lacks quality information". As in my comment for the last thread abowe, I'd still claim that this is the best public source for the subject on Internet, if you disagree please point out an url to a better source. I'd be happy to make the article better. --Easyas12c 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, for two major reasons:
  1. Utterly inadequate referencing: there are no references labeled as such; the external links, which one might presume to contain the sourcing, are all to commercial sites engaged in selling the product—hardly the most reliable source for information. The paucity of online sources is no reason to neglect this issue—it may be necessary to examine more obscure offline references. In addition, use of inline citations is necessary here, as a number of claims in the article are quite questionable in their provenance.
  2. Lack of information: there is no discussion of the history of the item. More significantly, an article about a commercial product must have certain basic information—market size, major manufacturers, price ranges, resources involved in production, manufacturing techniques, and so forth—before it can be considered even moderately comprehensive. The difficulty of obtaining this information is not an excuse unless a convincing argument is made that the information does not exist at all.
Finally, a more general remark: that the article is the best online source on the subject does not necessarily attest to its quality, since this may merely mean that there is little information on the topic available online. Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Enterprise edit

I have nominated this article as I believe it is about a vehicle that many people don't realise exists and its story is of great interest. - Tom Walker

  • Hum. Some iffy stylistic choices throughout ("the Enterprise", "it") and some corrections I've been meaning to make for a while; I'll fix those tonight and then have a look at the rest of the article. Shimgray | talk | 21:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article does need quite a bit of work. I've given it a new framework, and will dig out Jenkins tonight and set to fleshing that framework out. There's probably potential, but... Shimgray | talk | 21:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at it some more, I don't see a FAC in this for the near future. It's a worthwhile article, but currently the content's just not there. I'll see if I can give it a good kick, though. Shimgray | talk | 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - stub section, zero references. KingTT 18:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to Peer Review - This isn't FA quality yet. PR might have helped. Fieari 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. Would support if a reference section were added. PedanticallySpeaking 16:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Watt edit

  • Self-nomination. I'm pretty proud of the work I've done (and will continue to do) on this article, and quite frankly I'm curious to see what other opinions of the piece will be. Hence my seeking out more objective opinions. ;) Cjmarsicano 07:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object 1. too many subheadings. Please reduce them 2. No references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Too many subheadings. Too many short paragraphs, some sections read like a list, especially the Illness and Recovery section. Try and make the prose flow more. And Illness and Recovery is a totally misleading section title. - Hahnchen 16:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Too many subheadings, too many short sentences/paragraphs. Too many links to non-existant articles, and a very messy Discography section. There's a lot of work to be done, refer to WP:Peer review. — Wackymacs 22:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the Discography section and several other aspects of the article, but I still Object for the moment. — Wackymacs 19:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose. Good article, but it needs a good proofreading and cleaning up. It's close, but not quite there. And, as I've said on other FAC's, the references are inadequate. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with PedanticallySpeaking... great article, only let down by a lack of references. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Søren Kierkegaard edit

  • The Father of Existentialism himself has a very nice Wikipedia piece indeed. I belive that this is a wonderful article in every way and very worthy of being a featured article. Cited sources, plenty of imagry, and highly informative. 72.15.175.129 00:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'd love to see Kierkegaard featured, and I'll be back when I've actually read the article, but, to be going on with, I'm afraid the incomplete references alone preclude its being featured right now. The last three items in the References section are quite unhelpful, with two of them being mystifying Wikipedia articles (which should be under "See also", except... no, not there either) and the third a collection of "Links to online resources" (you might as well list Google.com under References). Disregarding these items, then, remaining as references are "Alienation in Hegel and Marx" from the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, "Adorno’s Reception of Kierkegaard: 1929-1933", and a 5-page article "Kierkegaard, the Apophatic Theologian". These are all short non-print pieces, off-centre to the general topic of Kierkegaard, and the article can't possibly have been constructed on the basis of them. No way. I looked over the External links section also, to see if it would help to upgrade some of them into references, but, no, it wouldn't. (I assume the " Religion After 911" is a spam vandal addition? General cleanup of this section is needed, there are dead links, also.) Bishonen|talk 05:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I repaired some of the links and reordered the links to have the more important web links listed first. I also made the Biography section part of the references, since I myself used Alex Dru's Journals and Hannay's biography to add some points to the article. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 06:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The biographies are fine, that helps, but References (=sources, works actually used for the article) must be kept separate from External links (=recommended online further reading), which can't be a sub-section under References. A link like for instance Online Library Catalog at St. Olaf College; select Kierkegaard Library from the menu to search for books and articles isn't a reference, not even close. The Reference section is for information about where specifically the facts in the article come from, to enable the reader to check that information in those sources (print or online). A library catalogue can only be an item under External links, or (better yet) Further reading, and then only if it's exceptionally useful and the reader can't find it easily via Google; by no stretch can it be an item under References. Also, I see that the mysterious Wikipedia articles that I complained about above remain under References, Kierkegaard, Wikipedia Reviews of Works and Kierkegaard, Primary Sources. As I said, they don't belong there. Wikipedia isn't a reference for itself. What are they anyway? Kierkegaard, Wikipedia Reviews of Works--note the very strange name--is a big redlink collection which I'm tempted to put on WP:AFD, but perhaps it's some kind of work in progress? It obviously needs moving, anyway, but to what? And is it really claimed that it has been used as a reference for Søren Kierkegaard? How...? Bishonen|talk 11:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've now separated the links that are referenced in the article from the other "Further Reading" ones. As for those mysterious articles, I don't know what the original author intended for those, but I just made them subpages of Kierkegaard, until it can be integrated into the main article somehow. Reviews of Works looks like a Complete Works List while Primary Sources looks like a Bibliography. It's too bad that more of Kierkegaard's individual works aren't on Wikipedia. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 13:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I too would love to see Kierkegaard featured. A fascinating philosopher and I think this article provides a concise view of Kierkegaard's main philosophy. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 06:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would love to see the discussion of his philosophy adequate to be FA quality, but for a long time now this article has been one of our sorest wounds. The discussions of his various works are spotty (some there, some not) and incomplete. I'm not supporting or opposing at this point, but I've been waiting for a long time, now, for an actual Kierkegaardian to come along and fill in the stuff, from Either/Or to Concluding Unscientific Postscript, charges of anti-rationalism becoming mysticism, charges of misogyny, the troubled relationship his philosophy has had with the various churches, the way his philosophy has prevailed despite official opposition, his place among other reactions to Hegel and Kant, etc. It's a big, big, big topic. Geogre 13:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it is a big topic, but after seeing the tons of conflicts in Friedrich Nietzsche, I'm not so sure about adding everything into it; maybe just the basics for the encyclopedia. But I was planning to write a section on Kierkegaard's criticism on Hegel and on the Corsair Affair before I'd submit it for FA status. The anon beat me to it. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 13:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The edit history of User:72.15.175.129 shows that he/she has made a total of 9 edits, and this FAC was put up by that user on his/her fourth edit. This is not in itself a reason to object; the article must be judged on its own merits. But I would feel more comfortable about this FAC if someone did an IP lookup on one or more of the article's regular contributors and did a comparison. Thanks. Saravask 07:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC) No need. My mistake. Good luck to the nominator. Regards, Saravask 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't forget to AGF, Saravask. And we only do IP checks on suspicion of major wrongdoing. It's only of marginal interest whether or not 72.15.175.129 is a major contributor, but perhaps he/she would like to enlighten us? Bishonen|talk 11:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. While the biographical portions of the article seem quite well written, the bulk of ==Important elements of Kierkegaard's philosophy== has a way to go before it even reads in an encyclopedic fashion (although I see it has improved some already since the FAC nomination). Specifically, it has a lot of first-person singular and plural references, and large paragraphs that lose track of the fact that this is all "according to Kierkegaard". Of course, just adding "Accoding to Kierkegaard" at the start of each sentence would leave a mess, too. I'll also note that there is at least one section where I can see a whole page of text onscreen without any links at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Good points by Bunchofgrapes, Yorick, George. However: he article is accurate and describes the central tenets of Kierkegaard's philosophy/theology accurately. Everything on the page now is what a bystander would want to know (and more) about Kierkegaard. Issues of his relationship with churches and the stances of political institutions are secondary -- I agree that they can/should be added. Additional analysis with regards to Kant, Hegel, mysticism, and specific works like Either/Or and Concluding Unscientific Postscript, would risk dangerous and unagreed-upon academic grounds, and should NOT be added (or, if added, should speak carefully). The Nietzsche page, as stated, is a clear example of this danger; and a more in-depth analysis of Kierkegaard would prove controversial. I also don't find the first-person writing all that bad. It reflects Kierkegaard's own style and delivers the point well. So I think the accuracy of the article is fine. Just needs to be a bit more comprehensiveness with regards to Kierkegaard's impact on the world in which he lived: Denmark, the Church, etc. --i.h.

Seinfeld edit

  • Great Show, Great Article. Detailed Article, and has sources cited and deserves to be a featured article for meeting criteria. FireSpike 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'll withhold a vote for now, but have a few issues which need to be addressed. All screenshots and other fair use images need fair use rationales, and please get rid of the funny lines used as dividers in the characters section. More problems will probably surface with others too. Tell me, has the article undergone a peer review? Harro5 00:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Too many non-free images. I'd suggest getting rid of all the non-free images except Image:Seinfeld.png and [[:Image:Seinfeld characters.jpg]. Also, Image:Seinfeld characters.jpg needs information on its source. --Carnildo 01:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Plenty of work to be done:
    • The structure of the article needs work. "Overview" is just too general. The lead, if anything, is the overview. A more logical and informative section hierarchy is needed.
    • "Memorable incidents" is pure trivia and doesn't even belong in a sub-article as far as I'm concerned.
    • "Product placement" is not unique to the show and I don't see why it should require separate treatment, let alone a whole section.
    • "Music" and "Awards" are merely over-specific lists sprinkled with prose.
    • "Criticism" seems to be merely fan opinions with plenty of weasely "some"s in it. Summarize this quite brutally and insert into a history of the show (or something like it). And the opinions of a general audience and critics, not fandom, is what should be focused on.
Peter Isotalo 02:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moustache edit

It would be very timely to have this up in November in honor of Movember, (itself one of the funniest, if not best written, articles I've found) DiceDiceBaby 17:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Object. It's a rambling and confused lead followed by two lists, one of them arbitrary. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's 90% list! Where's the beef prose? Raul654 21:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object This is disappointing. It is missing references, and is mostly full of lists, not enough context! — Wackymacs 10:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, lacks references, seriously list heavy. I do however support the inclusion of notable people with moustaches. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though it would either be an arbitrary selection, or run to thousands of people, if you include historical figures? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object as per above. I would gladly support a moustache FA, but it would have to include topics such as cultural differences regarding moustaches and trends in historical popularity. As it stands, it ought to be completely trashed and rewritten. The Catfish 00:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. "Edgar Allan Poe had a simple moustache." This article has the worst captions I've ever seen. Not to mention all that is aforementioned. Harro5 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, they aren't very exciting though they are all in relation to the moustaches the people are wearing. If you can think up better ones, please do! --Fastfission 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object mostly lists, no mention of Salvadore Dali, who I think had possibly one of the most spectacular mostaches ever :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as an aside, it actually it does mention Dali. --Fastfission 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's (sadly) much better than it used to be, but it's not really an "article" much less a "featured article". --Fastfission 13:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Dowager Cixi edit

Real head of state of China for 48 years.

  • I think she did very bad, she did lead Emperor Guangxu to reform. 20:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Astorknlam
  • This is a great article, though unfortunately I must object. I suggest this article should go through peer review before coming here. These items should be addressed:
    • The article is rife with a number of short and sometimes one-sentence paragraphs. These should either be either combined with other paragraphs or expanded.
    • There are a number of NPOV statements such as "...her conservative attitudes did not serve her well..." These should either be cited to specific sources or eliminated.
    • I noticed one picture only had a caption in Chinese. While the captions in Chinese and English are fine, there needs to be an English counterpart to every Chinese caption.
    • Numerous times the article refers to "recent biographies" or "recent biographers," though the references section only lists one biography. The references section should be expanded to include all works cited, plus inline citations should be used to indicate exact sources.
    • I think the Names section really should come before the Early Life sections so as to not break up her biography.
    • This article has been over-linked. Sometimes the same name is linked in the same paragraph. The important names and dates should generally only be linked once or a few times in the article.
    • The section "Crisis with Guangxu" is too short and really should either be expanded or merged with another section.

Is this the same Dowager Empress as the one who appears in the movie The Last Emperor? If so, you may want to include a brief mention of it. As I said, this is a marvelous article! If these problems are addressed and the article given a general copyedit, it would make a lovely addition to FA. ''*Exeunt*'' Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|<sup><font color="green">Dialogue?</font></sup>]] 17:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. The structure is a bit strange and difficult to follow, and some of the prose could really do with a solid reworking, particularly in the earlier parts of the article. It's certainly not bad, but really does need quite a reorganisation before being featured. Ambi 23:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Two sentences do not make a section. Expand or merge. --Jiang 05:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object. I saw this article a few weeks ago (while going through a list of biography articles that are considered "most important" to Wikipedia, of which this is one), and have been planning to do heavy revision on it as soon as possible because I was immediately very surprised by how many bizarre layout choices there were, errors in the text, etc. I'd consider putting several cleanup tags on it, not making it a Featured Article. -16:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Karl Silberbauer edit

Partial self-nom, since I created the article, but the majority of the work has been done by User:Yallery Brown. Article is detailed yet succinct, exploring the actions and subsequent fate of a minor figure who nonetheless had a significant role in historical events. DS 16:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. It's a good article, but too short to hold up as our best work. Only a few lines in the article are about Silberbauer, too: most of it is really about Anne Frank, her family, and Simon Wiesenthal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Massively too short for featured status. Ambi 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sea shanty edit

Detailed, informative article about an interesting historical topic. (Unsigned nomination by User:194.73.99.107)

Apple Macintosh edit

This is great article that has been through the Article Improvement Drive. Over the past few weeks there has been tons of copyediting and revision of the entire article, and we all feel that it is well deserving of Featured Article Standard. TDS (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Article is, unsurprisingly considering the subject, overlong. The history section in particular needs to be spun off into a separate article and condensed for the purposes of this one. The narrative of its development is extremely clunky and disjointed, seeming to introduce Jef Raskin three separate times, then later bringing up Hartmut Esslinger and the Snow White design language as a "key move" without any indication of why this was important. And, despite the section's overall length, the article manages to devote all of one sentence to Jobs vs. Raskin and the whole "Father of the Mac" issue.
Other problematic writing is scattered throughout. "In 1990 the Mac had gained widespread acceptance, but it was generally seen as too expensive" - huh? "In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Macintosh sales have been increasing continuously" - okay, did we need each of those years listed individually? Is the article trying to tell us that sales increased "continuously" not just year-over-year, but month-by-month as well, or is it just the hagiographic tendencies of Apple enthusiasts getting the better of them? (See also the skating over of internal company politics.) --Michael Snow 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the article and copyedited almost 10k out, along with a major cleanup of the history section. I think 32k is basically unreachable for an article of this caliber, and many of our FAs are indeed longer. What do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 00:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly an improvement, and I'm not insisting on 32k, but the 51k it was at was excessive. Another section that I would suggest needs condensing is the advertising section. For that matter, upon reviewing the source of the illustration for that section, I am considerably skeptical about the accuracy of the information in the first two paragraphs. It's difficult to be sure how many Newsweek ads ran, since it appears to talk about the same ad twice but with different details, and the page lengths stated do not match what appears in the source.
The writing in this section is as atrocious as some of what got cleaned up in the history section, which doesn't help the situation. I have the impression that this was filled in by somebody writing whatever came off the top of their head, without bothering to be careful about checking what they thought they knew. Obviously, that doesn't cut it for a featured article. --Michael Snow 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See above. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work, looks lots better now. I must agree, it is hard to reach 32KB limit, there is just so much information to mention on this topic. — Wackymacs 01:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good to me, though the objections above need fixing. Ambi 23:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild object.
    1. Make the captions more informative.
    2. Try to cut down on the size without destroying any data. Provide a bunch "main article:" and "see also:" links.
    3. Pictures of other macs? make sure you have the links
    4. All other complaints.

Get that done and go for it. HereToHelp|talk 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. A very well-done article. But a lot of terms many people won't know (graphical user interface, Steve Jobs, Lisa, etc.) are not defined. They are wikilinked, but it's my opinion that users should not have to follow a bunch of wikilinks to understand an article. -- Mwalcoff 01:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Well done, but no. Not until this huge rendering difference issue with firefox is resolved. B1oody8romance7 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Looks fine to me in Firefox on a Mac, and should look OK in Firefox on Linux/Windows as well. — Wackymacs 18:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What skin are you using? There's a big difference in how Classic and Monobook display certain types of image layout. --Carnildo 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy edit

This is a good quality article that I think should be a FA. It went through a peer review back in July (there wasn't much of a response, unfortunately) and I believe the issues raised have been addressed. As to my participation in this article, I have made some minor edits, nothing substantial as far as I can remember, mostly copyedits. Akamad 12:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object for now. I'm concerned with the level of unattributed opinion in the article. A quick scan read throws up "some people", "some sources", "some claimed", "some critics", "critics, some of whom", "many other critics", "leading many to deem", "many who listened", "many military officials" and "many civil rights leaders". Who are these people? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    • There are entirely too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which really chops up the prose and doesn't allow for a good flow to the article.
    • I'd like to see some better organization to the article; for example, under "Early political career" there are details about Kennedy's marriage and stillborn child. These have nothing to do with his political career, so I'd recommend creating a specific section dedicated to his personal life. (You could probably put it under "Image, social life and family" but I think that deserves a full section and not just a subsection.)
    • At points, the article reads like a "list in prose". It's not a list per se, but it seems to be little more than an annotated timeline at times. (In 1950, this happened. In 1952, this happened. Then in 1953, this happened. ...and so forth)
Good luck! PacknCanes | say something! 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    • Very unevenly written. Some paragraphs are excellent, but between them are one sentence paragraphs that often seem out of place. For example, "Years later, it would be revealed that Kennedy had been diagnosed as a young man with Addison's Disease, a rare endocrine disorder. This and other medical disorders were kept from the press and the public throughout Kennedy's life." is the second paragraph of early life. Not only does it not fit, it is hardly important in the overall role his childhood played in his becoming president and the greater influence that had on US and world politics.Dtaw2001 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    1. The images Image:JFKPT109.jpg, Image:JFKSENATE.jpg, Image:Jfknixon.jpg, Image:Jfkspeech.jpg, Image:JFKNASA.jpg, Image:KennedyCabinet.jpg, Image:2005 proof Kennedy half dollar.png have no source information.
    2. The image Image:Jfkatbcin56.jpg has no source or copyright information.
    3. The image Image:JFKMLK.jpg has no source information. "Fair use" cannot be claimed without knowing the source of the image. Also, there's no reason to use a non-free image here.
    4. The image Image:Kennedy bros.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but it appears to be for decorative purposes only. This isn't allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use.
    5. The image Image:JFKCasketLeavesCapitolHill.JPG is claimed as "fair use", but I'm sure there's a public-domain replacement somewhere.
    6. The image Image:Democratslogo.png, used in the template {{USDemPresNominees}}, is tagged as "fair use". Non-free images are not permitted in templates.
    7. The image Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but has no source information. It also has what appears to be a copyright statement dating from 1992 in the lower-left corner. If at all possible, this image needs to be replaced with a free image; if not, source information and a fair-use rationale need to be supplied.
    --Carnildo 23:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, although it's nicely structured with a lot of good material. I'm not an expert in US history or culture, as you will be able to tell from my comments. (a) Almost all of the links in the See also section should be included in the main text of the article (in fact after looking more closely, I notice some of them already are). (b) While I don't necessarily disagree with the assessment, could the statement that the Cuban Missile Crisis "brought the world closer to nuclear war than at any point before or since" be argued rather than asserted? This assertion is even stronger than the assertion in the Cuban Missile Crisis article, which is itself not backed up by direct evidence. (c) "Patsy" is US slang, and not in common usage elsewhere afaik (I had to look it up, anyway :-) - can this be reworded? (d) What exactly does the phrase "he was the last Democrat from the North" mean? (e) The intro states the assassination is often considered a defining moment in American history both because of its traumatic impact on the entire nation, and because of Kennedy's elevation as an icon for a new generation of Americans and American aspirations. However this is not discussed in the article, even in the section "Assassination and aftermath", and there is no mention anywhere of the impact of Kennedy's assassination (if any) on the rest of the world. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Garand edit

The M1 Garand was the first self-loading rifle to become a standard issue weapon in the army of a major world power (the US), and was the only semi automatic rifle in service for the majority of World War II. Has been extensively edited and supplemented, and in my humble opinion the article is very well written. A very significant rifle in the history of firearms, and one that may quite well have influenced the outcome of World War II. EDIT (11/15): I have given the article what should be complete references. Unsigned comment by Banana! (talk · contribs)

  • Comment: gave the article a once-over and added website references.--Banana! 18:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a nice article and I learned a lot. However, I think that the references should probably be incorporated into the text. Also, some copyediting would probably help - two discussions of the ping, etc. Great work! InvictaHOG 20:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop a note to User:WegianWarrior. He was essential in bringing Kammerlader up to featured status and he knows his fire arms. He might be able to provide some helpful insights. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG edit

I do think this article do deserve to be featured, it is well in length and depth. It's well written and very comprehensive, after all it has been cited as a resource by BBC, even though it might still lacks some pictures. --Yamamoto Ichiro 00:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. R. Tolkien edit

Partial self-nomination; this article has been quite stable for some months now, and there are six FAs on other language WPs that partially derive from it. I've looked it through again, and while there are some minor things that I would phrase differently, as a matter of personal taste, I do think it is fair enough, and would welcome more scrutiny. As possible objections, I see the liberal use of "fair use" images (actionable easily enough, either we keep them, or we scrap them), and the bibliography (cf. the Talk archive; I would prefer to keep it in the article, but others may vote to export it; compare the (featured) de:J._R._R._Tolkien, where they take an even more radical approach, including the list of poems we have exported to Poems by J. R. R. Tolkien). The ToC may also be a matter for discussion; I have given this quite some thought, and at the moment I see no better organisation than the "Bio/Writings/Languages" sections, but maybe there are better suggestions. dab (ᛏ) 13:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor object, as follows:
  1. Everything in the "See also" section is linked from the text; is its presence necessary?
  2. The "Professional life" section looks like it could be expanded a little; but I'm not certain how much material of interest is actually available.
  3. I've never seen a citation style that places the date before the author; is this actually in use elsewhere, or is there some other reason for it I'm unaware of?
Other than that, it looks to be a very good article. Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. yes, I've just trimmed it, leaving only the single few most important links. You can remove them too, if you like, it's a matter of your philosophy of the "See also" section.
  2. I've just created it. It could be merged back with "Personal life", but then I'm at a loss for a good title ("Middle age"?)
  3. this is also on purpose; it is how I usually do bibliographies on biographical articles (obviously not "literature" sections for references or further reading). The idea is to present the works in their chronological order of the author's biography. We can certainly also change that format if people don't like it.
dab (ᛏ) 18:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
uh, I only just realized that the "Further Reading" section is in the same format. I agree that this is not very good, and I'll change it. I've converted it to {{Book reference}} style (which doesn't look very good for collections with only editors but no single author; maybe we have another template for those?) dab (ᛏ) 18:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support after those changes. I generally favor minimal "See also" sections, but, as you mentioned, it's more a matter of personal style than anything significant. As far as {{Book reference}} goes, it's rather inflexible; but I prefer Chicago style, so I format references by hand in any case. Kirill Lokshin 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's a very good article but is missing a few bits of final polish.
    • Too many fair-use images by far. Wikipedia:Fair use states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." In most biographical articles, that means one picture of the subject, in the lead, though I think I could support two here. (It would be nice if there were a picure from around the '40s, though.)
    • Not enough references in the text. If I were to try to fact-check the article, it would be quite difficult to determine what facts come from which source. Only quotes from Letters are treated as I would expect.
    • Speaking of quotes from Letters, it took me quite a bit of hunting to figure out what book that referred to. When I did find it (under "Posthumous publications", I wasn't given a publisher or ISBN number, which might make it hard for me to find the book, or the right version if there are multiple (which I'm guessing there aren't, but there could be in the future, possibly). I think you need a separate "References" section, which might have some duplication with the bibliography, to help readers find the books referred to in the text.
    • The "Professional career" section needs to be expanded or possibly merged with the "Personal life" section. One way or another, the one-paragraph section needs to go.
    • I think the article overlinks years and dates; if you really like that style, I won't fight it, but it's more-and-more the case that we're not linking years and dates, and it does make reading a little easier.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding the fair use images, there are three in total: the two 1972 images, and the book covers. The remaining three are PD, dating to pre-1916 (in the US and most other countries, probably not in the UK. I do think that for our purposes US law applies (the KJV is copyrighted in the UK, and yet we have it on wikisource)). There will be no PD post-1916 images of Tolkien, so I do think the fair use rationale applies. There is also Image:Jrrtolkien2-sm.jpg which I removed because I was unable to date it.
I'm no copyright expert. But those pre-1916 images are currently tagged as "copyright unknown" and "fair use". If there's an argument to be made that they are PD in the US (I thought the author had to be dead for 70 years for that, or something), then they should be retagged. Even assuming we're convinced the pre-1916 pics are PD, that still leaves too many fair-use images. We don't need two 1972 pictures, and I don't believe a good fair-use argument can be made for the book covers in this article at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, everything published pre-1923 is public domain. --Carnildo 06:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the "career" section, we can merge it back (see above), but what section title do you propose?
  • Regarding the references, I'll see what I can do (but help is appreciated of course).
  • dab (ᛏ) 09:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not want to object, but the lack of anything on how he made his bread and his importance to philology is startling. There are books both on the influences of Anglo-Saxon literature on his work and, of course, Tolkein's own Anglo-Saxon and mythographic writings. Tolkein earned his bread as a don of Anglo-Saxon literature and language. I'm not competent to go into it, as I only minored in medieval literature, but there are others who can give a summary of his linguistic career. He was important there, as most Greatest Generation Oxford dons were, and having a biography that doesn't mention it is not comprehensive. The coverage of Tolkein as fiction writer is fine, but there is the rest of his work to consider. Geogre 11:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (this should maybe go to the article talklpage) -- well, Tolkien fans tend to exaggerate JRRT's importance as a medievalist/philologist. We give a full list of his academic writings. Sure, he was a professor of medieval literature at a prestigious University. But considering that, his contributions are not outstanding, and I doubt we would even have a stub about him if it wasn't for his legendarium (there would maybe be a citation on the Beowulf article, but that's about it). In his letters, his professional work is most prominently mentioned in his complaints that the yearly exams are tedious and boring. His academic output is, as is mentioned in the article, remarkably meagre. We know why this is the case, it is because he preferred to spend time working on his legendarium. So there you have it, you are welcome to add professional details, of course, but the fact of the matter is that the account is about balanced as it is. dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're being slightly unfair; Tolkien's Ancrene Wisse is one of the major entries in the EETS series of AW/AR texts, and Norman Davis' revision of the Tolkien/Gordon Gawain is the standard edition at Oxford. Sure, we probably wouldn't have an article for him just for those, but they may deserve a mention in the prose as well as the list... Gawain in particular. — Haeleth Talk 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I might be mixing some facts here, but didn't he write an actual annotated version of Beowulf that was only recently discovered/published (I think this is a different work from "The monsters and the critics")? In any case, I do think the actual influence of Tolkien's work on the study of Beowulf deserves to be extended beyond the passing mention in the "1920s to 1950s" section. I do believe there is enough evidence that he is considered a prominent Beowulf scholar. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to say this, but while the content is great, the style is letting it down in places. For example, the paragraph beginning "In 1911, while they were at King Edward's School, Birmingham" opens with a gargantuan sentence, that spans several lines, with numerous clauses, separated by commas, which could beneficially be split up, into three or four shorter sentences. The next paragraph then switches back and forth between past and present tense as it moves between quoting Tolkien's letters and describing a holiday he took - the effect is confusing and difficult to follow. Similar shortcomings are found throughout. So basically I have to say that I think this article needs a bit of copy-editing before I can happily support the nomination. That's my only concern, though, and if it really doesn't strike anyone else as an issue, I won't hold up the process with a formal objection. — Haeleth Talk 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This really needs inline citations. Use inote or noteref or whatever system you want, but please give us an indication of where the info is coming from (book and page, etc.) --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT, I personally don't care for inline citations in a non-research paper. The toast is TO THE PROFESSOR! Take the Oxford Tolkien Quiz HERE--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object as per Spangineer. We DO need a mechanism for readers to readily vet/verify the article's statements and claims. Saravask 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • as a reply to those wanting inline citations, the entire "Biography" section is a summary of one single reference, Carpenter's Biography, now listed under "References" rather than stashed away under "Further reading". Imho it would be silly to give page numbers every other sentence. I will try to reference all statements that are not in Carpenter's biography. dab (ᛏ) 14:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not asking for a page reference after every sentence, but perhaps a page range after every paragraph or two. Normally books are fairly well organized, so I would expect that the info on Tolkien's childhood would be all together and thus it would be fairly easy to give a range of say 10 pages within which all the info in the first two paragraphs of the section is contained. Thanks for working with us on this; I know it's a pain to have to retroactively add these things, but especially in light of all the criticisms of Wikipedia accuracy and such, it's really important. --Spangineer 22:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, conditional on the lead being shined up. Congratulations to dab on a masterful article, and I'd like to support, but the lead section is supposed to summarize the article as a whole and bring out its most salient points, and I don't think it lives up to this. Even though skimpy for the length of the article, it contains less-than-essential details (a reference to C. S. Lewis, who is by no means extensively treated below), and one long, difficult-to-parse sentence: How are the posthumous books about a legendarium, rather than being a legendarium? Is the earth called Arda, or is it called Arda and Middle-earth, and why does this bit of terminology, out of all others, deserve to be in the Lead anyway? The last sentence of the lead is sadly misplaced, ruining the roundedness that the previous sentence had nicely imparted—committee editing? An improvement drive please, and a plumping-up, too. Bishonen|talk 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support'. Great article to put it simply.--Wiglaf 00:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Neutral/comment. Very good, but not great. Fix it up, tweak it, get it perfect. One thing I did notice was that the pictures seemed to stop abruptly about half way down. Could you remedy this? Overall, though, not bad...not bad at all. HereToHelp|talk 00:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support'. Brilliant article. The see also seems repetitive. I feel it can be replaced by {{Lotr}} & {{Middle-earth}}. --Pamri • Talk 13:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Mecham edit

Self-nom. Biography of one of the more unusual political figures of the 1980's. Has been through peer review, and I believe that all issues raised have been addressed. --Allen3 talk 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Awkward writing in a number of spots, including poorly-written passages like "calls for Mecham's resignation were made from a variety of state political leaders" and "served only to strengthen allegations of Mecham's racism allegations." Also still a rather one-sided presentation, with heavy emphasis on his public perception (racist buffoon) and almost nothing on his substantive political agenda. Case in point, the "Economic impact" section, which in one sentence lists some accomplishments and then spends two paragraphs on the fallout from the Martin Luther King Day controversy. Apparently he resolved a sizable budget deficit, which is rather interesting from somebody who campaigned to reduce taxes, but that's all the information we get. How did he do this (and for that matter, how much of it did he do as opposed to state legislators)? Did he end up raising taxes after all, or cutting services, or did the revenue picture change, or what? This is the sort of thing that would provide a more complete picture of his career; the caricatured version we already know about, even if the caricature was well-earned. --Michael Snow 22:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have copy edited the text and added more information on Mecham's positive accomplishments. Hopefully what I have been able to find will satisfy your concerns. There are more details about the governor's time in office, but the items I have left out tend to just add to the common caricature without exploring any new territory. --Allen3 talk 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And I thought Bob Taft was a bad governor. I'd recommend that you define some of the people and groups you mention -- the ultraconservative John Birch Society, Republican U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater. A lot of readers will be unfamiliar with American politics, and you can't expect them to click on every bluelink. -- Mwalcoff 04:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I believe that all such links have now been better defined. --Allen3 talk 01:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. PedanticallySpeaking 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I wondered what had happened to him. Only thing, fix some of your sentences like,"The 1992 election also saw the passing of an initiative that created a paid Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday in the state of Arizona.".Daniel Case 03:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Much of the content is good, but it reads like a history of Mecham's controversies, as opposed to a more complete biography. The governorship section could do with a serious rewrite for structure, and I wonder if the early life, political career, and after office sections could all be exapnded slightly. The "efforts to remove him" section, however, is great. Ambi 00:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God edit

There is only one God in the world. I think this article can be featured. What do you think? 219.77.51.65 13:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • object -- purely on the basis of the spectacularly POV wording of the proposal. Get your Jesus on elsewhere buddy.
  • object -- it is reasonably fair up to "Theology" (although it is unclear what this "Theology" section is doing on an article proclaimed to be exclusively about the monotheistic concept), but the "Conceptions" section needs a lot of work. So far it seems a more or less random brainstorming of editors, dwelling on Kabbalah, Hinduism and Rosicrucians in particular for some reason (it is also unclear why "Quranic" should appear under the "Jewish, Christian" heading). I suppose the "Conceptions" and "Theology" sections should be merged, with much material exported to specialized articles, and brought in some sort of intuitive sequence. A size of maybe 40k should be a reasonable aim. In its present state, I would be reluctant to give it even a {{GA}}. dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add to that, I'd consider grouping Judaic, Christian and Islamic conceptions of God under the title "Abrahamic conceptions". --Oldak Quill 23:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is currently a Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive candidate. KingTT 16:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Uh, I wouldn't exactly say that "There is only one God in the world" cuts it in terms of well-reasoned nomination rationale. And what is the issue with the numerous stray bolded words and image captions? Is someone trying to make some sort of a point? Saravask 17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment — It needs a picture of God. Since He's everywhere, this should not be difficult to get. Daniel Case 03:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems he's a bit protective of his rights: there are no free images out there. Filiocht | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object needs a lot of structural work as outlined by dab and others. Filiocht | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object It needs to be broken up into specialized articles. It just tries to do too much while not doing enough, I'm afraid! InvictaHOG 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, this article just doesn't work for me. Try again. 64.231.177.76 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object and refer to peer review, Lead paragraph is very short, weak, and POV since it randomly namedrops Christianity and no other faiths.—jiy (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for all the reasons given above, also because it does not address the burrito question. I'm also wary of the disambiguation notice: can henotheism be called a "derived faith" if, chronologically speaking, civilizations were henotheist before they were monotheist? Anville 10:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. If it's on WP:AID it already indicates it's not perfect. Also needs its formatting fixed. - Mgm|(talk) 13:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Lead in far too short, lead in mentions Christianity especially, even though it is a monotheistic page, lead in is poorly formatted (why is supreme being capitalised and bolded, for example? I thought only God was meant to be important enough to refer to the being?). And that is just the lead in. Need I go on... Batmanand 16:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Supreme Being is a synonym for God and is conventionally capitalized. —jiy (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written article, and it might give Wikipedia some good karma. (Previous unsigned comment by DiceDiceBaby on 19:03 18 November 2005)
Comment The religions upon which this article focuses don't trade heavily in karma, methinks. And by listing the phonetic values given to the Tetragrammaton, we seem to be bucking for a lightning bolt, no? Anville 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection:

This article suffers from what I like to refer to as the "In God we Trust" problem as well as two other POV problems.

It has a section devoted to idea that other religions have other names for God. This seems to imply that everyone is worshiping the same deity; the "same" god just another name-the same tea cup in the sky. I.E. Jehovah and Allah and Ngai and God are the same deity. This brings me to the “In God we Trust” problem. When "In God we Trust" is said, the word "God" is assumed to mean everyone else’s god too. Except it remains to be shown that supporters of "In God we Trust" would equally support "In Allah we trust" or "In Ngai we trust". This is because [in my opinion] supporters believe that even though God is Ngai and God is Allah, Allah is not God and Ngai is not God. And, we are left with the idea that the list of other names in this article are not really acceptable either; everyone else using all these other names are all worshiping god, but worshipers that call their deity god are not worshiping Ngai, or Allah or Zeus or Shiva etc., etc. ad nausea.

Go ahead and change the word god to random selected alternate names proposed in this very article and see if that doesn't cause some anger. That will prove case and point very quickly.

This article does go on to explain that in relation to the idea of the name of God that there are varied sides of the argument; but the fact that this article speaks of other names of god in other religions as equivalent to the name "God" as used in a Western Christian concept clearly puts this article on a specific side of the debate and therefore gives it a very specific POV. God, is the Christian name for the deity in those monotheistic [Christian] religions; that coupled with the "In God we Trust" problem that exists here clearly gives this article a Christian POV. The section with varied other deities of monotheistic religions should probably go under an article about monotheism or in an article all by itself describing various names of gods in monotheistic religions around the world. Perhaps the Christian POV cannot entirely be avoided, so it would be better to more specifically state its dominance of use with Christianity, instead of tip toeing around it. And, then branch out from there to explain "very" specifically the use of the "actual" term (not equivalent term or terms) in other religions, places, peoples, regions, creeds, beliefs etc.

Finally, the de facto use of subjective male pronouns gives this article another specific POV. Related back the numerous alternate names: we see examples of this POV in the listing under the Hindu entry. This entry ignores the polytheistic perspectives of Hinduism; or the monotheistic polytheism that they practice casting it in the Christian POV mentioned above, and neglects to mention Shaktism, a denomination of Hinduism that worships Shakti, or Devi Mata -- the Hindu name for the Great Divine Mother. This is a female monotheistic example; which highlights the Male POV used.

These are just a few of the ways in which this article still has some POVs that need to be worked out. The concept of God should be in Wiki, but it is a highly charged idea that tends to come with a lot of personal POVs. We need to work extra hard to get to neutral ground. Until that point is reached this should not be an example of a "Featured Article". cprockhill Friday November 3, 2006 2:00 AM

Emperor Taizong of Tang China edit

Tang Taizong is the best empror in China history. I choose this article for nomination. Feel free to leave comments. 202.40.210.174 04:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Has zero references, has only one image, and half of the article is dominated by a big list. Avoid unnecessary capitalization in section headers, like "Early Achievements". Article needs expansion, paragraphs need to be broken up a little more, and a copyedit wouldn't hurt. Also, note that subject matter is irrelevant in determining Featured Article status; almost any subject matter can, hypothetically, be "featured". Most of the most important articles on Wikipedia aren't featured, and many amazingly trivial ones are. It's a matter of article quality alone. -Silence 08:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object as per Silence. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Object, agree with above. It is far too short, has too few references, &c.. --Oldak Quill 23:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, not nearly enough. Everyking 05:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tram edit

Self-nomination. 202.40.210.174 04:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bayreuth Festival edit

recreated incorrectly archived nom from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bayreuth Festival

Article is complete with references (bibliography) and links to supporting data and information. The primary source for my contributions to the article was the book by Prof. Spotts of Harvard University. The aticle features an event that has played an important role in western culture. Dtaw2001 16:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not yet been peer reviewed. I have thus created a request, Peer_review/Bayreuth_Festival. This nomination should perhaps be considered static until the peer review is completed. Dottore So 17:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do articles now have to be peer reviewed before coming here - If so since when? Giano | talk 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the purpose of the books included in the bibliography section (now renamed to references)? Where they used to write the article (in that case they should be called references) or are they just "recommended reading material"? A bibliography is most commonly a list of books written by an article subject as in "the bibliography of Shakespear includes Romeo and Juliet". To avoid any ambiguity on what the word means, it's best to name it differently if the books were not written by the festival, which is clearly the case. Also, how can a festival have a discography? Doesn't that belong to some orchestra who played there? - Mgm|(talk) 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, they are references. As for the discography, the festival has its own orchestra, and these are the more significant recordings from the festival. Dtaw2001 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think more is needed on the early history of the festival. The following should be addressed:
(1) Why did Wagner feel he needed a special festival to showcase his own works?
(2) How was the Festival conceived, planned, and the money raised?
(3) What were the particulars behind the selection of Bayreuth?
(4) Possibly a note about the designer of the Festspielhaus (Gottfried Semper) & how he arrived at his designs.
(5) Some point should be made about how unusual a Festival devoted a to a sole composer was for the time. (Still is, really.)
  • Additionally, the period between 1890 and 1920 should be fleshed out a little bit. Perhaps some mention of
the role of figures such as Strauss;
the influence of the Festival's performances of Wagner operas elsewhere (e.g. New York);
the transition after Wagner's death. Dottore So 10:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Feel free to make the additions you suggest, although the note about the designer of the Festspielhaus (Gottfried Semper) properly belongs to the Festspielhaus article. Perhaps the influence on operas elsewhere may be too much also. The rewrite of the introduction looks good. Dtaw2001 12:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately I don't know the answers to most of these, otherwise I would have gone ahead and added it in. If no one can provide expertise, sobeit. But on thinking aboutit, I believe the origins of the Festival really should be covered. As for Gottfried Semper, I am in the middle of translating the German entry on him into English, so that should cover it. As you say it more properly belongs on the Festspielhaus page anyway. Dottore So 16:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object: What is written is interesting and good. However, the page seems to me to be incomplete, there is far too little about various performances and who sang them. In fact there is very little about opera at all. Is the festival a show case for new interpretation etc? What keeps the festival fresh each year to attract the crowds. Does it continue to make a profit, if so how much. Why can't the director be forcibly removed. To little at the moment, but it has great potential. Giano | talk 18:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valence electron edit

I feel that this article should act as Wikipedia's Featured Article due to its comprehensive format and various information. In my opinion, this article is the epitome of excellence, and should be recognized. I do acknowledge that it is a rather small article, but it has more to offer than large, unorganized articles.

EinsteinMC2 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffling of the article text has created a lead, but has also reduced the article to the point were the table of contents is not automatically displayed. This has shifted my objection from lack of a lead to a lack of a substantial table of contents (requirement 3c). --Allen3 talk 02:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object strongly. See Allen3's comment. Could have been lifted from the Web for all we know. --AnOddName 06:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The article had not been proofread carefully, and a mistake was visible. I would love to support this in the future, once it is expanded further. Don't give up though! Brisvegas 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object not comprehensive as required by criteria. Large organized articles are possible too. - Mgm|(talk) 16:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object Many basic faulty judgements like "To determine the quantity of valence electrons an element has, you must look at the family (vertical column) in which the element is categorized." Uurghh! And how did Mendeleev to choose where to place the atoms in the table? The number of valence electron is the number of electrons which can be ripped off the atom without using too much energy. Look at ionization. This article should be merged with electron shell, electron configuration, atomic orbital, molecular orbital and other wellknown stubs on WP. This topic needs many expert editing and a big collaboration between physicists and chemists. Vb 13:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Refer to peer review. No references, not comprehensive, not enough context, requires previous knowledge of the subject. Almost everything in the lead is questionable: electrons cannot be "located" in an energy level; post-Heisenberg, an encyclopedia should not be giving the impression that atomic electrons are little billiard balls; it is strange to talk about an "outermost" energy level; some words have unusual meanings when used in a chemical context, such as "reactive", "unreactive", "shell" - all are unlikely to make much sense to a non-chemist without explanation; "shell" and "energy level" are not simply interchangeable. Nowhere is the word "valence" defined or linked. The experimental history of the subject is surely fascinating, and would make an ideal start for setting the context, but is not mentioned. Possibly this article should be merged with the little Valence bond theory stub. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva edit

Self-nomination. --218.102.227.98 13:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Machine 13:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scrooge McDuck edit

Incredibly comprehensive article, detailing history of the character in real life and fiction terms. Arniep 20:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's quite comprehensive. While I see that it has references at the bottom, the article's nomination would be aided by using inline references throughout. —thames 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
is this artist's work any more exempt from fair use than any other 2D artwork? Arniep 22:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I mean to say is that like many other images used in our articles, it has a dubious, uninformative fair use tag, with no reason given why the use of it should be considered fair, see image description page. Most of these images would probably never make any trouble for Wikipedia (though they're still not approved for Featured Articles, plus they're being deleted by decree from Jimbo Wales as we speak), but I believe one connected with Disney is quite likely to. Disney has a reputation for defending copyright very proactively, not to say aggressively. I'm no expert, though—the copyright of Barks' work may not belong to Disney anymore. I should think it would be actively defended in any case. To put it another way: what makes you think we can use this image? Bishonen | talk 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would cite the standard fair use principles, (i) the image is accompanied by critical commentary, (ii) is of resolution too low for print reproduction, and (iii) Wikipedia's use of the image in this context in an article on the subject of the artwork is unlikely to damage Disney's profits or reputation. Arniep 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What critical commentary? The image isn't dated, no provenance or context is given for it, thus none of the article's commentary on Scrooge's changing appearance and personality relates to it. Moreover, the article is appropriately encyclopedic, which means it does not exactly discuss Bark's work "critically". I remain concerned. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you are interpreting critical commentary slightly too literally? I don't think the commentary necessarily has to cricitise the artistic style, it just has to be commentary directly related to the work i.e. a cartoon character. Admittedly no source is given, which is a problem but it is pretty certain it would have been published by Disney, in fact in the bottom right corner it says copyright Walt Disney. Arniep 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the source, it is from the cover of Walt Disney's Uncle Scrooge McDuck: His life & times by Carl Barks, published 1981 by Celestial Arts, ISBN: 0890872902. Arniep 15:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wow! Who would have thought there would be so much to write about an imaginary duck? :) Brisvegas 07:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support since I'm a huge fan of Scrooge, Donald and co. The page isn't "100%"...igordebraga ≠ 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Lacks references. See WP:CITE. The "External links" used as references need to be called out into their own section, and the text, through footnotes, Harvard-style referencing, or other means, should direct you to which reference supplies facts and quotes found in the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, per Bunchofgrapes. Also, the lead is a bit short. --Spangineer 04:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object as per Bunchofgrapes and Spangineer. The article needs both references and inline citations to aid verifiability. Saravask 06:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1957 World Series edit

A well-written top class article, thuroughly researched with good and interesting information. A couple of pictures and a couple of interesting facts. Very featurable article. CollieBreath 04:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. This article isn't ready to be an FA at this point; no references, one section is marked as a stub, etc... Take a look at some of the recently featured articles to see what kind of comprehensiveness we look for here, CollieBreath. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object per Bunchofgrapes. Short introduction with inappropriately placed "Umpires" "MVP" and "Television" sections (more appropriate as an infobox), zero references and one external link, and some poor prose (Statements such as "His only slightly worse performance than in Game 5 was incredible" are POV). Rampart 04:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per above objections. In addition to the need for references, there are many red links. The introduction needs to be expanded to at least 3 paragraphs. The signed photograph really isn't too clear. With photographs of this nature you could easily claim fair use. In addition, inline citations would be quite useful! Good start to the article, though! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 14:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GG Allin edit

Well written article with good facts and plenty of information. A true testament as to how Wikipedia articles should be written. It's also come a long way. Gold Stur 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose a good article but the lead isn't long enough(See:Wikipedia:Lead) and there are no references. Falphin 01:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object.
    • Image:Gg47.jpg lacks fair-use rationale.
    • Image:GGALLIN.jpg lacks any copyright information and is currently at-risk of deletion.
    • The lead is too short.
    • The writing features far too many "(see below)", or "(see this link)" parentheticals. In many cases the links could be worked easily into the prose.
    • Statements like "Tensions within The Jabbers began to swell as GG became increasingly uncontrollable, vicious, and uncompromising" need some according-to-who attribution.
    • In general the writing feels narrative rather than encyclopedic.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per above objections. In addition, this article is desperate for incline citations and a good copyedit. Certainly a very nice start to the article! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object as per Bunchofgrapes and Ganymead. Saravask 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object a truely impressive improvment from where it was when I first saw it but its not quite to featured status. Dalf | Talk 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race of Jesus edit

Intereseting topic, and has been added and improved to become, in my opinion, featured article material. IF it makes it, give the medal to User:V. Molotov (creator of article). Thanks. Oh, anf if two editors debate all of the sudden, block both of them. I am editting under an IP now, because I pretty much got tired of Wikipedia. 65.35.197.181 23:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After some research I was able to correct some of the problems. 65.35.197.181 16:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Objection stands; The only change seems to have been changing BlackJesus.JPG from fair-use to public-domain, still with no indication of what the source of the image is, which is needed to support the contention that it is in fact public domain. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 65.35.197.181 05:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. There are hardly any references. NatusRoma 06:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 131.247.142.109 18:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, per Carnildo, andBunchofgrapes. Jkelly 22:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Needs many more references, atricle suffers heavily from use of weasel words. Definitely a good start, and an impressive achievement for its chief creator, V. Molotov—though, as a side-note, I'd be slightly more comfortable with it if he didn't feel a need to create a sockpuppet account, User:65.35.197.181, to secretly self-nominate the article. I know he's been pushing for this to become featured article since the day he made it, but a little patience can go a long way. Not that my vote is in any way based on the user's activities; he's a fantastic contributor, this article is a testament to that. It just needs to meet more of the FA requirements. -Silence 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I am the main contributor, having written about half of the current text. I don't think it is ready to be a featured article, but could get there. Could you explain on the talk page what "weasel words" you find problematic. Paul B 13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use a sock puppet account, I am used this because I LEFT WIKIPEDIA. I hate when people make accusations against me. It is not like I turned around and voted under both my IP and user name. 65.35.197.181 15:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for the same reasons stated above. Additionally, some important context seems to be missing. The debate over Jesus' race was part of an attempt to domesticise Christ within different ethnic traditions (note the connection of the question with missionary activity and early theories of racial difference). This is a good beginning, but not yet ready to stand as a FA. Dottore So 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain on the talk page what "important context" is missing. It would be a great help. Paul B 13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I promise to all of you, that I will try my best to get this up to featured article standards, even if that is what I do for the rest of my time here on Wikipedia. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<font=Impact>I PLAN TO DO MAJOR UPDATES ON THIS ARTICLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!!!! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the above. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 06:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has NOW BEEN CLEANED of bad images, OTHER ARTICLES HAVE TWO REFERENCES BUT THEY WERE ALLOWED ON THE FRONT PAGE - THE ONE ON THE FRONT PAGE NOW HAS ONLY SEVEN WHAT YOUY ARE SAYING MAKES NO SENSE!!!!! I THINK THAT THE WHOLE IDEA OF RACE INTERTWINED WITH JESUS IS TOO MUCH FOR YOU ALLεγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And guess what Richard O'Connor this has no citation on it. I have gotten very upset by reading this. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I was not trying to insult these articles, but only to state that these points are off target. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu House edit

3rd self-nomination. Since it was last in FAC, it has been copy-edited and greatly improved based on previous suggestions. It has been through FAC twice before, and has been through peer review once. Archives: Peer review, FAC 1, FAC 2. Your comments are always appreciated. Thanks — Wackymacs 11:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Four of the nine main sections are one paragraph long; two more are a very short two paragraphs. Sections should be at least three paragraphs long in general. There are a number of short one-sentence paragraphs as well. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed these issues, hopefully, is it any better now? — Wackymacs 07:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection struck, the structure looks a lot better now. (Some might still have a problem with the "Xanadu book" section; I don't.) I don't have the time to do a full review right now to decide on support or not. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now, great subject but there are a few things missing or that need clarification. Why does the History section begin with Before creating Xanadu House, Bob Masters designed and created inflatable balloons to be used in the construction of the house.- shouldn't we first be introduced to Masters and how he came up with the idea? How did Mason get involved? There is no explaination - he just appears and helps Bob out.
This section confuses me The Kissimmee house did not endure the elements well, suffering greatly from mold and mildew throughout the interior. The basement flooded with brownish water approximately a foot deep; in the basement were the utilities which controlled the electric and microcomputers.; were these problems common thoughout the time it existed, or only after 2001? If they were ongoing problms this section should go in the disadvantages part of the article (I was going to move it there- but its not clear when these were a problem)
There are also some other queries in the text.--nixie 02:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does say how Mason got involved in the 5th paragraph of the History section Disney opened the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow to compete with the Xanadu attraction. As a result Bob Masters found architect Roy Mason in 1980 at a futures conference in Toronto, to design the second Xanadu, I have changed the start of the History section text slightly based on what you have said. Thanks — Wackymacs 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the number of fair use images should be reduced too- all those interior shots seem excessive. Otherwise I Support the article.--nixie 12:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now. I think there should be a little bit more on the end of the History section about why and how these were shut down. I don't understand what "storage use" means, or if it needs to be mentioned. Also, the day-by-day updates (on October 6 this happened, and October 10th this happened) should be removed and summarized. All in all, great article though! —Cleared as filed. 03:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already says why they were shut down, because the technology was obsolete and they were losing popularity. I have slightly changed the wording in the end of the History section based on what you have said. Thanks. — Wackymacs 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think now that the Bob Masters link should either be removed, unless we think he's notable enough in his own right aside from his participation in the Xanadu House project. No need to have a red-link that's very unlikely to ever become an article. —Cleared as filed. 12:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- in the history section, more context of modern and contemporary architecture would be helpful. As for influences on this project, I've highlighted your link to Kisho Kurokawa-- but discussion of more, and better known architects than Jacques Beufs Jacques Rougerie like Buckminster Fuller, Peter Cook & Archigram, even Frank Lloyd Wright the Bauhaus school and Le Corbusier-- all obvious and direct influences, might make a featured article. Also, your closing statement of the introduction, "The Xanadu Houses were some of the last experimental houses ever built,...", is prediction. See Frank Gehry, Greg Lynn and many others for the continuity of experimental houses and architecture after the 80's. -Davidrowe 05:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guns, Germs, and Steel edit

Guns, Germs, and Steel should definitely be a featured article. The book itself is amazing and the article on it is almost there. Too many people are racist because of some perceived difference in people, when what they really should be looking at is the geographical imbalances. Especially in these racially-charged times it helps to focus on something that downplays the lies of bigotry and replaces them with science. --Cyde 08:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list which are still valid and significant? Some have been fixed.--JWB 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those of maclean25, the article doesn't actually describe the book releases, sales and so on.--nixie 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per nixie. Along the same line, I still don't think the article covers Diamond's hypothesis about Eurasia being more successful because it is long in the east-west direction completely enough. To my recollection, that was an absolutely crucial point of the book: that societies could successfully transplant their "toolsets" (crops, agricultural and housing technology, food preservation techniques) only to places with similar climates, effectively isolating the peoples in the north-south oriented Americas and Africa. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is Wikipedia, you know ... if it's so important maybe you could, say, add it in there and then Support it. --Cyde 04:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll restrain my intense burning urge to be sarcastic here, and merely point out that describing what an article is missing is often a less time-consuming process than actually producing good writing in an article to that effect. In addition, my "oppose per nixie" indicates that I agree with the other problems raised in the peer review, especially the lack of discussion of the book's sales etc. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This line is very odd: "- this is a more extensive discussion of the effects of geography on comparative Chinese and European development than is allowed in the final section of Professor Diamond's book, and predates it by sixteen years." Jkelly 04:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As a person who nominated this to PR I don't think that it is ready for FA status yet, although I think that with some work to address the raised issues this can be back here in short order. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planar graph edit

This article has extremely useful diagrams (as would be expected in an article about graph theory), and contains very useful, relevant, and succinct information about planar graphs. --Leapfrog314 04:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong object This article is very far from the FA status. It is a typical math article for mathematicians. The lead does not give any reason for the layman to read this. Theorems are provided without explaining why they are interesting or important. No possible application is provided. Many important concepts are defined in other articles and the reader needs all the time to click on the links. The articles linked are themselves complicated and the reader needs basically to read all maths articles before beginning to understand what is told about in this. Examples: complete graph, K3,3, etc... Vb 09:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons listed above. PedanticallySpeaking 17:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Inaccessible to non-mathematicians. It's unreasonable to assume the reader will be able to understand terms such as "4-partite". File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islam edit

Great article, I learned a lot from it. There's certainly enough information, even if it's a topic some people won't like, not to mention a magnet for vandals. --Jibbajabba 22:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (withdrawing support vote - changed to no opinion) - featured articles desperately needs more non-western articles.Bwithh 23:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You gave that reason for something else, plus it's not really much of a reason in the first place... Can you please say something about the quality so it sounds credible? No offense. --Jibbajabba 23:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:Masjidnabawi.jpg has no source or copyright information.
      Image has been replaced with a Common Creative Licensed image.
    2. What do the two different shades of green in Image:Islam by country.png mean?
      Sunnite vs. Shiite distribution, have a look at the Image page dab (ᛏ)
      Does it say that in the German description? The English description doesn't. --Carnildo 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    3. There's a "citation needed" note in "Symbols of Islam". This needs to be taken care of.
    --Carnildo 00:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. People in general could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam! --Striver 00:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article lacks inline citations, and the introduction is unacceptable. →Raul654 01:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Lead is far too short; several one-paragraph (and one sentence) subsections. As an aside, the FAC process should be, I think, totally agnostic toward such arguments as "we need more non-western FAs" and "people could benefit from some NPOV information about Islam". Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article. That said, I don't think this article is all that far from the goal, and with supporters like those here, I look forward to seeing it as an FA soon. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are great reasons to go work on an article and bring it up to FA quality but meaningless reasons to vote support for an article. - AMEN, brother. →Raul654 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Sadly, article is not stable. At least 18 vandalisms and one linkspam in the past 3 days. I believe the lead should be 3 paragraphs, not one sentence. Contents are too long and ungainly, it could use better referencing, and there's a number of red links. Proto t c 12:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vandalism does not an unstable article make. →Raul654 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but incessant POV edit wars (q.v. this morning) do.Timothy Usher 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, the introduction needs some work. I give it a {{GA}} at the very least, though. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I feel as one of the regular editors on the article that it could use some more work, but it is definitely a good article at least. Maybe in a month it can be renominated for FAC. Also the article faces vandalism problems just like every other religion article, but that shouldn't affect it's FAC. Editors should list some of their concerns here, so that the article can be improved. I added the demographics picture description after Carnildo's concern and I also think that the introduction can be expanded. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. i don't think the article is professional and encyclopedic enough yet. --Juan Muslim 02:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • object for purely selfish reasons. If we make it a featured article the already ridiculous levels of vandalism will increase, as will the partisan sniping, of which we already have quite enough. I think. Other people who work on the article regularly may feel differently, of course. Want to take this opportunity to point out that there is certainly much to be proud of in this article, and that credit for this is due in large measure to User:Zora. She's just done a superb job. BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That objection probably falls afoul of WP:FAC's "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." If it's any consolation, I don't think being featured usually has much effect on vandalism levels, except for the day it's on the front page. Its effect on partisan sniping is harder to guess at. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This objection is invalid. →Raul654 17:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I hear what you're saying, and I understand that this objection of mine is off base. BrandonYusufToropov 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob McEwen edit

Self nom. Profile of a former six-term Ohio congressman in the news this year. PedanticallySpeaking 17:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good at first sight - but is a (fair use?) picture out of the question? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support, provided that at least one proper and fair use eligible image is put into the introduction (this should be relatively easy to obtain from his official congressional website), the references are somehow organized either alphabetically or numerically, and the introduction is reformatted into the recommended three paragraphs. Otherwise, the article is well-referenced and comprehensive (as it appears from a newcomer's perspective). Personally, I may not agree with his conservative politics, but that is entirely irrelevant for purposes of evaluating the article itself. Kudos. Saravask 19:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC) It does not seem anyone is addressing the below concerns, so I will retract my vote. I agree with the need to convert the raw HTML links to footnotes. Saravask 06:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor object. Remove external links from mainbody, move to refernces, link with mainbody via Wikipedia:Footnotes. Image(s) would also be very useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Great article, but why no images? Any U.S. government figure should have some PD photos available of them. - SimonP 22:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
McEwen does not have an "official Congressional website" as he has not been a Member of Congress since 1993. I don't understand the objection to external links. Why is that an issue. PedanticallySpeaking

Billings, Montana edit

Good Article, deserves to be featured. Support- Per Nomination. FireSpike 01:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object There are no references (a requirement for FA). Also, there is no information on economy, climate, or cityscape (is the city modern in appearance or older, rural or urbanized?). The list of neighborhoods should be turned into prose. Pentawing 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; it's barely more than a stub. FireSpike, I suggest you browse through some of the Recently Featured Articles to get a feel for the level of comprehensiveness looked for here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest removing the seconds of latitude and longitude or telling which building or landmark the numbers refer to. Fg2 02:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Water resources edit

This article was nominated beacause it talks about a very important world issue and people need to be more aware of what is going on with the earths water supply. Tarret 01:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. Way too many headings. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Also, references need citations, not simply a list of external links labelled "References". That said, I think the topic is of great importance, and would love to read a FA-standard article on the subject. Jkelly 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    1. Needs a very through copyediting -- "alot" isn't a word.
    2. Many of the images need better captions, or need to be removed -- I think everyone knows what a lake looks like, for example.
    3. The image Image:Iwimi.jpg is tagged as "copyrighted free-use", but there's no evidence that that's correct.
    --Carnildo 21:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Around the Horn edit

I love the show and like the article too. The page is well written, detailed, and thorough. I'd love to see this as a featured article.

  • Support- Per Nomination. FireSpike 18:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: It's almost entirely lists. Featured Articles should feature prose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Bunchofgrapes. If it weren't for the lists, this article would be a very good stub. Jkelly 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, this is just a stub with some lists tacked on. Andrew Levine 21:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turku edit

Partial self-nom. This article about the oldest city in Finland has been through peer review and had a previous FAC nomination. The only objection that remained was that the article should be copyedited slightly, and that has been done now by numerous editors. - ulayiti (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lostprophets edit

All articles drawn from have now been fully referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.247.75 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 November 2005

Old nomination subpages shouldn't be written over; you have to transfer them to an archive page using the "Move" function available to logged in users. The previous nomination page is here. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Extraordinary Machine 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's good that the magazine article references are now there, but the images still don't have any source or copyright information, and there seem to be quite a few one or two-line paragraphs that could be merged into larger ones. Additionally, sentences such as "such credibility sapping magazines as J-17 and Cosmo Girl" and "lostprophets sold-out the cavernous Cardiff International Arena, a once unimaginable feat that served as concrete proof of just how big the band had become" should be reworded, as they are a little POV. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The two things that can be done to improve this article (and I mentioned some of them in Peer Review and all of them in the last FAC nomination) are:
  1. Add a source for who credits them with popularizing studded belts, low-slung jeans, etc. If they really are "largely credited with popularising [these] items" it shouldn't be difficult to find at least one source. You can phrase it in such a way as "Rolling Stone credits..."
  2. Add the Infobox_band template.
Cedars 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is used by a number of featured articles on bands including The Beatles, Iron Maiden and Nirvana. It offers a good summary of information and is helpful to those who visit the page to find a piece of information such as whether the band is still active, who its members are or what the band's genre or label is. It also encourages the editors to place a picture of the band near the top of the article and this article needs that. Cedars 10:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles For Sale edit

Passed peer review with not many comments. Self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had some minor issues with the described relationship between the UK and US albums, but I went ahead and addressed them myself. Assuming you are OK with the changes, I support this nom. Jgm 13:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article is inadequately researched. The bulk of the text is a set of quotations drawn from a single webpage, http://www.geocities.com/~beatleboy1/dba04sale.html , (which is listed iin the article references) filled out by unsourced commentary with, at best, NPOV issues. Monicasdude 23:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Revised: Although my initial objections have been met to some degree, I find the patched version less suitable as an FA candidate than the original. The extensive inclusion of AMG commentary greatly unbalances the article; it now is dominated by the recent opinions of a single, not terribly distinguished writer (with virtually no contemporaneous commentary). And the covers section calls for a discussion of the songs themselves to be comprehensive. Monicasdude 20:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is why I've been rather reluctant to nominate the article for FAC, actually — there's not much that can be said about the album besides the various Beatles' reminiscing and perhaps some description of the songs. I agree the commentary reads as a bit POV at times, and will try to sort that out, but the fact is that Beatles for Sale is probably the Beatles' most unremarkable album. The only commentary I can see is the description of the songs, which I think is always going to sound a bit POV, since any work of art is going to have many interpretations, and most 3rd-party commentary is probably hidden away in archives, considering how old this album is. I'll see what I can find at AMG and Q, though. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Support. Jkelly 23:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Object, unfortunately. Per Monicasdude, with two added concerns. One is that there is so much literature on The Beatles that a truly comprehensive article is going to need an awful lot of research, which pretty much precludes using any material from geocities websites at all. In the case of artists without much secondary literature, fansites can be a great resource. With The Beatles, it is problematic. Secondly, the article over-uses fair use images. The cover of the preceding and next albums aren't being added under WP:FU policy. Images for The Beatles are particularly tricky, I am sure, but this isn't the way to go. Jkelly 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand what you are saying, no album article using the current album box template (which includes album cover art) can make feautred status. If so this issue is bigger than this nomination and needs to be addressed where the template is discussed. Jgm 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current album box template, as given at WP:ALBUM, which is the associated Wikiproject for album articles, and to whose standards FACs about albums must meet is Template:Album infobox. Template:Album infobox 2, used in this article, is a variant upon it. I'm unwilling to start FARC'ing album articles that use it, but I am also unwilling to support new FAs that don't adhere to Project guidelines. Jkelly 04:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the album infobox was an oversight on my part — I think it's most inappropriate to call those images "fair use". I've since removed it. Simply classifying the Geocities webpage as unreliable is inaccurate, I think, since it's an online repository of Beatles quotes collated from sources directly cited by the website. Books in Malaysia are expensive, but I may be able to look at local libraries and get some books from there. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have some Beatles books on hand; I'll take a look and see if I can help. Jgm 16:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hate to be a pain, but, well, the (very short) lead currently states "by their relentless recording and performing schedule, the Beatles chose to return to the inclusion of a number of cover versions in Beatles for Sale." I have no idea how to evaluate this statement, because, while the article now lists several references, there's no link between the statements and each reference. Is this something a member said, or speculation by a critic, or what? I want to support this article, but I feel that clear referencing is especially important for articles on the arts. Is there any chance that I will see footnotes? The "Personnel" section is also not formatted to WP:ALBUM suggestions, but I will happily fix that myself, if I hear that there are no objections. Jkelly 02:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've now somewhat explicitly attributed where those quotes came from. Go ahead and fix up the Personnel section. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: The images Image:HelpUK.jpg and Image:HardDayUK.jpg are tagged as fair use, but they are used only for decorative purposes. This does not meet the requirements for fair use. They should be removed. --Carnildo 06:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jgm has been a kind soul and added print sources to corroborate the article. I've soothed my conscience by NPOVing the article with commentary from AMG and Q that, at any rate, at least sounds a lot better than the pedestrian stuff we used to have. Johnleemk | Talk 10:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to it appearing on the main page, at least. It seems the majority of music related FAs that have made the main page are Beatles related. While I'm a fan, and realize the great significance of the band, there are plenty of other music subjects out there, and the Beatles are getting to much attention in this respect. -R. fiend 17:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's unactionable, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I've never explicitly requested any of the articles I've worked on substantially to be featured on the front page (at least, as far as I can remember), and I will oppose such a motion if and only if it comes up as a suggestion precisely for the same reason as you. This is not the place to discuss it, however. Johnleemk | Talk 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. As per Monicasdude, nearly half of the article is quotations and there is wayy too much dependence on All Music Guide. Article suffers from overlinking of dates. Overall, article is bare in terms of relevent wikilinks. —jiy (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario edit

I think this is a pretty good possibility for a featured article.

I looked over the page, and I didn't see that much wrong with it at all. All of the party members and characters are listed there, without too much detail, the battle mechanics are described wonderfully, and I personally don't see any glaring errors. I edited a few names to fix their spelling, but other than that I think this is totally ready to become a featured article! This was a wonderful game to play, and I think it would be very welcome in the library of featured articles. Any way I can help make this even better if it's not ready, please do say. Toastypk 01:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object.
There is content for the plotline, but it shouldn't be in the lead, but in its own section.
It has no references.
It has no discussion on its critical acclaim, its sales figures or the Mario RPG series as a whole.
Characters section is too excessive. All NPCs should be merged into the plot section.
No mention of Princess Peach's playability. The playable characters should be unlistified, and made into a section about the partners and talk about how they work in and outside of battles.
No discussion about audio, and barely anything discussing the graphical style.
No discussion about the varying enemies, such as how a flying enemy is immune to most hammer techniques, or that spiked enemies will injure Mario or anyone who jumps on them when they attack. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and Judaism edit

  • Support (Self-nom) VChapman (Oct 29, 2005)
  • Started as a stub, and being worked on heavily since Jan 05, this article has grown. There has been great effort into making the article NPOV, and sometimes painful. Often disagreements, all settled without arbitration. The result, in my opinion is the purpose of wikipedia.
  • Response to Concerns The Break out of Mormonism and Judaism topics is a result of individuals of both faiths working on the issue. This allowed individuals contributing to the Jewish or Mormon sections to not inadvertantly change the POV of the other faith and thus inadvertantly affecting the NPOV. Maintaining a NPOV is EXTREMELY difficult in this article. This article is the work of many individuals. Vchapman (04 Nov 05 UTC)
  • Correction Bolding of Nouns, which were bolded in original stub I found have been un-bolded. Thanks pointing it out. VChapman (5 Nov 05)
  • More Pictures Added but have been unable to locate a Wiki picture of a statue or painting of Moses, except for one Pegan statue with HORNS. I am asking for help in locating a more approperiate picture of a painting.
  • Concern here Some Individuals oppose saying paragraphs need to be merged and expanded, others object saying the ToC is to large and the articel needs to be shorter. It can't go both ways?!?!? VChapman (08 Nov 05 UTC)
  • Object, no references. Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object This is a very good article on a fascinating subject but I think the presentation is too messy. This article really needs to go through peer review before coming back here. Besides Kirill's concerns on the lack of references, I would add the following:
  • The TOC is really overwhelming. Part of the problem is that most sections are divided into Judaism/Mormanism sections. In addition to giving a more unwieldy appearance to the article it also divides the article into many short (sometimes one sentence) paragraphs.
  • Short paragraphs a found throughout. These should either be merged or expanded.
  • This article cries out for inline citations!
  • A few more images would make this article much nicer, how about pics of Joseph Smith, Abraham (a nice painting of him would do), Moses, the Main Temple in Salt Lake City, a picture of a synogogue, perhaps? The images aren't required for FA but they do add to the aesthetic appeal of the article. If you need any help locating images, I'm willing to help, just leave a note on my talk page.
  • The introduction should summerize the article and should be around three paragraphs for an article of this size.
As I've said, this is a fine article on a great subject! It just needs some work before it goes on to FA. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 21:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now I agree with all that Ganymead said, and also wonder why all the nouns have been bolded in the lead instead of bolding what should be the article's title or something very similar? Harro5 04:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Please see WP:CITE and WP:MOS. WP:NPOV alone does not a featured article make. Jkelly 17:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this would be a good idea for a featured article, comparing and discussing two Strict, Controversial, and highly populated religions. --Z.Spy 06:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Adam1213 Talk+ 09:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. ToC is a monster and should be reduced (consider also moving parts of the article into a separate subarticles). There are external links in main article's body. No references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. My large problem with this article is its significance and meaning is unclear, resulting in a number of issues to this reader informed about Judaism, but not necessarily the details of Mormonism. It seems to be drawing parallels between Mormonism and Judaism, mostly to support the one-way special relationship that Mormonism seems to have with Judaism, or at least that is the impression I get. The result is a strange article, in my view, that emphasizes parts of Judaism that are not particularly relevant -- starting with the first section "Tribal Affiliations." The idea of tribal affiliation is certainly not a major point in modern Jewish practice, but the article certainly gives that impression. Similarly, quoting the Jewish view of God directly from the Ten Commandments doesn't really recognize the 3,000 years of religious thought on the subject, such as the development of Jewish principles of faith. Again, nothing is horribly factually wrong, but the article's reason for being is not clear, and the emphasis, from the Jewish perspective, are strange. This needs to be clarified before I would support. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Modern Rabbinical Judaism has less in common with Mormonism than Ancient or Hebrew Judaism. The sections on the Jewish Perspective were actually contributed by other members, I only presume to have an extensive knowledge of the Jewish belief system. I myself am LDS and do not make changes under any heading labeled Judaism. (Except for the Section on Jewish Mormons) VChapman 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your response. The article then, should perhaps be "Mormon views of Judaism" or "Mormonism's relationship to Judaism." The compare-and-contrast is clearly from a Mormon perspective, since it doesn't really cover Judaism coherently, instead focusing on areas of interest to Mormonism, presumably. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, no references (needs inline citations as well, please). --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, just stylistically it needs a better referencing system. It also needs better / more references. It borders on original research when you juxtapose two ideas in comparison with citations from different contexts in order to make a point. As a result the amount / quality of citations is very important. It just seems really fragmented and scattered to me. gren グレン 09:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fox River Grove level crossing accident edit

Self-nom, and my first attempt to raise the bar for Wikipedia articles and entries. I have tried to highlight the importance of the event while still respecting the community, the memory of the victims, while maintaining a level of journalistic accuracy that I would expect to read in either a newspaper or a magazine. Possible objections: top image has no source, middle image has attributions to another company, bottom image is OK. I was assuming that if they were in the NTSB report, they were considered works of the government. --Rob 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I'd love to see more rail transport related articles reach featured status, I must object right now because 1) Cite your sources in a References section; 2) "... Metra train number 624 ... slammed into the back of a school bus ..." sounds too sensationalistic and makes it sound like Metra was at fault when further down it's stated "[t]he primary cause of the accident was the failure of the bus driver, Patricia Catencamp, to properly judge the distance ..."; 3) There is no mention of any recommendations by NTSB, FRA or any other agency on how to prevent a similar accident from occurring in the future except for one sentence in the lead; what legislation was proposed and what actions were taken? slambo 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Noted — they're all in External links at the moment.
    2. This is just a matter of word choice in my opinion... "hit" sounds like an understatement, while "impacted" sounds odd. What about "crashed into"?
    3. There is a little bit of a mention in Consequences, but it can afford to be expanded. --Rob 21:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On point 2, how about "collided with"? I usually use this for the timeline pages in Category:Timeline of rail transport. For point 3, my ideal solution would be a section like in Graniteville train disaster#Recommendations or Bourbonnais train accident#NTSB recommendations. As a minimum, something like the last two paragraphs of Clapham Junction rail crash should be included. slambo 22:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, fixed wording on the article. Points 1 and 3, I'll try to deal with later today. :-) --Rob 11:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding NTSB recommendations, they're a good idea, but I want to do more than paste them word-for-word into the article (unless it's in a sidebar). Sometimes they're confusing even then, because the recommendations require the context of the entire report. It's definitely possible, however. --Rob 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added NTSB recommendations. It's a bit rough around the edges—further edits will help clean this up. It will be difficult, but not impossible, to find resulting legislation. Also, going back helped uncover another cause of the accident, which I must add later, if not tonight (inability of the driver to hear audible warnings). --Rob 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Did you see anything further on the legislation that's mentioned in the lead? slambo 18:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing before I forget. The CNW was known for running "left-hand main" similar to British practice, rather than "right-hand main", which is more common on US railroads. UP continues this practice on former CNW lines such as the one involved in this accident. That means that the Metra train in the accident was travelling eastbound, and probably was well loaded with commuters bound for Chicago. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article too, but I'm not sure where at the moment. slambo 23:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: It's not bad at all, but it needs some more work:
    • There are a lot of short (1-2 sentence) paragraphs. Could they be expanded? If not, merge them into an adjacent paragraph.
    • The timeline should probably be converted into prose, rather than being presented as a list. Ditto for the list of victims, although since that would be such a short section on its own I'd probably move the victims to the lead.
    • Make sure that all figures are connected to their unit by a non-breaking space (  click Edit to see an example of the code you need to use), so that the figure is on the same line as the unit.
Good luck! If I can help out, just let me know. PacknCanes | say something! 22:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would personally rather keep the timeline the way it is, for clarity. Lists are bad when they're really just a method of outlining that should be turned into prose. However, I believe the timeline would lose clarity if presented as paragraphs of prose. As to the list of victims, it would equally be a list if presented separated by commas or semicolons in a paragraph, rather than a bulleted list as present. I'm not sure I see the value of that, myself. It concerns me that 'remove all lists' is becoming a de-facto FAC requirement. —Morven 23:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I really believe that a featured article should have excellent prose from start to finish. Featured Lists combine good prose with a thorough list, and I think that's why you're seeing "remove all lists" become a standard objection in FACs. If Featured Lists didn't exist, then I don't think you'd see the number of remove-list objections. I'm willing to reconsider, but at least in my opinion a featured article should do everything possible to avoid listing information. PacknCanes | say something! 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think an article should present information in whatever way is most effective. Sometimes that is in list form. Featured Lists would not take an article like this: it is for articles that ARE lists, not that CONTAIN lists. I don't think the creation of Featured Lists was intended to bar list markup from ever being used in other articles seeking featured status.
That said, in many cases, lists are not the best way to present information. My main disagreement was in presenting the timeline as paragraphs, which I do not think could be easily done without reducing readability or removing information. It could be that the timeline contains a level of detail which is not needed in an article (as opposed to an accident report) - what do you think? As to the list of victims, I have no serious objection to them being listed in a paragraph rather than with bullets, but I simply feel the article neither gains nor loses thereby. —Morven 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll come around to where I can take it or leave it. I'd still rather see it as prose, but I see your point and it's well taken. If that's the only thing remaining on my objection, I'll withdraw it. PacknCanes | say something! 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsidered my objection to listing the victims as a list, and tried your suggestion of placing them in the lead. Do you think that looks better? Reason for my reconsideration was unhappiness with that too-short section. I also reworded as 'killed', not 'victims' - since the wounded also count as 'victims'. —Morven 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. I combined the list of those killed with the notation about the renaming of the crossing, since they seemed to go well together. Thanks -- PacknCanes | say something! 23:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it - that flows a lot better. —Morven 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note my agreement that the timeline as it is now looks fine. The presence of complete lists in articles is usually less of a problem than incomplete lists, and the timeline format helps with a time sequence that would be painful to visualize as prose. No vote. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Placed non-breaking spaces between numbers and units, except for seconds - do we do those too if 'seconds' is a word, not abbreviation? —Morven 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you'd might as well. You don't really lose anything by making it a nbsp, except a little time to convert the spaces. PacknCanes | say something! 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, do you want those in between the 7:xx and the AM parts too? --Rob 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, although it has much potential. The diagrams add a lot to the article. However, the lead mentions that this was a "watershed moment," but the "Consequences" section is very sparse. The article should go into more detail about the coverage of the accident in the media, the reaction of politicians and other influential figures, and the specifics of what sort of legislation and regulations were handed down as a result of the tragedy. Was there any reaction on the national level? This sort of detail would flesh out the claim made in the lead, and also provide the reader with a lot more context about the accident's importance. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This is an interesting and mostly well-written article. Here are some things I think need attention:

1) I would rewrite the first sentence as, "The Fox River Grove level-crossing accident refers to a collision between a school bus and a commuter train that killed seven students in Fox River Grove, Illinois."

2) You do not define the following terms: crossing processor, thumbwheel, EMT and sound attenuation materials.

3) I question the appropriateness of the first graphic, since it is hard to decipher. You might want to redraw it to make it simpler.

4) From what I gather, the intersection is a T, with the train tracks running parallel to US 14. Presumably, the bus was traveling northeast, on Algonquin, but I don't think you say that in the text.

5) This sentence is very confusing:

"The primary cause of the accident was the failure of the bus driver, Patricia Catencamp, to properly judge the distance between the railroad tracks and the vehicle stopped at a traffic signal across the tracks."

Does "the vehicle" mean the bus? And does "across the tracks" mean north of the tracks?

6) AASHTO should be spelled out in the first reference, or you should create an article on it.

7) There are no references in the text, only a collection of links at the bottom. Mwalcoff 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object:This is a very good brief account and report of a tragedy, and that is the problem - it is just a factual report. It is not a featured article. It is too short, there must have been many after effects of such an occurrence, was the driver prosecuted, how experienced was she, what happened to her, and the many other survivors. I don't like the lack of a proper reference section, but I suppose links to official reports will do in a case like this. Giano | talk 09:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't deny that it's definitely a brief account and report, but at what point does information get included that belongs in another article? Some things I considered including in the article were background information, such as 1.) why Illinois has a history of being one of the leading states in grade-level crossings, and 2.) the accident history of the intersection. More information is better than none, but some of it may not be appropriate. The references section will be refined as I have free time. --Rob 18:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I agree with Giano. Bwithh 22:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot better than it was recently, but object for now. (1) it needs a References section and (2) I'd like to see a bit more about the bus driver (e.g. in the timeline you mention a substitute bus driver, but is that the same person as Patricia Catencamp? Had she ever driven the route before? Was she disciplined for her error in judgement? etc.). JYolkowski // talk 02:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time to completion edit

These are all very good comments and will be addressed. I will keep referring to this page in the next week as I try to address each concern. --Rob 09:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

H5N1 edit

A successful WP:AID article, I think this is of great significance just now. -Litefantastic 18:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should convert all of the external links that are in the body of the article into numbered references. At the very least, people have to stop inserting new external links that disrupt the existing numbered references. --JWSchmidt 18:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is this really stable? KingTT 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, the following need to be addressed:
  1. The lead needs to mention why H5N1 is a concern.
  2. html links should be converted to footnotes and full details of source included (this seems to be in progress)
  3. By my understanding 2004/05 isn't the first time HN51 has been recorded, can some information on the first occurence and subsequent identificaion of the virus be added.
  4. The Asia and beyond section reads like the current events page, please try and incorporte this information into cohesive paragraphs.
  5. Merge pig cases and big cat cases into a sectional called HN51 in other animals.
  6. The worst case scenario section should probably be L2 heading and notably this is the only unsourced section, it would be useful for the reader to know which agencies are concerned about a pandemic. Information on planning for a pandemic and government responses would also be valuable addtions.
  7. Remove see alsos that are already mentioed in the text.

--nixie 23:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the cleanup taskforce have been looking at this and have yet to decide it is "clean" - I don't know what that means but we should remember that. Andreww 09:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, just looking at the lead section:
  1. Third paragraph. "Usually these flu viruses " which flu viruses - N5H1 or bird flu in general? The Spanish flu was H1N1 so I guess bird flu in general but it's not clear.
  2. Is this about one particular H5N1 virus or about H5N1 viruses in general? I think H5N1 existed before 1997 but it only became so dangerous then.

Andreww 09:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: extensive, thorough, very well researched, structured and illustrated, this is the quintessential featured article. Furthermore, it is currently of high relevance and interest and will attract kudos and lots of traffic to Wikipedia once again. I suggest we focus on this one for rapid approval. --R.Sabbatini 10:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object Will not meet stability criterion until the current scare goes away. Has many short subsections and paragraphs. Inline external links should probably be converted to footnotes. The "Asia and beyond" section is far from being brilliant prose. Poor layout by the end of the article. "Worst case scenario section" should be far longer and include current research. There is absolutely no info on the 1997 outbreak beyond a passing mention on the lead... and the list goes on. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 02:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have this page on my watchlist and I haven't seen any stability problems at all, there doesn't seem to be any sort of popularity of the article among vandals, and there don't seem to be any edit wars due to content disputes. But I don't think it matters, shouldn't this of been closed months ago? Homestarmy 15:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
  1. Infobox should be at the top of the article, instead of pushed down by an image.
  2. Image #1841 (the colorized transmission electron micrograph of H5N1) is displayed twice, this is redundant.
  3. The Wikinews template seems to be placed in an odd section in the middle of the article. --Hetar 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As Hetar pointed out, H5N1 is a regular hotbed of dispute over where to place images. In no way ready for Featured Article status. Move on, nothing to see here. WAS 4.250 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have delisted this nomination. It seems to be a mix of several old noms--look at the dates of the comments! Please follow the instructions for re-nominations at the top of WP:FAC. Move any old noms to archives (separate archives!). Start the new nom from scratch with a new header (not one dated October 2005), which contains links to these archives, and without any old comments, and post it at the top (not the foot) of WP:FAC. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but a nomination that conflates at least three different discussions just won't work. And how about the comments from April 6 (day before yesterday..?) Don't just put this back, please. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Since this is a WP:GACo, I suggest holding this off till monday when it'll be rotated out. I'll re-nominate it at that point myself if no one else has. (I think that most if not all of the above objections have been adressed either before, or during the improvement drive.) --Barberio 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Indian cricket team edit

A renomination after a substantial rewrite. I believe all comments on the previous nomination have been dealt with, jguk 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Very good article, but I particularly like the tabel of results in the 80s. Any reason why this hasn't been implemented for all years? Perhaps this should be done in another page, but I think it would be very useful. Harro5 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A table of all results for all time would be too long, I think. I take your point that it would be useful to have a summary of every result on another page though, jguk 07:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A fine piece of work which is hard to fault. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object: After prompting from the comments below and re-reading the article, it does really need to expand beyond a history of West Indian cricket. Sorry, but it's not quite there yet. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "75 Years" image is used, with a clear description, to say that the West Indies Cricket Board authorised the book to celebrate 75 Years of West Indian Test cricket. The "Champions Trophy" logo is described in the text as being there because the West Indies won the competition. What's wrong with this? jguk 08:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's wrong with the "75 years" image is that the image description page has no fair use rationale: see Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. What's wrong with the "Champions Trophy" logo is that it provides no information to the article and is not discussed in the article: it exists only for decorative purposes. --Carnildo 18:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a query here about fair use for Carnildo: you say that "75 years" has no fair use rationale. Doesn't the 'book cover' copyright tag count as rationale? What more is needed? I'm just making sure I understand where you're coming from. This area seems much too complicated for me. Raven4x4x 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "book cover" tag counts as a fair use rationale in an article about the book. Any other use needs its own rationale. --Carnildo 20:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • One bit of the article is about the book - namely the bit about the WICB authorising it to celebrate 75 years of West Indian Test cricket. Isn't this enough? Anyway, I'm removing these two images for now, jguk 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This looks solid. Good job, jg. -- Peripatetic 00:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – The article only speaks on the history of the WICT. I feel this should be moved to so a separate article and a summary of the same be added here. The page size is also on the higher side. I think the following things need to be added: 1. Frank Worell's contribution: IIRC He was responsible for changing the fortunes of the WI team, using cricket as an outlet to unite the people against colonialism and poverty. 2. Nothing mentioned about the innovations introduced by WI -- Chinaman etc., 3. WI home grounds & culture --> calypso, noisy stadiums, flamboyant batsmen, fast bowlers etc. (I know, I should have reviewed earlier, but didn't have the time.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be somewhat POV to single out Worrell. Also, although I'd like to write a Social history of cricket sometime, I'm not sure this is the place (ie this article isn't meant to be a social history of West Indian cricket, which would be a separate article entirely - and quite an interesting one if it ever gets written:) ) jguk 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nichalp raises some good points which would improve this article further - perhaps this article should be moved to History of the West Indies cricket team and featured there, and his points added to a new more rounded article on the West Indian cricket team? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Has an ugly self-reference up the top of the page. Lead section should be more of a summary of the article and less of a narrative history. It also contains no content apart from history; almost the point where it could be named History of the West Indian cricket team with virtually no changes. The history, however, is excellent. Ambi 07:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you looking for apart from the history? jguk 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uniforms? Grounds? Key records? Current squad? Supporters? Culture? Also the squad that won any trophies. There's quite a lot that could be added. See Arsenal F.C., which is today's main page article and a fantastic example of a club article. As an additional objection, the references aren't in the proper format. Ambi 02:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar edit

Partly self-nom (I have expanded the Inlays section, but the rest of the article isn't mine.) (However, this could be 'improved' by removing some of the too many external links.)

  • Object Very far from FA status. Should make a peer review. For the following reasons
    • The article is missing 'national guitar'
    • The lists Significant Guitarists, Guitar makers and Guitar technique should be transferred to daughter articles and a summary with overview should replace them.
    • Guitar etc. is not an encyclopedic style
    • Acoustic and electric guitars should be change into something like Types of guitars
    • Expand Guitar amplifier
    • Expand Guitar festivals
    • Reduce the number of external links
    • I think the article could be improved by linking the different style of acoustic and electric guitars with significant guitarists who used them.

Vb 13:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. The image Image:Super400.jpg has no source information. --Carnildo 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object the article is too much of a list, lead should be longer and consist of only 2-3 paragraphs. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I cannot see including an article as featured when it doesn't meet the three pillars, namely Verifiability. Alan.ca 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drill bit edit

How to write a great article about something seemingly banal

  • Object. There are several sections marked as "under construction", I don't think it's ready for this yet. Also, you didn't put the FAC tag on the talk page. Leithp 11:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – "under construction"? just one reference? There are too many headings, if you intend this to be a list of drill bit types, then WP:FLC would be an appropriate place to nominate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a work in progress... right now we're mostly working on other WikiProject Metalworking tasks. Might be best to wait until it's looking closer to done. Bushytails 19:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: Unfinished. Little more than an explained but incomplete list than a featured article. Giano | talk 10:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: This seems more like a category waiting to happen. I'm not sure that putting all this in one article serves Wikipedia well, and even when finished I doubt it could really make it as a unified whole, much less an FA. Daniel Case 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OBJECT You can't seriously be considering putting this article on the main page? Terribly written. Most, if not all, sections are small & pathetic. Plus, weigh this option: Historical article of use to mankind, or drill bit. Historical article of use to mankind, drill bit. Historical article, drill bit. Seems a no brainer to me! Spawn Man 02:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Definately expand (or just get rid of), the 'under construction' sections. It wouldnt look too bad without them Astrokey44 11:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemology edit

Self-nomination. This article has finally become stable enough for nomination. It is also a rare example of a philosophy article with a relevant picture... Banno 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, for a number of reasons:
  1. In-text citations need to be liberally inserted into the text.
  2. The one-paragraph sections should somehow be merged into a more coherent whole.
Not sure how this could be done without a reduction in clarity. Banno
Some of the shorter sections could be slightly expanded, then. The middle portion of the article reads somewhat like a list at present, particularly the sections from "Idealism" to "Skepticism". Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "See also" section needs to be shortened dramatically. The article shouldn't try to function as a List of epistemic philosphers.
  2. More images would help; portraits of the philosophers mentioned can be used if nothing better is available.
While I agree that images would add to the appeal of the article, I don't want to see the situation develop were every main philosophy article has a picture of Socrates. Perhaps this is a field in which pictures are not that important? Banno
True, that. On the other hand, a picture of Edmund Gettier would be quite appropriate. I'll leave it up to your discretion, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The lead section should be lengthened to several well-formed paragraphs.
Other than that, seems like a fairly good article. Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the huge "See also" at the bottom of the page needs cleanup. You can remove links to anything linked in the main body text. If the section is still huge after that, it may indicate that the article needs to be expanded. JYolkowski // talk 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've considerably reduced it. Banno 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, I'd like to see the references clearly identified and separated from "interest" external links. The signle sentence paragraphs need to be tidied up. I think that a bit more name dropping wouldn't hurt, for example in the lead the thinkers that have been particularly active in this field could be mentioned- since readers are probably more familiar with the names then they are with the subject matter.--nixie 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Gein edit

Self-nomination. facinating account of the murderer who is probably better known for the movie characters he inspired. Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, Norman Bates from Psycho, Leatherface and on and on. --Fxer 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a source to that image, the same image is used on at least 10 different websites. I'm not sure what tag should go on it. — Wackymacs 13:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'm french and as you can see on this french article about Ed Gein (http://www.tueursenserie.org/Portraits/Gein_Ed/EdGein.htm) there's much much to say about this murderer. If someone speak very well both french and english, maybe it is possible to translate it in order to expand the wikipedia article? Kuxu 00:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object no references, some sections too short. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object missing references, lead paragraph is too short, "Ed Gein's car" section is too short (maybe merge it with another section of the article?) — Wackymacs 13:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier edit

Non-self-nom. Nice, well-rounded article with lots of free pictures (especially the diagrams by User:Luis María Benítez). —Keenan Pepper 00:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went through and cleaned up all the typos and grammar problems that I could find. In my opinion, there is still much work to be done in the writing department. I noticed a lot of style problems (switching back and forth between present, past, plural, singular, etc.) The article looks fine content-wise, just not writing-wise. If you went through, section-by-section, and tried to convey the same content with better, more fluid writing, it would work. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 01:10
    • I've edited the first few sections for style issues and removed a lot of redundancy. Tomorrow I'll finish polishing it up. —Keenan Pepper 05:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it's my green text on black background, but the diagrams look oddly placed in the article, like they were tossed in at the end. You might try giving them all the same width throughout the article and/or switch some from right-side to left-side. I'm not sure. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 05:33
  • Object:
    1. Needs a through proofreading.
    2. Too many one-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs.
    3. The red-linked technical terms need articles, or they need to be defined in the text.
    --Carnildo 06:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis edit

Self-nom, Saw it as Article Improvement Drive article of the week. Saw it improve as the week progressed. It really deserves featured article status as it was improveds substantally. It deserves featured article status because it can show what we can really do!!! Tarret 01:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This article certainly went from one with entrenched myth and non NPOV to one that has far more factual content. Congrats to those that put the effort in to make it a very good article.Steers82 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Any references? An article can't be featured if there are no lists of references used for this article. Pentawing 04:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I like how the article has improved with the help of the Article Improvement Drive. But this needs resources, and should probally undergo a peer review as well. --ZeWrestler Talk 06:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – Expand the lead and smaller sections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Can you go through it and chop up some of the overly long, complicated sentence? (E.g., 'Emanuel Velikovsky discovered many records of lands that had become submerged in middle east areas around the mediterranean and also new islands that had risen out of the sea in historic times, the myths of Atlantis may in part be true or they may be the figment of a wild imagination but of the fact that these changes in land and sea did happen is certain from the records of witnesses to the facts.') Grammar here and elsewhere needs fixing. Reference numbers tied to a few of your more important, specific assertions, would increase the credibility. Allow the interested reader to locate the sources by page number—at least in a few instances. Tony 02:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Thgere is no link to Stargate Atlantis Tobyk777 17:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Needs references, and the see also section could be expanded. It has improved a lot since before the Article Improvement Drive, but its still not quite there yet. — Wackymacs 16:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'm not sure if its important, but Jacques Cousteau did some research into Atlantis concluding that the Santorini volcano destroyed it. I think there's a good deal more out there on the subject and this article is only the tip of the iceberg. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 18:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Sources, sources, sources. — mark ✎ 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Pacific hurricane season edit

Self nom. It has PD images, detailed information on every cyclone, and over 70 inline cites. Way better than any other Pacific season article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty good, but can you deal with these issues.
    • Severly ration the use of 'ibid' reference citations. Some sentences have three reference numbers, all to the same source. One at the end of the sentence should be enough. You might go further by allowing us to assume that most or all of the info in a whole paragraph comes from the one source, with a single citation at the end of the para. That's your call; it depends on each case. Consistently one space or none before each reference number.
    • Rather than opening with a bland statement of the dates of the season, can you engage the readers more effectively by characterising the season—was it a particularly bad one? Was it unusual in other ways? (I'd like to know right at the start why you chose this particular season, and I'd like to be able to place the Pacific hurricanes in the larger context. Some big statements would capture our attention at the start: major climatic phenomenon for a number of countries in Central and North America??? Maybe introduce the scale before you cite a Category 5 storm. Many readers won't be familiar with these categories. I wonder whether there are some graphical representations of the number of storms and their severity for each season, for example. That might be good after the lead, before we focus on this particular season.
    • The subtitles for each storm: they're kind of big and black, and break up the flow. Can you experiment with less dramatic formatting for them? (Try one level lower in the hierarchy of headings?) Tony 06:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I toned down the use of inline cites. There are now a lot fewer.
      • The bland opening is the same one used for every other article on every other hurricane (Atlantic or East Pacific) season. If you insist, I could change it, but it would be different from every other season article. I also removed the first reference to the scale. The map in the infobox colour-codes storm tracks in the East Pacific based on whether they are remnants, depressions, storms, or hurricanes.
      • The subtitles for each storm are the same size as in other season articles. For the sake of consistency and standardization, I am not going to change their size. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – this is a list. Nominate it in WP:FLC instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is sort of hard to write an article about a tropical cyclone season without having a list of storms and names. If other people insist this is a list, I will remove this nomination and nominate it there, even though I think it is better as a featured article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a list, and there's hardly any prose to justify its inclusion here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure why you keep justifying things by comparing this article to others on hurricanes. This is an improvement process, and might set new standards for the others too.Tony 02:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rearranged the lead to make it more attention grabbing.
    • I changed the headings to use four equals signs.Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 19:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee edit

Not a self-nom; I haven't been involved in the editing or writing of this article in any way. I simply encountered it today while looking for some information on coffee. I found it to be detailed, informative, well-illustrated, and professional. It is, to me, exemplary of the encyclopedic quality to which all of Wikipedia should aspire. So, therefore, I'm nominating it. Nandesuka 14:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. I have looked at this article before (in fact, I recently copyedited its lead) and thought it needed a lot of work to get to FA. Based on a brief new look:
    • The section structure is disorganized, with a number of small sections and a poor overall organizational scheme.
    • The footnotes are in disarray, with a number of broken or misnumbered links. Inline references need to be converted to footnotes as well.
    • The lead is too short for an article of this size.
    • It needs a lot of copyediting; it would be nice if that were done before submitting articles as FACs.
    • Too many raw lists in the brewing and presentation sections.
    • Someone needs to fact-check this baby. I spent about an hour, before, trying to find a primary source for "In monetary terms, coffee is the second most-traded commodity in the world, trailing only petroleum." All I ever turned up was the repetition of this fact in one news article after another; nobody pointed to the data supporting this, or any hard numbers.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment re: second most-traded commodity -- I find data to suggest it is not true. See for example UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics (caution: large PDF), specifically section 4.2A, beginning on page 156 (print page number)/182 (PDF page number). The interpretation depends a bit on what one considers a commodity, but it's hard to make coffee number two under any definition. --Tabor 21:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object – 1) At 53kb, the article needs to be written in Wikipedia:summary style. 2) ToC is bulky and should have less sections. 3) History is incomplete. Nothing on the International Coffee Agreement of 1962, and so on 4) Lead size should be doubled. 5) ==The cafe== is unrelated 5) the commons & quote links should be under =external links= 6) In 1997 the "c" price of coffee in New York broke US$3.00/lb but by late 2001 it had fallen to US$0.43/lb. Why NY prices? 7) Too much of a list. Please convert to prose. 8) TransFair USA is it an for them? 9) ' In the United States, major national coffee suppliers tailor their product to tastes in particular regions of the country; for instance, a can of ground coffee purchased in the Northeast or Northwest will contain a darker roast than an identically appearing can purchased in the central United States not needed. ; impossible to find whole beans in American stores, ' another instance of US specific practices. Please remove. 10) Inline links are all mixed up. 11) External links should not have subsections 13) NOTE: Health benefits of decaffeinated coffee have not been found. What's this? 13) Maps of the coffee producing & consumption nations should be useful. Chart of the coffee producers also useful. Paused reviewing; Will continue after the above obj are fixed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:
    1. The image Image:Coffee cup.JPG has no source information.
    2. The images Image:Cofffeebeans aging a.jpg, Image:Coffeebeans aging b.jpg, Image:Coffeeroasting woodfired.jpg have no source or copyright information.
    3. The image Image:A small cup of coffee.JPG is under the Creative Commons Sharealike-Attribution license, but does not indicate the creator.
    4. The image Image:Frappe.jpg has no source or copyright information.
    --Carnildo 20:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for many of the reasons cited above. I've made a number of contributions to the article, but it plainly needs a lot of work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has potential, but needs work. Tony 07:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Question is there any information on eating the actual roasted coffee beans? Someone has said that you can purchase chocolate coffee beans for consumption.
    • The place for this question is probably the talk page for the article. This is for discussion FA status, not article content as such. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Sokol space suit edit

self-nom

Reasonably comprehensive, I think. Well referenced and illustrated with copyright free NASA pictures. Catsmeat

  • Support. Yes, why not. It's snappy, engaging, has several pictures and the article sated my curiosity without making me feel angry or depressed, unlike many other Wikipedia articles. The only quibble I have is with the final sentence, regarding the legality of eBay Sokol suits - "Furthermore, the Russian Mafia is alleged to be involved in the trade". This really needs to be linked to a newspaper article or something similar. It's a plausible enough statement, but I hate passive things such as "it is alleged that" and "some people argue that" etc. Why oh why oh why oh why does Wikipedia show me a bloody preview when I quite clearly clicked on the "Save page" button and not the "Show preview" button? It angers me. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've been having that problem too? Sometimes it makes me do that three or four times before it'll save! Aaargh! Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Life is pain. I've crossed out my objection above, because I hadn't noticed the link to Wired's article in the (spartan) links section. I want to add that I'm not the chap who nominated this article; the nominator didn't sign his name. And as I hit "Save page" it again makes me preview my writing. I don't want to preview my writing. If I don't get it right first time, every time, it's not worth saving. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm really sorry, your eyesight is fine; I fixed it when I saw your comment. Also, I forgot to sigh the self-nomination as I'm still a bit of a newbie. Catsmeat 15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Prose is not exactly satisfactory; for example, "As of the end of 2002, a total of 309 flight suits had been made and 135 training and testing suits" or "Each cosmonaut is provided with a made-to-measure suit for flight. Though from the numbers made, it appears the suits provided for ground training are re-used." The three short sections should either be merged or expanded. Otherwise, a fine article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tweaked it. Though I guess it might be an idea to submit if for peer review. Catsmeat 10:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it has potential, but you're right, it needs a thorough peer-review first. Tony 16:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hatshepsut edit

Self-nom. The article is over the 18th dynasty Egyptian ruler, Hatshepsut. The article has been reviewed, at my request by others so it has under gone a peer review. If featured this article will become Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt example article. It has been nominated before in a somewhat confusing FAC. -JCarriker 08:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to support this nom, as featured articles desperately needs non-western, non-modern articles, but I think this article still needs a bit of work - some of the writing needs better expression (e.g. "As women gained more equality with men, women in history were sought out and reclaimed." - this doesn't quite make sense). Also Civilization IV has already been released in the US market - the "known" part of that sentence should be taken out, and perhaps "AI" should be wikified. Anyway, after some cleanup, I would vote Support, as featured articles desperately needs more articles like this. Bwithh 07:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, as before: The image Image:Hatshepsut.jpg is claimed as GFDL, but it's described as a cropped scan of a book cover. The only terms it can be used under are {{fairuse}}, and that only on an article about the book. Use of the image in Hatshepsut is no more fair use than using an album cover with a dog on it to illustrate dog. --Carnildo 23:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News edit

I think this is a very good article which should be given a showing as a featured article. Wikiwoohoo 16:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. There are lots of problems:

  1. Missing references.
  2. Some sections are too short, there is not enough context.
  3. The BBC News logo image needs a fair use rationale.
  4. The 'History' section should be the first section.

— Wackymacs 17:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - It is extremely short on information, see BBC's own History of BBC News and About BBC News. Some specifics:

  • History incomplete. Here it starts in 1993, on BBC News own history timeline: 1922
  • Hardly any information on current organization. Number of employees, organizational hierarchy, annual budget, etc, etc
  • Arbitrary lists. The "selection of" lists are vague: why these? are these random selections? With no background information.

There are more specific points, but just with the above, clearly the article needs a MAJOR amount of work... --Tsavage 03:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all those who gave comments. Your help is very much appreciated. PLease post any more ideas you have at this peer review of the article. Thanks! Wikiwoohoo 16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa edit

This article exemplifies User:Geo Swan's very best work. I nominate it for FAC!!!Joaquin Murietta 05:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just get rid of this off the FAC page, please? PacknCanes | say something! 05:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is off [4]

Sleepy Lagoon Murder edit

I would like to self-nominate this article. If the article is not appropriate, would you please make comments on how to improve it? Thanks Joaquin Murietta 02:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norse mythology edit

This was nominated by user:Satanael. However he did not archive the old one correctly, so I have fixed it for him. (See Old nomination). =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support conditional on image wrangling: Note, I have tried to copy-edit and help out, especially by widening the story out a bit when it became too focused on a particular Scandinavian nation (e.g. conversion to Christianity was some places peaceful, some places not, some places by leader, some places not, so "more or less by force" is a statement true of some places, not others). The text looks good, IMO, although the screen does turn a bit blue with all the links. Geogre 01:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with nixie that the box is a stumbling rather than starting box at present, but I also can't see that as a reason to object. I worry, personally, that it's at the extreme end of taxoboxes, where we allow the taxobox to act as a stealth portal page, but, again, that's as much as to say, "I don't like it like that." Such a statement is not a reason to object. The images don't particularly bother me. I know that low resolution monitors are still in use, particularly in public libraries around the world and public schools in the US and UK, but, since the rest of the world is making no allowances for these resolutions and wiki pages should not be in tables, I think there is a time to say that image formatting at lowest resolution is unactionable as well. Geogre 00:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IComment, I think the topic navagation box is overkill, is there any way more of these could be incorporated into the text- or the table shortened?--nixie 03:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as it is now. Much improved article indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • object one of the images as a really long description. Please shorten it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The references need to be trimmed (and actually placed under the header "references"). I count 24 separate sources right now, which is wholly unreasonable for such a general article. I don't know what the feeling is on "Further reading", but if that's all most of those books are, then they should at least be labeled apropriately. The information contained can't possibly require that many books. The image layout is just really bad right now and the infobox is not acceptable by any standard. It's merely a "list of..." disguised as a template. Such a creation can't possibly pass as a reasonable demand from any WikiProject. And then there's the Thor image caption... / Peter Isotalo 01:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they have, in fact, been used as references, then they need to be listed as such. There is no limit; cite your sources means all of them, IMHO. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The references are supposed to be there to make the article easily verifiable, not to be a record of the article authors' reading habits. There is such a thing as over-usage of references. / Peter Isotalo 11:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid I have to disagree; not easily verifiable, just verifiable. And it is precisely for this reason that I believe that all works that were used to verify information should be listed. Otherwise, some information may not be verifiable from the references given. If any of the works listed under References were not used by the authors as sources for the information in the article, then they should be removed. However, it is my opinion that all references actually used should be listed, regardless of how many there are. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If all those sources are actually required to reference everything in the article, then I'd like to see them properly attributed with footnotes and/or inline citations. If there are this many references to support a relativly short article (if you remove the reference section itself and the gigantic list-of-links-template, there really isn't all that much material left) then I feel I'm justified to suspect that a lot of content is referenced with more than once source, which is completely uncalled for. / Peter Isotalo 18:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object as I am concerned about setting a precedent for this kind of image crowding. The caption on the Thor image is a place for improvement, can it be shortened significantly? The drowning image has some editorializing that strikes an odd tone for me. On a side note, please do not remove any sources that have actually been used as references for the article, but do place any books that duplicate information in a book already refrenced in a "Further reading" section or remove it. Surely between Davidson and de Vries most of the information in the article can be sourced. Oh, and that reminds me. Jan de Vries' middle name is not "de". He should be listed as "de Vries, Jan". I'll go fix that. Jkelly 00:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've sigifnicantly trimmed the Thor caption. Beyond that, I don't really see any issues with image overload. →Raul654 20:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also fixed the drowning man caption. →Raul654 15:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Good images, poorly used. The image of Thor has a very long caption that should be merged into the text. The caption for the image should be as short and to the point as possible. "This is Thor" would be better than what's there, and which causes a huge gap to appear in the text. The other images aligned neatly on the right give it a static appearance, should be alternated left align, right align. The runestone image is way too big. The infobox template is also too big and breaks the text. There has to be a better way of doing it, but is it even necessary? I'll look closer at the text when these glaring problems are fixed. Rossrs 00:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This is still something a mess and I'd prefer to fix the underlying articles before improving the central one. (I'm currently working on Höðr.) As an aside I see nothing wrong with having a lot of works listed as sources and further reading, though maybe they should eventually be split off into a separate article à la Race and intelligence. Personally I think the verifiability objective is something of a chimera and that the most important rôle of those sections is to give the reader an idea of what the standard works in the field are. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object My problem with the article is the crowed images and the Topics in Norse mythology box. Other than that I'd say its great. -Haon 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion: I've checked out the Norwegian and Swedish articles ad I would say that they are pretty good, especially the Swedish one as it has a lot of info that the English one can implement. I suggest we adapt the info from the Swedish article that the English one doesn't have, into the English article. In that way the info will be greatly expanded, and the image and infobox issues won't be as pressing as it is. I'd do it right now if I could, but even though I'm Norwegian I can't read Swedish all that well. So if anyone knows Swedish, please read through both articles and implement the info that the English article doesn't have into the Swedish one. Satanael 11:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2005&oldid=285715054"