Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2005

Intelligent design

[Sonam Yeshe] Not sure where it would fit in, but there *are* other angles which should be explored, IMHO, in this 'origin myth debate'. After all, Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" might be considered a story about "intelligent design". But all such explanations suffer from the problem of infinite regress: who (or what) created the [Cc]reator(s)?

[comment] Infinite regress would be "The Creator" then. [/comment]

Or intelligence (or any factors that produce this phenomena) is simply just a basic property with reality, an "absolute" (something without cause). There must exist one or more absolutes in order for reality as we know it to "work". That can be deduced logically. [/comment]. In fact, infinite regress

"Micro"evolution is clearly an irrefutable fact: regardless of one's belief system, bacteria & viruses adapt to everything we throw at them (and they are ahead of us at the moment!) Yet the "holes" in evolutionary theory, eg, "How can a leg become a wing, when the intermediate forms are clearly maladaptive?" deserve exploration. Such "gaps" in evolutionary theory are not a convincing argument for the existence of some form of Cosmic Designer, however. I believe there is a Hindu saying, "God is not proved", which would seem to apply here... (Yogananda, "Autobiography of a Yogi")

[comment] Microevolution: Is adaptation actually evolution? Where is the borderline between adaptation and evolution? [/comment]

All in all, I found it to be a very good article. Kudos!

I was just surfing Wikipedia when I found this article. This article is in my opinion worthy of being featured. I haven't worked on it myself. --Maitch 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• ITs pretty good a little bit excessive with the criticism but overall very good. My only worry is that it is a controversial topic, and therfore will have stability issues. It seems to be going ok right now so I will go ahead and Support.Falphin 01:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, please do work on it yourself, rather than shoving it straight onto this page, unedited. I was pleasantly surprised that it's not full of self-justifying religious hype; so it would be nice to see this article promoted, but it's not there yet. I've only looked properly at the lead; all of the text needs work. Here are a few things you can do to warm to the editing task:
  • Standardise the spacing of the numerical reference citations. (Best no space before, I think, but if you do retain a single space, insert   to avoid line overhang.
  • 'Despite ID sometimes being referred to'—ungrammatical.
  • Comma before 'which'.
  • Remove 'As has been argued before' as redundant; sift through every phrase looking for redundancies.
  • Some sentences are rather long and need to be divided.
  • Use a simpler word than 'putative', or remove it.

Why not alert the contributors to such articles as 'Evolution', 'Darwin', 'Evolutionary psychology', 'Richard Dawkins', to this nomination; I'm sure some of them would be pleased to assist. Tony 05:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll fix those grammatical problems and dividing the sentences won't be to hard. How exactly would I standardize the reference citations? Falphin 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• It wasn't exactly shoved, the article has already been through Peer Review. Really most of the problems in the article are gramatical. I don't believe alerting them here is the best because along with the good editors will come more POV pushers. Perhaps alerting them on individual basis. But thats just my opinion. Falphin 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I thought it was getting closer, and working toward consensus and clear representation of both sides of the issue. But nearly every discussion on the Talk page gets side tracked into name-calling debate, and the long-term contributors jump right into the fray. Modest attempts to tone down the rhetoric and "hot-button" language have been thwarted. It seems too many contributors are concerned with winning the debate, rather than dispassionately summarizing it.--Gandalf2000 19:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's getting closer, but I don't thinks it's yet up to par as one of Wikipedia's best. I say give it a while to develop some more clarity, and it would be a good candidate.Gandalf2000 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • What specifically can be done? This article seems close to FA and I might work on it a bit if there are some specific things suggested. Thanks Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Gandalf. Please do go ahead improving it; I'm keen to see it become a FA, whether sooner or later. Tony 02:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Article presently violates "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of Wikipedia NPOV policy, as I've previously pointed out and explained on it's discussion page. Also, it should be noted in the article that the particular claim "that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally" is false.--Johnstone 11:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have a suggestion on how both views can be acommadated? Falphin 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • A few things that would help toward making the article follow the "Fairness and sympathetic tone" guidelines of the Wikipedia NPOV policy, which state, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." (I realize that this is not the only guideline for NPOV. None of the following suggestions implies otherwise.):

- Criticisms should be consolidated into a single section.

- The amount of criticism of ID greatly exceeds (by about 3 to 1) the positive presentation of ID. This is simply excessive. Reduce the ratio.

- The "Additional criticisms" section of the intelligent design article presents criticisms of things that are related to ID ("[Accusations of lack of] Scientific peer review", "Who designed the designer?", and "Argument from ignorance"). Since these issues are not directly related to actual ID concepts, but originate from critics, it would be only fair to present ID responses to them. For example, Dembski's book The Design Revolution has chapters (41, 27 and 30, respectively) dedicated to answering each of the above criticisms. Summaries from each could be added (in a single "Replies to additional criticisms section, of course).Johnstone 00:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • There's a reason criticism exceeds positive representation - an overwhelming majority of experts in the fields ID affects dispute it vehemently. You'd find an equal disparate ratio in an article on, say, whether Stalin was a nice guy or not. — ceejayoz ^talk 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• I don't agree with previous comment; the article appears to be based on sound, scientific principles; I have no problem with the idea that computer simulations demonstrate the mechanisms of evolution—that's pretty basic. Tony 12:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Falphin, just insert   between the previous character and the reference number, in all cases, with no intervening spaces; or better still, just jam the number up to the stop. Tony 01:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• As I suggested, Falphin, you'll need to enlist a few other people here. While some of the criticisms here are careful to avoid the appearance of religious ideology, I have no wish to have to defend the scientific view in such a basic way. Only to say to Johnstone that of course there are more criticisms than defence of ID—it's a pretty silly ideology. Keep the article purely in scientific terms. Tony 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Object This article is not even about the philosophical concept of intelligent design. It is a discussion about Theists. Intelligent design has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The article is completely off-topic and looks more like a rant about not just Theists, which would at least make some sense, but about Christian Creationists.--Ben 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a section on Religion and ID but I'm not really sure on the philosophy infact I've read books by Idists and even they don't talk about philosophy. Read Michael Behes Black Box for example. The article clearly shows that ID is not science but an attempt at it. If you can guide me on how to add a philosophy section I will. And note to the others, I probably won't get done with Intelligent Design before this FAC is up, but I'll probably renominate it later. Falphin 20:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the problem here is that "intelligent design" means different things to different people. Taken on its face in the context of philosophy or religion, it means simply that "an intelligent being designed the universe." However, it is often used differently. As a result, the talk pages are often filled with people (including me; I am trying to at least get a disambiguation link to Theism), who say things like "ID has nothing to do with creationism" or "ID is about complexity, not God" etc. etc. etc..... etc. This is because the article is more like a personal essay on the this Dembski guy's book, rather than an encyclopedic topic. It almost cannot be an encyclopedic topic. It would be very helpful to readers to have an article which can sort out the mish-mash of religion, science, pseudoscience, philosophy, and all that, but instead the article treats them as if this mash is a subject unto itself. The result is a lot of argument and a lot of dissatisfaction. There's not much reason for controversy when everything is in its proper place. Either you believe in God or you don't. Either you think evolutionary theory is sound or you don't. Either you think the existence of God can be proven with Dembski's "complexity theory", or you don't. Instead, people are arguing all over the place, and to me that doesn't even warrant a nomination for featured status, let alone receiving featured status. --Ben 03:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Shows Wikipedia At Its Worst Much too long. Readers will want to know what Intelligent Design is. The Introduction and Summary are quite adequate to explain that. The rest of the article is confusing and often incomprehensible. If it was translated into plain words some of it might be worth retaining but a lot would be clearly seen as meaningless. The article is not suitable for Featured Aticle status. It makes Wikipedia look like a home for self-indulgent contributors. --82.38.97.206 20:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)mikeL

• Object It's very difficult to talk about "Intelligent Design" without mentioning creationism. This article is way too long and should be merged into Creationism. 67.103.32.20 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Creationism represents a field of very specific ideas, while this article presents a theory in more general terms of scientific merit. However, I believe the tone in which it is written sacrifices professional objectivity. Doctor Love 07:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Object Who nominated this diatribe? It's awful. Here's an example from the second paragraph: "...ID does not constitute serious research in biology." What is this phrase supposed to mean? And who wants to try to straighten it out, with the incessant and mean-spirited revert wars going on? This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. ô¿ô 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Violates NPOV and frequently (albeit probably unintentionally) distorts ID Johnstone made some good points here, but there's something else that troubles me. The article often does not accurately represent the ID position it criticizes. For instance, the ID claim for the fine-tuning of the universe is that certain physical constants being changed would prevent any form of physical life, not just life as we know it (see Mere Creation or this article). Even if the view is wrong, it should at least be accurately represented. Whatever its faults, ID is also not an “argument from ignorance.” It isn't the mere fact that evolution doesn't have a means, it’s also the alleged barriers (e.g. irreducible complexity, chemical problems of abiogenesis) that exist in the natural world that allegedly require artificial intervention to overcome. Even if such views are wrong, they should be accurately represented. The claim, “By ID's own arguments, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex” is a bit fishy, and the author provides no references (the same is true with "fundamental assumption of ID that every complex object requires a designer"). Behe himself (the guy who introduced irreducible complexity in Darwin's Black Box) concedes in Darwin's Black Box that maybe the designer is composed of something which could have come about naturally. Again, even if such views are wrong, they should at least be presented accurately. Until such matters are cleared up, I do not think this article should be a featured article. --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/26/2005)
  • That's the spirit! Throw a bunch of walls up and run for cover. The problem is, those walls are made of toothpicks, and you built them in quicksand... and you're not a particularly good builder to begin with. I call it intellectual filibustering. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 01:32
    • Why do you claim my “walls” are made of toothpicks built on quicksand? That the article puts forth a badly distorted version intelligent design theory is a very legitimate criticism. --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/27/2005)
• Article is too long, much ado about nothing, not unlike like the subject itself.

November 1, 2005 This article makes Wikipedia look bad; it's that simple. It is not doing justice to this site. I was dissapointed in reading this article on ID. It is not the standard objective type of writing in Wikipedia and I think it should be changed to read neutral. It's obviously written by someone with very strong feelings against ID and that comes across too clearly. ID is accepted by the scientific community because ID is made of scientists. That's why it's so controversial -the scientists are fighting the scientists. That the 'other', older, larger scientific community does not accept ID is true. In any case, please be neutral. It doesn't need to advocate ID anymore than it needs to say it's bologna. Inform your reader; don't push your views down our throats. (unsigned by 207.200.116.131 (talk · contribs))

What is this based on? No scientist in the world would advocate a theory that cannot ever be disproven. That's rule one of science.--Xiaphias 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Object, needs focus Intelligent design is presented as it is without the hype, duplicity, and sophistry (most likely a result of peer review). It is well-referenced and thorough. But it's still sloppy. It blurs the assertion and the movement too much. The crux of the "science" of ID is the assertion that intelligent design, the conscious arrangement of parts by an intelligent entity, is empirically observable. Other concepts have been proposed to elaborate/demonstrate this idea (most notably by Dembski). But the page is so mucked up switching between that mythology's meager (if even existent) evidence and its adherents (which when discussing ideas, is ad hominem) without demarcation it could very easily be accused of being a strawman and it is consistently accused of violating NPOV. It's somewhat of an unstable article, and thankfully its regular contributors are stubborn, but this is a double-edged sword. When I pointed out that its adherents have zeal is not reflective of the "theory" itself, my edits were reverted. My point is that cleanup probably won't be easy. - JustSomeKid

Support and with two notes:
1. Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article has received positive endorsements as being accurate and complete from several neutral sources:

• [1] Librarian in the Middle - Resources and News for Middle School Librarians: "IF there were an equivalent article to Wikepedia’s in an online or paper encyclopedia, we could expect expertise in choice of links, neutrality of language, balance in POV. But, especially in the case of ID, that article hasn’t been writen or is given only a cursory treatment (and sometimes in unsigned articles)."
• [2] Librarian and Information Science News: "The Wikipedia ID article [wikipedia.org] is fairly neutral."
• [3] Talk of the Nation. 2 November 2005 National Public Radio: "the Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design... it is a good entry, perhaps even an excellent entry..."

2. At least 3 or 4 of those objecting here have had POV issues at the article. Their objections given here reflect the nature of their earlier issues there. The former point validates the article's content, whether it becomes a featured article or not. The latter point does not. FeloniousMonk 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Mild object. IMHO the amount and detail of criticism of ID burdens the article and indeed makes it (slightly) bloated, and subject to (in small part mind you) POV skirmishes. Needs to be trimmed down, made more succinct and in so doing creates a win-draw for everyone involved. (a win-win would simply be too optimistic at this point, maybe after the trial we can make further progress... what the heck is going on with that thing anyway) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that exhausting battles with PoV-pushers have made this article longer than it needs to be, as with just about any article in this general area (and FM is clearly right that objecting here is a continuation of many of those pushers' battle), but I don't think that it's seriously bloated (look at Human for an example of real bloat, for the same reasons). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Article lacks knowledge of all the facts. Evolution is not science it's a theory or an idea developed by someone's thoughts to arrive to their conclusion, but it's not conclusive nor supported by solid scientific data. The said fact is we're teaching our kids to have faith in a theory that has yet to be proven. This unbiased opinion has skewed millions of children's thoughts in the United States. Let's get faith based ideas out of our schools!! Or at least be honest with the kids and teach them ALL the theories. What are you afraid of? Evolutionists that use the excuse of "Religion" to not have to teach all theories reminds me of Castro in Cuba. "Communism works!" Carl Marx wrote it in a book so it must be true... Think about it; 99.9% of Americans will never take the time to evaluate or study the facts of this debate. They're sheep. Even the people who read the article, and commented positively below, have been brain washed. What conclusive studies have they done? Where they there? How many carbon dating theory machines do we see in an average American's living room? They are kept by the few, and the true theory of how they work is known by less. Don't let a few people fill your mind with their theoretical ideas without asking questions. Don't kid your self evolution is a theory! Let your mind be open to all ideas. Let our children see the facts and hear the huge lies and mistakes that fill our history books. We do live in the United States? We don't live in a society that forces beliefs down ones throat? Let Freedom Ring! Let all the theories be studied!! NER --24.123.44.195 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from top of page; new comments at the bottom. I'm glad this was posted, as it is fairly representative of some of the editors and their objections and methods we've had to deal with in writing the ID article. FeloniousMonk 17:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a good example of why articles should not be written and policed by the bitter opponents of the subject of the article. User:Stuckerj hit the nail on the head with his parody of FeloniousMonk's attitude here. Yes, the article has to be defended from creationists who are ignorant of science and who don't get or care for NPOV. But this fact should not keep us from writing for the enemy, which hasn't even been accomplished in the intro. The article has made progress since bad old days of when creationists were freely editing the page, but we can do better, and a featured article should be better. It should provide an account of ID from the perspective of its proponents. Making this a featured article would give right-wingers authentic ammunition in their claims that Wikipedia exhibits left-wing bias. Wikipedia has set some very high ideals for itself, and this article does not yet meet them. — goethean ॐ 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Should this article be given Featured status, I predict that a lot of (onesided) disccusion will forever go into removing that status. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is so often vandalised, that little energy is left to actually edit the article. I'm not sure it is at Featured quality. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Most of the oppose votes above mean nothing to me. They complain of POV, but are unable or unwilling to present a fairly rewritten section we could insert into the article. -- Ec5618 12:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This page highlights the fundamental problem with Wikipedia. At the bottom of this obvious war lies one tense argument: Does God exist? Some people insist that he must, and some cannot stand any implication that he might. Both sides push the evidence and arguments in their preferred direction with all their might, striving not for consensus but for victory, and because of the depth of the implications, this war will never end until God is proved or disproved. Therefore editing this page is a waste of time. It will never settle into a uniform consensus.

I must add that it is certainly currently biased against ID. All the one-sided references would be better left out and summed up by mentioning the conflict as a whole without taking sides, and letting the reader pursue it further if interested. This article has come a long, long way from simply and objectively explaining what ID is and the associated history. Just one detailed example of bias: it is stated flatly - in spite of many intelligent scientist adherents - that ID is based upon circular logic [by virtue of the fact that if the complexity proves a designer, that designer must be more complex, and herefore must itself have a designer, ad infinitum, which is not possible (reductio absurdem)]. This is a patently incorrect statement for two reasons: 1. As presented by the statement, the ID argument results in an INFINITE REGRESSION, not circular reasoning. The latter is an argument which logically depends upon one of its own conclusions. ID's conclusion that a designer must exist is not used as a premise in its argument. As presented above it only leads to a logical infinite recursion of the conclusion (a spiral, if you like). 2. It does not necessarily follow from the ID argument that the designer is only somewhat more complex than nature. Equally possible is that the designer is infinitely complex, and thus could not have been designed. Before any hasten to point out that an infinitely complex, undesigned designer is an absurd concept, it should be obvious that any theory whatsoever terminates finally at an infinite, uncreated existence. Take the Big Bang for example: where did the original point of condensed matter come from? Hopefully nobody is foolish enough to propose a cyclical Big Bang as a solution to this face-to-face clash with infinite existence.

These should be obvious points to anybody scientifically educated, mature and intelligent enough to take it upon themselves to edit a Wikipedia page. One could argue that perhaps the flaw of Wilkipedia's tolerance of all edits is that it allows faulty statements. However, there are many, many other examples of bias against ID in the current article. Rather than go through them painstakingly I will just name a few (and please note, I won't be back to waste my time further with this eternal argument): Constant references which carry negative overtones are made, such as ID being controversial (historically evolution has this role), being [neo-]creationism not accepted by the scientific community (should state the majority of), 'junk science' (argumentative and unfounded), not experimentally verifiable (Nobel Prize winner physicist and agnostic Leon Lederman does not believe this to be a requirement for a scientific theory, see 'The God Particle', page 389; furthermore macro-evolution is in the same camp), religious in nature and Christian specifically (false - it is purely scientific - of course a religion like Christianity would have major attraction, involvement and overlap with it, but this should not be presented as an attribute of ID itself; evolution and secularism have a similar relationship); and other simply incorrect statements concerning proofs and disproofs. I mention the above for the record, however, I do not expect any agreement from those whose POV is in line with the article, because ultimately this is about whether one can face the fact the God exists or does not exist, and proponents will hold to their camp with a tenacity as great as they hold to life itself. ant 14:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that this was User:Antandcharmi's ("Ant") very first edit to Wikipedia[4]. This is represents another tactic those working on the article have faced.

Much of Antandcharmi's criticism of the article arises from not understanding WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, the policy governing how pseudoscience is covered at Wikipedia. The article's content is compliant with the policy. FeloniousMonk 16:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Object. I have no reason to think that any article in which claims of pseudoscience are inherent can ever achieve Featured Article status. It is too difficult to distinguish NPOV (essential) from SPOV (which is actually a POV). Any such article, such as this one or Creation science, will involve too much hostility and uncivil editing, and so is not likely to get to Featured Article status. Also, any article that is the subject of a user conduct RfC or an RfAr (even if a badly filed one) probably is too far from consensus to be worth trying to get consensus by FA process. Robert McClenon 17:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though I still support the article for FA, sadly, I must admit Robert McClenon makes some very valid points and is likely right. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article, in my view, has too many problems to be a featured article, although the work that has gone into it is admirably comprehensive and well-sourced. However, the problems are essentially threefold:

First, it is much too long. In an effort to accommodate the many arguments that whirl within the debate the article has ballooned to an unreasonable length; this makes it hard to get through and a cumbersome presentation of the central ideas.

Second, it is important to note that ID is, at the moment, essentially an American issue, insofar as school boards, religious and scientific communities, not to mention political leaders, outside of the US are not implicated in the debate. Unfortunately, I cannot think of how to rectify this particularly, but the fact remains that for a project of international scope, this article is addressing concerns that have surfaced in a public debate almost solely in the US. That should be of central importance, since it highlights the lively debate about the role of religion, and religious derived thinking, in US public and scholastic life. As it stands, this article reads like a painstaking attempt to provide an NPOV description of ID as it exists within its US context. I think that the Amero-centrism of the article further makes its FA status problematic. I speak only for myself here, but as I see it, ID's importance is less the raiments of the theory/hypothesis, as much as the way it is illustrative of current US politico-religious life. I invite other non-US editors, of course, to disagree and smack down this reservation. But ID is not taken seriously anywhere else in the world. That should be central.

Finally, as noted above, the ongoing polemicising and casuistry suggest the article is currently too unstable to make FA.

All that said, I wish to salute the amazing efforts of all the editors who have contributed to this effort. Politics, not competence, intervenes to make this currently not FA level. Dottore So 17:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The ID debate is not a solely U.S. (not American) issue. Because it is not about ID versus Natural Selection. It is about a bunch of people whose faith is challenged by discoveries of fact.

In places where facts intersect with their opinon, it isnecessary for the facts to give way, so these people have designed an attack using a mixture of religion and debate. Please understand that it is not theology. It is no more fostered by theology than the young men who blow themselves and others to pieces. They are unhappy and they can't reconcile themselves to their surroundings. They may mistake it for religion as a man mistakes lust for a nobler emotion. Howard Ahmanson, the man who funded the Center for Science and Culture, appears to favor the establishment of Biblical Law. This is similar to movements in other countries whether established or recent. Yes, ID is an "American" cancer, but examine the similar "turn the clock back" cancers. If we can't unite over this, we are a hopeless bunch.

The fact that the article is as stable as it is says much for the Wikipedia model. This is not just a run-of-the-mill bitching session. This article reaches across national boundaries because we keep our workers ignorant in every country. Wikipedia can do something about it. b_calder 00:00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Support.There are so many people in the scientific community who are against Intelligent Design that I think comments on this topic would be overwhelmingly representative of the Community hired to teach and do research in public institutions. Not every ID supporter is going to rebuttal every point made (Personal comment: Unfortunately). Therefore, why would this article not be placed on Wikipedia's home page. I think this topic is vital to put forward since it is a hot-button issue to Americans. Americans who have knowledge on the topic also want to jump on the bandwagon and display what they know, so I support this article's advancement. --MEGOP, 2:58 (UTC) 13 June 06

OBJECT - Highly anti-ID with severe distortions Heavily edited against ID by those who do not understand how origin theories are modeled or how to disprove them. DLH 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT: The above is yet one more example of bad faith attempts by pro-ID edtiors to scuttle the FA candidacy of any ID article that presents both sides of the topic fairly and in a balanced manner. DLH, a largely single topic, single viewpoint contributor [5], has a history of using Wikipedia to promote an aggressively partisan pro-ID viewpoint, and has consisently violated WP:NPOV in so doing. Objections in the same manner as his scuttled the last FA attempt, and his comments above serve to illustrate how those not dedicated to NPOV but to a particular POV will always try to derail any FA status for this article. I'm afraid until a method is adopted to properly weigh and deal with bad faith or just clueless objections, hot button topics like ID will always be vulnerable to such acts of partisan activism. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

REBUTTAL: FeloniousMonk accuses of "bad faith" with no evidence. He is one of the primary causes of the anti-ID bias in this article. I have been working for many months to correct these biases by summarizing both sides. Overview ID & Conventional Science. Peer Review However, FeloniousMonk and those working with him systematically revert, refusing to allow any changes.DLH 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to FeloniousMonk's caricaturization of "single topic single viewpoint" contributor, I have participated in at least 63 pages. He accuses me of being "aggressively partisan" and having "consistently violated WP:NPOV". I have worked at providing objective cited material, correcting FelonousMonks overtly anti-ID editorials. This diatribe is another example where FeloniousMonk appears to be following WP:ABF.DLH 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) There have been at least a dozen explicit wholesale reversions with no effort at editing or seriously pointing out what the objections are. I have worked with constructive criticism to revise the and improve the statements and citations.DLH

Support as featured (although given how much vandalism and junk I've had to deal with on previous occasions that I had an FA on my watchlist I'm almost inclined to oppose. This article is going to make many other articles seem like a cakewalk. ) JoshuaZ 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a great shame that this article has been rejected due, frankly, to partisan ID supporters. It's an excellent article, and no less NPOV than an article on flat-earth science. Shame on the nay-sayers, and shame on wikipedia for allowing it to happen. Tomandlu 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Eleanor Rigby (song)

I know, another Beatles article. At this rate, we'll have their whole repetoire. But I think it's FAC quality. Self-nom. Failed its first FAC. It's also been in peer review. It's come a long way in its FACness, and the issues the first time around have been resolved. Thanks! --The PNM 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Although I like the song, it's OBJECT for me sorry, Too short, not enough pics for FA, not very informative, not the best overall. Aren't I a meany? Spawn Man 08:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  • There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs. Those need to either be expanded or merged into an adjacent paragraph.
    • Taken care of! Thanks to help from Johnleemk. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • External links should go in the references section at the bottom, not within the article itself. Footnote them using {{ref|name of reference}} in the article, and {{note|name of reference}} in the references.
    • Done with one thing, at least. Thanks! --The PNM 02:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The parenthetical asides throughout the article interrupt the flow of the prose. See if you can work those into the actual prose without setting them off in parentheses.
    • They're gone. --The PNM 20:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry much about finding additional pictures; there's not much else that you could add. If you stumbled across a licensed or uncopyrighted picture of the Beatles performing the song, then include that, but otherwise I think the pictures are fine as they are.

Good luck! Let me know if you need any help. PacknCanes | say something! 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking care of my concerns. I don't think it's fair to pile on more stuff to do after you've already met most of my objections, but this article badly needs a copyedit and the prose needs to flow better. I'll withdraw my objection on the grounds that the objection specifically has been addressed, but I'll have to abstain until it comes up to a better level of writing. Also, as Johnleemk notes below, be on the lookout for POV writing. PacknCanes | say something! 19:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• While I would love to support a Beatles song article that I didn't work on much, right now, I have to object. The length and pictures are fine, but there are far too many instances of unencyclopedic writing; to just cite one from the lead itself: "The songwriting credit is Lennon-McCartney, though it was originally written by just Paul McCartney and all the Beatles contributed bits of lyrics." The second paragraph of Significance, in particular, is full of such writing. I also dislike the incredibly short sections near the end, and would merge them if I could find an arrangement that would work. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the offending lines; is there anything else that is awkward? --The PNM 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I still had to make some minor changes, but after delving into the Signifance section more, I'm quite convinced I can't support until it is rewritten. I find the section rather overt in its POV (when it shouldn't even have one in the first place). If we could cite the opinion as that of a Beatles biographer or some of a music reviewer (or someone like that), then it would be great. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Johnleemk, the opinion actually IS from Ian MacDonald, the Beatles' biographer and author of "Revolution in the Head" (just had a new edition this year). Specifically, his entry on Eleanor Rigby -- practically the whole entry is about its signficance. Is it okay now? I put a reference, but should I make some inline reference? (like: According to Beatles' biographer Ian MacDonald...).--The PNM 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
        • A textual reference would probably be best, but it seems a bit odd to me if we devote two paragraphs to the opinion of one Beatles biographer alone — that itself can appear biased. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'd like to see a lot more referencing. There are two inline links, and four "references", but I have no idea what fact is referenced by what. I'd also agree with Johnleemk that the writing is a little uneven. Some of it is quite good, while in other places it is awkward. I don't agree that any more images are necessary. Jkelly 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article and my sources and done all in-line references. I added one more that I had forgotten (when I added the significance section) and removed one, since the section that that referenced is now deleted. Is that good now? Thanks. --The PNM 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice that something from the first peer review hasn't been addressed: Why is it at Eleanor Rigby (song) when Eleanor Rigby is a redirect there? — Laura Scudder | Talk 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done a request for move to Eleanor Rigby. --The PNM 03:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC). It's on Talk:Eleanor Rigby (song).

Comment: It just seems like you are going in to too much detail on such a narrow area. I can't deinatively say yay or nay, but the premise is awfully small here. HereToHelp 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The long quoted passages should probably be re-written into prose. The sources should be in APA or MLA format, with a short description/excerpt of what is available at each site in case those sites ever go down.

Also:

• "a score by George Martin". A score for a song? Was Martin the song's arranger as well as the producer; did he write any of the instrumental?
• "the Shangri-Las...a Motown rendition". That should probably be "Motown-style", since the Shangri-Las weren't Motown artists.
• In general, the article is a bit on the short side to be about such an important song. There has to be a bit more that can be said about its impact on pop culture.
• A few POV problems, like "striking lyrics" (in the lead).

It has potential; it just needs some work to ge it there. --FuriousFreddy 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Corinth

Self-nom.What do you think?--Astavrou 22:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I don't want to come off sounding as mean, but do you have a list of sources used? Also, some of the prose could use a little bit of work (it's used incorrectly in place of its, and I'm also not sure about "the original isthmus" in the lead section). There's also a bit of repetitiveness regarding the namings of the ports that were available on the isthmus: compare "The city of Corinth historically had access to two ports. Lechaion lay to the west on the Gulf of Corinth and the port of Kenchreai lay to the east on the Saronic Gulf," at the end of the final lead paragraph to "The city had two main ports, one in the Corinthian Gulf and one in the Saronic Gulf, serving the trade routes of the western and eastern Mediterranean, respectively. In the Corinthian Gulf lied Lechaion, which connected the city to it's [sic] western colonies (Greek: apoikoiai) and Magna Graecia, while in the Saronic Gulf the port of Kenchreai served the ships coming from Athens, Ionia, Cyprus and the rest of the Levant. Both ports had docks for the large war fleet of the city-state," in the History section. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. 1)Lacks references. 2)The history section is somewhat thin. It should be broken into subsections (city founding, Hellenic period, Hellenistic/Roman period, ...) and expanded. 3)More information is needed on modern-day Corinth such as population and demographics, current political structure, local cultural/tourism/sports activities, and institutes of higher education. Basically a good start that still has a ways to go before it is to FA standards. --Allen3 ^talk 23:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object 1. no references. 2. Sections can be expanded. 3) Map missing. 4. Images have an unknown source. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The images Image:Corinth Temple of Apollon.jpg, Image:Corinthian statue.jpg, Image:Corinthian silver stater.jpg, Image:Corinthian silver stater reverse.jpg, Image:Corinth aerial.jpg have no copyright information.
  2. The image Image:Amphoreus Corinthian.jpg has no source or copyright information.

  --Carnildo 19:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Giuseppe Verdi (listen up, folks; seriously)

Self-nom, I guess. I'm nominating this article in order to convince myself that I've made a bona fide attempt to get it on the main page. I'm pretty certain it's not going there. So, you see, I'm doing this for selfish reasons: I propose to have a clear conscience after I'm done with the whole Verdi issue here. Let me assure you, though, that if getting myself embarrassed is what it takes to promote the Verdi entry, so be it. I don't mind. I don't mind at all.

I have seen the objections on the peer review page and I understand them fully, although I did find some of them pretty (expletive deleted) stupid. Now let me tell you what I think.

I think that the NPOV concept is a very good thing. In fact, it’s wonderful. Without it, we would all go to hell. However, with so many people contributing to the best and most informative source of information in the world today (I’m not kidding), it is inevitable that now and then things tend to get out of hand. Some of the contributors are, no doubt, sound thinkers and well-meaning people in general; the majority, however, will always be inclined to follow the rules to the letter. That’s one of the most annoying problems in any field these days: lots of people follow the rules to the letter and insist that others do so as well. Which is why there are neither artists, scientists, nor politicians today: just a lot of bureaucrats INVOLVED IN art, science, and politics.

Once in a while folks need to be reminded that it is the SPIRIT, and not the LETTER, of the law, that really matters. Without the spirit, the letter is worthless.

Now. The NPOV thing SHOULD be treated as some kind of, I don’t know, DOGMA - by most. However, once in a while, and only once in a while, someone who feels especially strong about CERTAIN THINGS should be, not merely allowed, but actually encouraged to express a point of view (within the boundaries of good taste, of course). Some folks had better remember that NOTHING in this world can EVER be presented without a point of view ANYWAY. Technically, any complete sentence IS a point of view. For instance:

The battle of Hastings occurred in 1066.

Yes, but only according to SOME people. There is plenty of disagreement about our dating methods, chronicles, documents, reputable sources, and so on. Is it commonly accepted that William the Conqueror kicked Harold’s ass sometime in the course of that year? Yes. Are there folks out there who disagree or (more commonly) HAVE NO OPINION? Yes. Conclusion: the fact that the battle of Hastings took place in the year 1066 is not a fact at all, but rather the majority’s POINT OF VIEW.

There are no facts without a point of view.

Let us now move on to the matter in question.

Unless one is determined to outdo the Pharisees in pedantry and hypocrisy, one would naturally agree that Philip Glass is not as good as Verdi or Wagner or Puccini. It is also pretty obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of opera and can appreciate it that not all of Verdi’s operas are equally brilliant. When pressed, a great deal of folks would probably admit that some of his pieces are actually pretty weak and generally boring.

Moreover. Avoiding making a distinction between “Rigoletto” and “Falstaff” IS tantamount to expressing a point of view.

Because it IS a point of view.

It is the Establishment’s point of view.

It cannot be commonly accepted since opera is not a common genre.

It is the Establishment’s fault that opera is in crisis today. It may therefore be a good thing, a quixotic thing, even, to contradict the Establishment’s opinion and re-establish the truth. Opera needs new blood; it needs new audiences; it needs young folks to buy tickets. If a young man or woman’s FIRST live opera is “Falstaff”, and not “Rigoletto”, he or she might NEVER AGAIN go to the opera. Ever.

Clear so far?

As I have mentioned before, I’m all for the NPOV thing. Seriously. However, I insist that in SOME instances, exceptions should, and MUST, be made. Yes: it is indeed my opinion, my point of view, my conviction that where opera is concerned, the Five Greats (Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Bizet, Tchaikovsky) have to be given all the exposure they can get and THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE HYPED. The reason I rewrote nearly the entire article about Verdi is the previous article was an insult. I can say no less. I haven’t made up my mind about the Wagner entry, but it SEEMS okay. The Puccini article is not an insult: merely a damn shame. The one about Bizet is short and stupid. The one about Tchaikovsky seems to have been written by a fatuous obese spinster with a Russian accent.

I give you my word of honor, ladies and gentlemen, that when I’m the one providing the hype, it (the hype) can be neither tawdry nor tediously heart-warming. As a Second Renaissance man, I know the value of good taste. Believe you me. If you still doubt me, read the (expletive deleted) article (READ it, don’t skim through it).

That said, I very humbly ask those of you who feel the least bit pedantic to stay the (expletive deleted) away from the article. Seriously. You want to be all neutral about a composer – do Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler. Leave Verdi alone.

What, after all, is the main purpose of an encyclopedia? Isn’t it to provide information? Well, I have news for you. The implication that “Aida” and “Falstaff” are equal in value as works of art is NOT information: it is bureaucratic (COMMONLY ACCEPTED term for bovine excrement deleted). Ricardo the Texan 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (aka Ricardo the Impressionist)

• Oppose - POV. KingTT 05:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per KingTT. Sentences like "In it, Verdi's artistic generosity is at its highest. Unspeakably beautiful melodies are tossed right and left, passages of celestial beauty scattered like pearls and never repeated, numerous arias, duets, trios and a quartet follow one another in an unceasing celebration of musical genius; passions vibrate; comedy and tragedy merge seamlessly." are just unacceptable in an encyclopedia. The article is strewn with POV comments, and because of your rant above, I see no reason to believe this will be improved. Furthermore, the article has problems unrelated to POV. Entire sections, like the one describing "Verdi's role in the Risorgimento" are unsourced, despite making questionable statements. There is also an untagged image. Whether or not you appreciate it, NPOV is a foundation issue for Wikimedia, and is not negotiable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox designed to fulfill your agenda, and will most definitely not allow a POV article to become featured. Therefore, if you can not adhere to NPOV, which I strongly recommend, "I very humbly ask you to stay [...] away from" Wikipedia. Superm401 | Talk 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. If you feel the need to write a POV article on Verdi, please do it elsewhere. See also Wikipedia:What is a featured article, and note especially point 2d - a featured article, by definition, is required to be NPOV. You yourself admitted that this is a POV article; how can it ever be featured if it does not meet the basic criteria of a featured article? PacknCanes | say something! 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object For one, you've faulted by making a desperate plea for the NPOV status of the topic, right here on FAC. 1) Remove text in parenthesis and make it flow with the text. 2) arguably, the greatest opera yet written Arguably? according to whom? 3) It may have been Giuseppina herself Is this your point of view? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. 4) Lead is too short, double the size 5) why should you compare his birth to Richard Wagner? 6) Parents' names? 7)His greatest works (e.g. Rigoletto, La Traviata, Aida) --> His greatest works, the Rigoletto, La Traviata, Aida... 8) Based on a play by Victor Hugo --> 'Based on a play by author Victor Hugo. Fix these and similar errors first before I review again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I listened up, and I seriously object. If I'm reading a Wikipedia article I want to know the facts and just the facts. If I'm sufficiently interested I'll explore deeper and then make up my mind, safe in the knowledge that nobody but me has the right to make up my mind. Don't presume to tell me what the "greatest" opera is, or tell me that music is "unspeakably beautiful". The article reeks of POV and of all the thousands of articles on Wikipedia I don't see why the rules for FA consideration should be changed for this particular one, simply because you feel passionate about it. Anybody could make a similar plea for their pet subject. We've managed to create some outstanding articles about some highly significant subjects and we've managed to keep it neutral, so if you're serious about the article you need to accept this is policy, and either improve the article or move on. The paragraph quoted by User:Superm401 (above) is nauseating. You know what's required or else you wouldn't have fatuously begged your case at such length, so I won't bother directing you to the relevant policy pages. If you leave the article as it is, other editors will eventually prune the POV from it. If you care about the article, perhaps you should be the one to do the pruning and your nomination might have some chance of success. I absolutely agree with every word of every previous objection. Rossrs 10:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support if only for the gutsy stance you took even though you knew it would not be a popular opinion. It took a lot of courage to do what you did, and not many people would do that. Although personally I would remove POV, I think your stance could fall under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules OmegaWikipedia 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Your interpretation of the ignore all rules guideline is appalingly wrong. Ignore-all-rule is about cutting through red tape, and is absolutely not applicable to this situation, which is about overlooking significantly quality issues when choosing featured articles. Your support is utterly vacuous →Raul654 23:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Omega, the idea is to support or oppose the article on its own merits, not on the gutsy stance of its author. If you truly believe that the article, as written, meets Wikipedia's standards for Featured Article, and that it is an example of Wikipedia's very best work, you should expand upon your support vote. Rossrs 11:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm a musician; I love Verdi. But this will not do. Aside from the obvious POV issues—which are not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia—the article is full of sparse and choppy paragraphs and lacks sufficient references. There's a lot of woodshedding to do before this one is ready for the Main Page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep up the good work! The Quixotic Quest continues, and there’s yet some hope for a Second Renaissance! My 2 Percent Theory works like this. Take a whole bunch of people, selected and/or grouped based on ANY OLD criterium. They can be graduates of a certain not-too-prestigious school; or lesbians of a certain age; or hockey players; or writers; or politicians; or farmers; or lawyers; or just a whole bunch of folks from a certain neighborhood who decided to get some air last Tuesday and got wet because it suddenly started raining. It doesn’t matter. ANY old group. Chances are, 2 percent of them are worth one’s time, the remaining 98 being merely reluctant followers, the proverbial dead weight. And that is fine: because the so-called dead weight WILL contribute, at least in part, to the birth of the NEXT 2 percent.

• Well, this here project (Wikipedia, I mean) is actually doing BETTER than 2 percent. I sort of expected it. Miracles are never complete if you sort of expect them, I guess. Thus what we have here is an incomplete miracle. I see six votes, and already one of the six happens to be a member of the elite – and that’s 16 percent rather than 2. Thank you, Omega.

• As for the rest. I realize Verdi doesn’t deserve this; it’s disrespectful to use his name and legacy in such experiments. However, what’s done is done, so I might as well put together a bit of a summary (should more votes follow, I’ll revisit it; and should the results strike me as amusing, I’ll consider publishing them in my next book, I guess).

• So! This attempt to promote Verdi’s legacy has been shot down, chivalrously, by –

• Someone named KingTT whose Wikipedia contributions and expertise are summedup in this section of his user page: “What I’ve done. Uh . . . nothing much.”

• Someone called Superm401 whose contributions to this well of knowledge consists entirely of two article stubs, one on the Grace Building in New York, the other on John Lovewell, Jr. and who, paraphrasing me, asks me to stay the (expletive deleted) away from Wikipedia. That, I assume, is because he’s in charge around here.

• A night radio announcer down in Raleigh, North Carolina, called PackNCanes, whose interests, by his own admission, are limited to hockey, transportation, and geography, and who is fond of bureaucratic phraseology (“do it elsewhere”).

• A 22-year-old “electronic engineer” (whatever that means) from Bombay, India, named Nicolas, who claimed that if (!!) he’s reading Wikipedia (!!!), he wants (!!!!) “to know the facts and just the facts.” Here’s a fact for him: folks should not be so conceited, self-righteous, self-important, and/or fatuous when they’re only twenty-two unless they figure they would not mind becoming intolerable bores by the time they’re thirty.
  • Speaking of facts, it was not Nicholas who said he wants to know the facts. That was me. Get your facts right, stop being such a jackass, and get down off your soapbox because your utter rudeness does not sway me one bit. Rossrs 21:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You didn't spell my name correctly, you didn't ask me to clarify what an EE does, you completely misread my post, and chose to attack me because I am 22. Great! You've made yourself more of a troll now, and have completely blown your chances for getting this article featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah! Vindictive, aren't we? Yes, sir, you're the boss around here. This isn't about the article, is it? The entire Wikipedia project's sole purpose is to make sure that folks respect you personally and view you as a figure of authority. What was I thinking. Ricardo the Texan 18:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Vindictive? I don't hold a grudge against you. I've only spoken the truth which needs to be bluntly told. Infact, I was kind enough to list some sentences and how to modify them. You unfortunately think I am/we are on some kind of vendatta campaign. Well, if you do take care of our objections, we'll lift our objections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • We? As in the magesterial "we"? Wow, that's lovely. Apart from that, you should really do something about your English. As it is, questions of credibility and, indeed, adequacy, spring irresistibly to mind when you voice your “objections”. Ricardo the Texan 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
          • My English hmmm...? That can be easily rectified, but something really drastic needs to be done about that belligerent attitude of yours. Please go through Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia: no personal attacks, it may do you some good. And once you've finished with that, please go through the second paragraph on this page which says: If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
            • ...make a good-faith effort to address objections - Absolutely, should those objections be valid and made in good faith.Ricardo the Texan 21:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• And the one musician gal from Florida who claims she loves Verdi (loving him from Florida suggests a long-distance relationship; the nearest semi-decent opera house is in Philly; quite romantic, though hardly credible) and cites choppy and sparse paragraphs in my article.
  • Perhaps a long-distance relationship, but I've had worse... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Stay tuned, folks. The Verdi adventure continues. Ricardo the Texan 20:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy. Serious business.

• Object on the following grounds: One: only TWO sources are referenced, and there are NO inline citations to ANY references. Arguments of style and neutrality aside, I can't see how an article could be an FAC with just two references, and certainly not possible without inline citations. I only bring this up because I've seen it brought up in many more featured article candidacy debates, and the debaters here seem to want to rant about neutrality, rather than citations. My own work in such matters is mixed, admittedly, but I HAVE been working to better cite my own sources. Two: no mention of the string quartet or the "Four Sacred Pieces." (though I will grant that this is a minor quibble, but I would like to see mentioned that Verdi DID write music aside from just the operatic works, and the Requiem, which leads me to) Three: no mention of the controversy surrounding Verdi's requiem (though I'm hard-pressed myself to find a source at the moment) - the story goes that the Requiem was quickly met with controversy for sounding "too operatic" in ways that some felt were inappropriate for a religious work (although the counter argument is that "too operatic" can hardly be a surprise). Also, the article states that the Requiem was composed in 1869 in honor of Rossini - both the dtv-Atlas zur Musik (in my 1992 edition published in Munich in association with Bärenreiter-Verlag) and the 1992 paperback printing of Theodore Karp's Dictionary of Music by Northwestern University Press state that Verdi's Requiem was completed in 1874, in honor of Alessandro Manzoni, who died the year before. --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Good points. However, the urgency I attempted to convey in the intro above is ignored. What do I need to say to get folks to understand? THE SHIP IS SINKING? We're taking on water, there are reefs anywhere we look, and you're concerned with painting the mate's bedpost? Get real. Opera is DYING. Puccini once said (and that's a VERY long time ago) that opera is finished because audiences are WILLING TO TOLERATE music without melodies and the public has lost its taste for melody. This is strikingly true when you consider THE VAST MAJORITY of today's performances in which conductors SLOW DOWN the tempi in order to satisfy their egoes - and this is taken as a matter of course by one and all. The performance of Tosca at City Opera, on a regular week night, took place in front of a house that wasn't even HALF-filled. They presented a new set which "updated" the action to Mussolini's times. Scarpia paraded in Nazi attire. This is supposed to be "modern." The orchestra was out of whack a lot of times. And you're concerned about REFERENCES? Sheesh. Ricardo the Texan 21:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • All of "classical music" (and I hate using the term) is dying, slowly, but dying all the same. Classical music sections in many music stores are dwindling (even Borders, which was one of my last great choices, remodeled and cut the section down to a small fraction of its previous size). This article would, if approved, be only the the THIRD classical composer to have an article reach FA. So in my opinion, you're preaching to the choir (thank (insert deity name here) for the CSO and Lyric Opera, both of which are doing well, not great, but well). In contrast to attempting to continue the POV/NPOV debate, I brought up items which HAVE impaired other articles for reaching FA status, and you still choose to be combative? --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Minor correction: it would be the sixth featured classical composer. Still, considering how many composers there are... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
        • You're right, and well spotted. Trying to make out all the names when about every other article is boldfaced, and the others are not can sure play tricks on the eyes. :) I only caught the two bold-faced ones (the two that have been featured articles of the day), and completely missed the three that are not. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The point (which seems to be getting lost on Ricardo) is that this article will not be promoted, no matter how bad the 'opera is dying' syndrome is, unless this article meets our standards for what a featured article should be. →Raul654 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There are lots of things wrong with it. Just on style, the information is vague (wonderful gift for melody? Every composer has that ...) Counterpoint is not how you exemplify it. Tony 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well no, everybody who has ever been called or called themselves a composer does NOT have a wonderful gift for melody, but it IS hard to quantify. This gets right back into the POV/NPOV debate (unless multiple sources are cited all saying Verdi DID have "a wonderful gift for melody," then it falls to the sources, not the editors here). And I'm not taking a high road or a low road, I'm just trying to stay OUT of the POV/NPOV debate here altogether. (blah, it'd help if I sign my comments) --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Clarification (since a whole bunch of folks trying to shoot down the article in question seem to need it badly). In art, no matter what genre you happen to be dealing with, there is a nucleus, a principle matter, a little something that more or less CONSTITUTES THE ART PART in the finished product. The difference between the art part and the other parts is the art part cannot be taught. It can be awakened, developed, nurtured, ignored, honed, etc, but either you have it or you don't. In painting (to pick a genre at random) this nucleus happens to be the line and its offshoot, the stroke. In music, the one thing that cannot be taught (as oppose to the various technical matters including, but not limited to, orchestration, harmonization, counterpoint, voice, theory, etc) is melody. Despite the popular opinion (expressed by Tony here), there have been VERY FEW composes who could boast a genuine melodic gift. Less than twenty, in fact. In the entire history of music as we know it. There have been a sufficient number of plausible fakes, of course, of hacks who could compile and build melodies, etc - but not in opera. Poor Tony, like myself, was born in an era when a whole lot of people in key positions are confused about this whole issue. Folks don't know what a melody IS anymore. Opera may be dying (and is, in my opinion, well worth saving); but popular music (to pick a genre at random) has long been dead. Make no mistake. Popular music is dead. I don't know whether I should laugh, weep, or just shrug, when I hear the term "contemporary", or, worse, "modern" applied to today's popular music. The b-flat-square and its branches are so unbelieveably primitive that even Monteverdi, a 17th Century semi-innovator in his own right, would have been ashamed of them; and the actual style (monotonous drumming, one mode, usually fortissimo, used throughout each piece, no modulation) from which all of today's popular music stems, was devised long before I was born, and I'm nearly forty. I was sort of counting on the new generation to rebel against this boring state of things, but they have turned out to be far more conformist and philistine than my coevals ever dreamed of being.Ricardo the Texan 04:52, 24 October 2005

(UTC)

• Some perspective, just in case. One of the October featured articles was about a character based on another video game character. It met all the proper criteria. Apparently, relevancy, or relevance (choose your poison) isn't one of those. How very symbolic. Thunder and lightning. Ricardo the Texan 04:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As I already said once above, importance/notoriety are not considerations when determing if something should be a featured article. A potential featured article must meet all of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:What is a featured article - notice that fame is not one of the criteria. So, to reiterate a phrase I coined - pretty much an article that could survive a listing on the Votes for Deletion page could theoretically become featured articles. All it takes is someone to put enough energy into that article to get it up to the propery standards. →Raul654 05:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, Ricardo, you're right. It is kind of pathetic that you couldn't address even a single objection preventing a world-renowned composer's article from being featured, while A Link to the Past was able to get the article of a fictional character no one even liked chosen. I guess we can see who's the real fan and who's just pretending. Superm401 | Talk 05:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Most things in this world that have any genuine spiritual value have appeared and continue to exist despite the unceasing objections from people whose outlooks are similar to yours, sir. Including, I hasten to add, Wikipedia.Ricardo the Texan 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As I've said, Verdi is renowned composer, and he deserves that reputation. I certainly don't object to his music, or believe it has no spiritual value. I was merely pondering your incompetence in attempting to get the article featured. It certainly is not due to any fault of Verdi, who is by far notable enough. Superm401 | Talk 19:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The article is amazing. Honestly. If I could, I would perhaps move a thing or two around, but I adore the way this article has been crafted. It definitely deserves my vote. --Winnermario 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object Rigoletto is, arguably, the greatest opera yet written. Really? According to whom? Although his orchestration is often masterful, While I agree, I do not read Wikipedia for editor's opinions. A good start would be toning down the POV. - orioneight (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's not because the contributor is abusive towards the reviewers and has reacted negatively to criticism that the article must fail: it's because the article is poorly written and structured, and falls far short of 'comprehensive'. Next time, please write only a minimal amount at the top of your nomination. Tony 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: Great music, I agree Verdi is cool, although Mozart gives him a run for his money. This article is so POV it made me smile, someone has written this for a laugh; but for an encyclopedia it is really dreadful, it's awful, it needs to be edited of all POV, then extended considerably, the political implications of his works could be an FA on their own. The descriptions of his operas are to brief, and lacking in information on plot, theory, ways of interpretation etc. If the nominator is serious (and I doubt this) in his wish to see this featured, he need to do a great deal more research. Giano | talk 11:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. POV problems abound. For example, "Although masterfully orchestrated, it lacks the melodic lustre so characteristic of Verdi's earlier, great, operas." – says who? Please attribute these statements to actual people rather than leaving the reader guessing. Extraordinary Machine 14:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sydney Boys High School

This page has undergone quite a bit of renovation and comprehensively describes one of sydney's premiere boys public schools.

• Object. Too damn short. If it weren't for the extensive list of former students, I'd list it for deletion. --Carnildo 05:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object per Carnildo. Please refer to the path to a featured article, and take this through peer review. I note that this is the second time this has been in FAC, and the earlier recommendation for peer review was apparently not followed. I'd highly recommend you follow that advice before you list this on FAC again. Also, please make sure to sign your name using ~~~~ henceforth. PacknCanes | say something! 06:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above responses. The article is long on lists and short on prose. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Too short - not enough on history or current sports. Doesnt mention controversies in Rugby over the past two years or performance in HSC. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please remove from this list before it causes yet more embarrassment. Tony 17:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Look at Caulfield Grammar School, a featured article, or other articles at Portal:Schools for some inspiration on how to improve. Drop me a line on my talk page for any help wanted. Harro5 10:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Details, details, details! -64.231.70.46 20:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As above. Enochlau 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

comments merged from Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sydney_Boys_High_School/ (with /)

Cooperative

Very comprehensive article, describing multiple aspects of cooperative movement. dml 21:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It smells a lot like anglo-saxon POV. A big effort should be done to present on a same level the cooperative systems in the world. A single example: Agricultural cooperative. Compare the size of both sections: in the US and in other parts of the world. Vb 10:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Definitely too focused on the West; other uses of co-operatives (for example, many Malaysian schools have their own co-operatives) seem to have been ignored. The lead section is far too long; two or three paragraphs should be the maximum. The references are also not formatted properly. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Might be salvagable; I agree with the culturocentric concerns of the previous reviewer.

I wonder about this:

'Membership is open, meaning that anyone who satisfies certain non-discriminatory conditions may join. Unlike a union, in some jurisdictions a cooperative may assign different numbers of votes to different members.'

You're presenting a general (worldwide?) definition of the cooperative, but aren't these conditions rather exclusive? What does 'open' mean? I was a member of a cooperative that restricted membership in a number of ways. Don't some cooperatives discriminate—some jurisdictions have relatively lax anit-discrimination laws. Do you mean 'trade union'? Are you referring to unions in certain countries? Tony 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Virtual band

Self-nom This has gone through two peer reviews (you can read them here and here), and I think I have it up to a level that is suitable for featured article. --JB Adder | Talk 12:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: "The popularity of the group opened the door for many other cartoon bands, especially Josie and the Pussycats, The Banana Splits and Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem." Does Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem work in this sentence? For one thing, they're puppets, a "cartoon band". If Virtual Bands can include puppets at all, the intro should say so. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the popularity of the Archies had much if anything to so with opening the door to The Muppet Show and the creation of this virtual band. --Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Prose needs editing. Here are examples of what I mean, drawn from the top.
  • '(like in The Archies and Gorillaz)'—ungrammatical.
  • Overuse of parentheses, which makes it harder to read—try commas, m dashes, and rewording to vary your usage in this respect.
  • 'This' occurs twice in a relatively short sentence.
  • 'A virtual band (or virtual group), in music, is any group whose members are not flesh-and-blood musicians, but animated characters.' Try: 'A virtual band (or virtual group), is a group of animated characters that represent musical performers.'
  • Get rid of 'etc'.
  • 'Stage appearances are complex, because they not only require pre-animated sequences, ready to play, but also need the actual musicians behind the screen, performing in perfect sync.' What about: 'The mechanics of stage appearances are complex, requiring the preparation of ready-to-play animated sequences and the presence of human musicians behind a screen, performing in perfect sync.'
  • One-sentence paragraph is not a good look.

It has potential, but you'll have to find some language-nerds to help out. Tony 05:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the indication; why they weren't brought up in Peer Review, I'll never know. --JB Adder | Talk 08:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• You know what: most reviewers barely have time to cope with this list, and don't often attend to the PR list thoroughly. There's a good case for recommending that contributors who put up articles for PR directly ask (nicely) five or six contributors to related articles to have a look. It's no good just posting it there and hoping the right 'peers' will come along. Tony 16:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• An article that concerns such a visual phenomenon needs a lot more than just one image. Still mistakes in the prose (e.g., 1980's). The first few sentences are not well written (please remove 'etc' for a start). It's rather stubby for a FA. Tony 04:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

About-Picard law

(Largely self-nom) What do you think? It's a dry legal topic, on a somewhat controversial issue, but I think all points of view are reflected. There's a single picture, but I don't quite see what kind of pictures could illustrate the article better (this is about a legal text, after all). David.Monniaux 08:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The Bibliography section should be named "References" according to common practice and guidelines. And what's with the "Opinions"-section? If the internet links are relevant, then thy should go under "External links". The books cited under this section should either go under a "Further reading"-section or be removed if they've not actually been used to reference the article. The external links section is also very large. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I reorganized the section. The external links section is very large because people used to scream bloody murder and censorship if any link criticizing the French government was removed! What do you think about the issue? David.Monniaux 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'd say that we're not a link repository. Any notable criticism should be described in the article. If it's not notable, it shouldn't be snuck in by adding criticism-links. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  Agreed, with the article size 10-15 links is really over doing it but that would be the goal. The article is good but could Main points be changed to prose? Falphin 02:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. David, you do good stuff (such interesting topics), but I can't cope with the torrent. Although your English is better than that of many native speakers, you need a trusted native collaborator to review your texts before nominating them. There's also a certain looseness in some of your prose, which weakens the clarity and precision of the meaning. Your topics seem to demand great clarity and precision. Here are some examples from the lead.
  • 'parliament' should be 'parliamentary'.
  • 'makes it possible to act against organisations (legal entities) when these organisations have been involved in certain crimes'
    • Consider using this: 'makes it possible for the state to act against organisations that have been involved in certain crimes', relocating mention of 'legal entities' to later in the article.
  • 'The law was, in its own words, aimed at cultic movements (mouvements sectaires) that, "undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms". The law does not define new crimes, except in association with existing crimes. It never mentions religion.'
    • You use terminology that is not explained until the reader gets to the next section. The four words and parentheses make it a complicated sentence; can you find a simple, translated expression here that won't beg further questions? Then you can go into the details later.
    • 'Was'—you mean the law has been extinguished? And when was it enacted? Tell us at the start.
    • 'Never' should be 'does not'.
  • 'Proponents of the law allege, on the contrary, that it reinforces religious freedom, since it aims at protecting people who are in a weak position, including children, from being forced into religious and other activities by criminal organizations.'
    • Consider instead: 'On the contrary, proponents of the law allege that it reinforces religious freedom, because it aims to protect people who are in a weak position, including school children, from being forced by criminal organizations into religious and other activities.' But what are these 'other activities'? Homework? ' ...and activities that the legislators regarded as being a threat to ...'?

Dungeons & Dragons

Self nom. This article was formerly nominated as a FAC and, rightfully, failed. Since then I and several people have worked hard to whip the article into shape. The article has also been peer reviewed recently. The primary objections to the previous FAC were: (1) A lack of references. (2) Poor copyediting. (3) Size of the article. (4) Lack of organization. (5) Failure to cover certain subjects (such as related products) in sufficient detail. These problems have been fixed and the article polished up above-and-beyond. I think it's ready to become a featured article. Justin Bacon 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support it passes now... last time it just wasnt ready for the prime time.  ALKIVAR™ 06:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I have tried to re-edit the page but my English is quite poor so that I fear the page (or at least my contribtutions) should be re-edited. I have tried to change the following points:
  1. The article provides the impression to the reader that D&D is a simple tabletop game requiring some items which can be purchased and not a role-playing game. One does not need to have the v3.5 to be able to play in the D&D universe with D&D rules! One can also invent one's own rules and settings! This is said in the article but should be said in the game overview or in the lead.
  2. One should remove all standard D&D abbreviation (DM, RPG,... except D&D, AD&D when clear)
  3. Criticisms should be expanded with comparision with other RPGs
  4. The tone is sometimes condescendant with earlier versions. See caption of the cover of the D&D 4th edition printing.
  5. Many lists and very short (1 or 2 sentence) paragraphs should be merged into prose
  6. What are Game Board (Cloth?) and computer programs (in the Play overview section)?

I think I am not finished yet and that someone should continue this in order improve the article. Vb 09:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's a substantial article that might come up to scratch with four or five hours of intensive work. Here are a few problems that I notice without yet having read it properly.
  • Lots of stop-start paragraphing. One solution might be to insert more bullets, which will require rewording and proper punctuation. Another may be to merge paragraphs. At the moment, the flow is adversely affected.
  • I see that you assume women don't/can't/shouldn't play the game. Please change the sexist language. A common way of avoiding the generic male pronoun is to pluralise ('When players choose to have their character attempt an action' rather than 'When a player chooses to have his character attempt an action').
  • The prose needs a BIG clean up—in many places there's a looseness or awkwardness. For example:
    • 'a random die roll' might be clearer as 'a random roll of the die';
    • 'The results of those actions are determined using the game's rules, which govern almost everything from combat to social interaction. However, the Dungeon Master is responsible for interpreting the rules and most simple actions can be resolved from simple logic without referring to the rules.' The logic of 'However' escapes me; then there's a statement that seems to flow better straight from the first sentence. And try 'responsible for interpreting the rules, and most simple actions can be resolved using simple logic without reference to the rules.' It will confuse readers, this shunting from A1 to B and then back to A2.
    • 'Races include elves, dwarves, humans, and halflings among others.' But 'include' does mean 'among others'—you don't need both.
    • 'They help the master to create some story and backgrounds.'—'some story' is not idiomatic English.

Now, it's all like this, so you need to enlist a language-nerd who hasn't seen the text yet. It will be worth it to make it read smoothly—then you'll be proud of it, and frankly, nothing less will do for a FA. (Mind you, I haven't looked at the content; others may have suggestions there.) Tony 09:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've made a pass through the article and changed the language to be gender-neutral. It looks to me like other editors have addressed some of your other constructive critiques as well. Nandesuka 12:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This FA nomination seems to have gone off track rather rapidly. We have one person with poor English skills complaining about the presence of imaginary material that never appeared in the article (a caption mentioning a "4th edition" of the game which doesn't exist) and the lack of material which aleady appeared in the article (an explanation of game boards that can be used with the game). He introduces clumsy language into the article... which is then cited by the next person as a reason to object before the problem can be corrected. Oh, plus a push to make the Wikipedia article on D&D the best place to push an agenda on revising the English language.
  • Reply I had mistaken edition with printing. I am sorry. I think my clumsy language is better than nothing. I still believe some important elements were and (to some extend still are) missing in the article. However I am happy the editors of the article have not reversed my edits but make copyedit instead. The article mentioned game boards and computer programs without explaining at all what they are. I am sorry also for my misunderstanding of notoriety my mother tongue is French and in French notoriété can be positive as well as negative. I have looked in a dictionary. Thanks. Vb 20:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-native speakers can often make valuable contributions to the eng.WP; there's a case for arranging a pairing system with native-speakers so that we can express information and views from outside anglophonia in good English. Over to the Board on that. Will the reviewer who complained of a 'push' please explain what s/he meant? Tony 08:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I was guessing they were referring to your comments on sexist language, making a rather uncivil and unclear defense of the position that English allows "he" to be used as the generic third-person pronoun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object. There's quite a bit of abbreviation used that demands that the reader makes the connection between the introduction of the terms and their acronyms. Also, the prose needs a little polishing. What is the difference between a "random die roll" and a "die roll"? The sentence "Much of the potential for parody in Dungeons & Dragons may exist because, with its heroic millieu and imagination-based gameplay, it exaggerates the visibility of the gap between the actuality of the players' self-image and the personas they adopt when interacting with others" is laboured. Having said that, the article is quite good at explaining what the game is, so long as the reader is willing to follow the wikilinks to important terms like "roleplaying game". Jkelly 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. (Full disclosure: I've done quite a bit of editing on this article in the past couple of months). I concur with Justin Bacon. I think it's ready. I'll make a pass through again to address some of the specific grammar concerns raised by some editors. Nandesuka 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

Nominating for a featured article. Article length to some people will be a drawback, and having wrote the great majority of the article, I take responsibility for the length. Nevertheless, I believe the article is quite comprehensive. Whether or not this is a featured article, I would recommend and encourage a separate article on Babe Ruth that is much shorter for the reader who do not want this much information. It would also be much easier writing a separate article than cutting this one down. --LibraryLion 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's pretty well written, although the prose needs a little tweaking throughout. One particularly annoying aspect is the wholesale linking of common nouns. Here's an example:

'Young George was known for mischievous behavior. He skipped school, ran the streets, and committed petty crime. By age seven, he was drinking, chewing tobacco ...'

WP is not a dictionary, and there's a bunch of reasons that common words—and for that matter, low-value years and decades—should not clutter the appearance of the text. If your readers don't know what these words mean, they should take lessons in basic English. If they do know what these words mean, I fail to see how hitting the links will help them to understand/enjoy reading your article. See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. Overall, well done. Tony 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do claim to getting carried away linking everything, although I admit I was not aware of Wikipedia's preference to link only subjects that relate directly to the text. In a couple of days, I'll try to have this fixed. --LibraryLion 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken out numerous links, although honestly I'm not sure why this really is an issue as it seems rather trivial when judging the quality of the article. --LibraryLion 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images need work:
  • Image:Ruthbatting.jpg, if it was indeed taken in 1923 and was published in the same year (that's very important; it's the publication date that determines public domain, not the date the picture was taken), is public domain as indicated. However, without a source, the year of publication can't be verified.
  • Image:RuthStMary's.jpg has a good justification for fair use, but are you claiming that it's fair use or public domain? Rather hard to tell; make sure to tag the picture with the appropriate tag.
  • Image:Ruthsoxdk.jpg has no source or copyright-status information.
  • Image:Ruth1918.jpg and Image:Ruth1920.jpg have no source information, which makes a public-domain claim rather dubious without knowing for certain the publication date of the photos.
  • Image:FrazeeRedsox.JPG, Image:BRuth1921-2.jpg, Image:RuthMcgraw1922.jpg, Image:Yankeestad2.jpg, Image:3BRuth1925.jpg, Image:Ruth1926-3.jpg, Image:1927NYYankees5.jpg, Image:Ruth1927.jpg, Image:RuthGehrig.jpg, Image:Ruthcharity.jpg, Image:Ruth1929.jpg, Image:RuthClaire1930.jpg, Image:Ruth1930-2.jpg, Image:Ruth1932.jpg, Image:Ruth1935.jpg, Image:Ruth1938.jpg, Image:Ruth1948.jpg, and Image:Ruthfuneral.jpg are all (properly) claimed as fair use, but they need to be tagged as such. I'd recommend using the tag {{fairusein|Babe Ruth}} to tag them.
  • Also, make sure you stay away from anything that isn't NPOV. Be on the lookout for copy like the caption of "the greatest slugging duo" under the picture of Ruth and Gehrig; either qualify it with something like "statistically", or don't use it. But the copy is excellent, and even given the length -- which, admittedly, is VERY long, but just as good -- I'd be happy to support as long as the image concerns are cleared up. Good luck! PacknCanes | say something! 14:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Not tagging the photos was an oversight on my part. I have tagged every picture and gave sources on the Ruth 1918 photo and the 1920 photo. I did not download the pictures Image:Ruthbatting.jpg nor Image:Ruthsoxdk.jpg. Since I do not know their sources, I will replace these two photos with ones where I know their specific references. --LibraryLion 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

All photographs have been tagged. --LibraryLion 22:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see it. The article is still a bit long, but it's certainly comprehensive, so I can't really argue with the length. Weak support on the condition that Tony's concerns about over-linking are addressed. (Rule of thumb: if it's already been linked, don't link it again, especially for things like years and positions..."pitcher", for example, only needs one or maybe two links.) Good job! PacknCanes | say something! 06:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object at 80+ kb the page size is massive. Please summarise the text so that it is cut by more than half. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Please also reduce the image width and cut the numerous headings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Summary style would be completely incompatible with this article. To do this, I would have to make seperate articles on sections by themselves that do not warrant seperate articles. If I did this, none of these seperated sections would even be a full page. I know Wikipedia touts summary style, and it has its uses, but I admit I generally do not like it. It often diverts the reader from the main article, and it fragments your article and interferes with the pace. Summary style is also often distracting and cumbersome to read, even when reading some featured articles. Sorry, but summary style is not is a good option for this article. --LibraryLion 08:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support- I took out info about the other teams rosters in those world series that Ruth which is irrelavent played trimming the article from 88kb to 85kb but still long. Why not create a few subpages --JAranda | watz sup 19:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Government of France

Self-nom I think it's rather complete. Some people thought I should discuss the budget in more detail, but this is, I think, another topic, worth of a separate article. David.Monniaux 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment — I'm working through the article now, and it is well-written. However, may I ask if all those section headings starting with the definite article ae really necessary. I would advocate removing all the thes from the beginning of section headings here. --Gareth Hughes 15:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok. Fixed. David.Monniaux 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — It is clear to me what cabinet and gouvernement mean in different sections of this article, but the interchange between the two words isn't all that helpful. Would it be possible to define gouvernement and then use that term exclusively? --Gareth Hughes 15:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — The capitalisation of certain titles, like president and prime minister is erratic. I tried correcting a few before I realised that I was probably doing it wrong. See titles. --Gareth Hughes 15:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Regretfully object: the article is very good, but the complete lack of English-language references is unacceptable, as there's no way for the average reader to examine the cited sources. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I added a bunch of English references (many reference texts had official English translations). Do you think it's enough? David.Monniaux 07:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that looks just fine; I have no further objections. Support from me. Kirill Lokshin 12:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Was about to support, but I have to ask: Are those italicised "see below" notices in parentheses really necessary? I'm not sure about the policy/convention on them, but I found them a bit offputting at times. Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed most of them but one — the one linking to the difference between statute law and regulations, which is I think quite a central topic of French constitutional law after 1958. David.Monniaux 20:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object at the moment. This is a very important article that I'd like to see featured. But it needs heavy editing—you could call it rewriting. Here are some comments on the lead.
  • Opening sentence
  • I've wikified by starting with the title in bold.
  • You may wish to revert to the 'laique = roughly secular' thing in the middle of the list, but it was cluttering what should be a strong, clear opening.
    • What does 'social' mean in this context? (Remove or reword.)
      • This is a quote from the preamble of the Constitution, so any rewording is surely out of question. The precise meaning of such words probably warrants detailed constitutional analysis by constitutional scholars. David.Monniaux 06:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Provides for', not 'enacts' (parliaments, not constitutions enact).
    • Is my change to 'human rights' correct?
  • Appointment of PM—this sentence was a mess. How about: 'The President's choice for Prime Minister must be approved by the French National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament; in practice, the Prime Minister is drawn from the majority party in that house.'
  • Then: 'The government includes various bodies checking against possible abuses of power and independent agencies.'
    • Let's be careful to distinguish 'government' (that of a particular President/PM) from the constitutional framework in which governments function. Is there appropriate terminology to do this throughout?
    • Do you mean '... that check abuses of power by the government and its independent agencies.'? What are these 'independent agencies? You've said twice that the judiciary is 'independent', so the reader will wonder whether the statement refers to it.
    • I wonder whether a bullet-pointed list of the basic structure—or even a diagram—is required at the top, so that we're not confused when you first refer to the components.
  • And: 'However, the various legal subdivisions—the régions, départements and communes—have various attributions, and the national government is prohibited from intruding into their normal legal operations.'
    • I've inserted the m dashes, which make sentences with lots of commas a little clearer and easier to read.
    • Are these entities equivalent to 'local goverment'?
    • Why name these categories here if you don't distinguish between them? (Better to use a generic term here, and explain in detail later.) What are 'attributions' in this context? (Powers and responsibilities?)
    • 'Various' appears twice in this sentence.

Do I have time to go through the whole article like this? Tony 03:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Re 'social'—presumably you've translated it, so you have a degree of license to get across the intended meaning in English. As it stands, social is vague and ambiguous, and should be removed if the courts need to interpret the word. Here, some readers will take it as 'socialist'; others might think it means 'democratic'. So it can't stand as is. (That's unwise drafting, in my view.) Tony 13:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The word social is used in the official English translation. It would be unfair to try and change this. Social means here that the state is responsible for some welfare system but interpreting further would be original research. I have changed the head (and cited the source) such that it comes clearer. Vb 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot vote because I have not read everything. The article is much too long and should boil down to something more reasonable like 30-35 KB. Vb 15:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object poor flow - needs longer and less paragraphs. Could use another run through peer review probably. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain (previous nomination)

When I came to this article it had already been largely developed by WikiProject Science. I have simply been chunking out some important parts (so it is a partial self-nomination). This article has been through Peer Review and meets all of the featured article criteria. --Oldak Quill 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. --Oldak Quill 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the references need to be tidied up. I would like to see some merging of the "Notes" and "references" sections so that a single "References" section referenced inline from the page arises. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations and Wikipedia:Footnotes. Alex.tan 16:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it not be easier to keep the references section as it is (apart from templatising them) and just move all the notes links inline [http://...etc.? All of the references are relevent to the whole article.--Oldak Quill 16:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: I have now cleaned these up. --159.92.101.18 08:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Rabbit brain pl.png has no source or copyright information, and no, "From Polish Wikipedia" doesn't cut it. --Carnildo 20:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • image removed. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have verified that all images in the article are free - I have added some more at relevent points. --Oldak Quill 08:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• ObjectSupport The article is great. I have however some objections.
  • It should be clear already in the head that the article is not only about the anatomy the brain of animals but about the brain in more general sense (food, artificial intelligence)
  • The titles are funny but not explicit enough. I suggest to change "A smart device" and "Inside brains" with something more telling like "the functions of the brain" and "Anatomy of the brain". The same for the title "Brains in medicine" and "Brains in nature": they sound a bit strange to me. Why not "Brains of animals" and "Brains of human beings"?
  • Myths. I like very much the two first myths and their explanations. Why aren't there any explanations following the next ones. A short comment about why those a myths would improve the article.
  • Food. The article is missing many French food based on the brain like the calf head (tête de veau).

Vb 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I believe I have sorted out all of your objections: I have expanded to lead section to consider the study for artificial intelligence and use as food; I have renamed "inside the brain" to "The biology of the brain", do you have any suggestions as to what "A smart device" could be changed to?; I have moved the "Myths" section to the human brain article as it was not general enough; and I have expanded food to include tête de veau and a couple of other foods. --Oldak Quill 12:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK It's now better but the titles "A smart device", "Brains in medicine" and "Brains in nature" are really too odd to me. You should really change this. What belong to human brain and brain is not made clear. Maybe should you make a subsection called "human brain" with main article "human brain". Vb 15:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I can see your point over "A smart device" but am not sure why there is anything wrong with "...in medicine" and "...in nature"? --Oldak Quill 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC) EDIT: I have now changed all of the titles you suggest should be changed and then some for greater uniformity and sense. I have also added a "human brain" section which is linked to the main article. --Oldak Quill 00:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support OmegaWikipedia 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object—Very poorly written. I've edited the opening, but I'm finding that there's a looseness in more than the use of language; it's deeper than that, involving scientific looseness.

For example:

Why is psychology 'less direct' than neuroscience in its study of the brain? This needs to be worded carefully to be credible.

'There have also been attempts and research into simulating it (artificial intelligence) to achieve a new, more efficent, generation of computing'—please remove most of the occurrences of 'also', which are redundant. 'Attempts into simulating'? Doesn't make sense. 'Attempts and research'? 'it (artificial intelligence)' is clumsy. Would this research produce an old generation of computing?

'Humans have also put the brain to use as an ingredient in various world cuisines and tribal rituals.' Suddenly we're talking about cannibalism, at the end of a leading paragraph that covers the related scientific fields ....

'neural control is executed by collections of ganglia'—'control is executed' is awkward.

'usually used'—come on, you shouldn't be writing jingles like that.

'information about the human brain in specific'—do you mean 'specifically'?

'Functions of the brain are responsible for cognition'—Do you mean 'The brain is responsible ...'?

Every sentence needs surgery. Withdraw and find collaborators to tighten the whole thing up. We need a FA on the brain. (PS If you want more examples, I'll just go through and pick out some more shockers. But you get the thrust of what I'm saying, don't you?) Tony 14:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments concerning the article - you certainly seem qualified to make them :). I will be going through the article tonight and tomorrow to thoroughly clean up the English. I'll leave you a message when I'm done. --Oldak Quill 09:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Update: I and several others have now significantly copyedited the article, I will be making some finishing touches after my train journey home.
    • The article has now been extensively copyedited, I hope you consider it in a better state. --Oldak Quill 14:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - As said above, needs improvements in writing style. --WS 15:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Tentative Support, I would like to see the writing style improved but there is no such thing as a perfect article. Falphin 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I'm not going to say why i object because 1, I have the right to, & 2, Everyone would try & berate me into supporting, which I don't need. Mainly cause it's too short. Spawn Man 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an inactionable objection, so is ignored. --87.80.42.198 09:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • See what I mean?.... If you read closely you would see that I put the words MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S TOO SHORT, did you see it now? My objection is because it is too short mr. I'm Going To Ignore It. You can't ignore it. It is actionable & is correct. SO THERE..... *Some people get my blood boiling...........* Spawn Man 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • In what way is this article too short?! In no way is it too short. Perhaps you are referring to particular sections? If so, please say which ones. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "Too short" is an inactionable objection because it does not indicate how the article could be fixed. The article could be made longer by thesaurusizing it. It could be made longer by adding lorem ipsum in strategic locations. It could be made longer by using a larger font, or wider margins, or by double-spacing the lines. What do you want? --Carnildo 23:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Also keep in mind that the article is already 34 kB, over the recommended size. I will expand the "Function" section as suggested below today. --Oldak Quill 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's looking better now; I've gone through down to the end of 'animal brains'—please see my inline comments. Plus: 'compare with' for contrasts, 'compare to' for similarities. Tony 02:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The section on fuction is still too short for me. Scientists are still unlocking mysteries of the brain & all we have is a small little section on function? Watch some BBC, Human Body, episodes then come back to it.... Spawn Man 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Still needs lots of work. Can you retitle the section 'Importance of the brain'? This implies that the following section 'Biology of the brain' is not important. Can you do something about the caption for the mouse brain (which I reworded—now it's visually awkward). Tony 04:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'll be making amendments today. --Oldak Quill 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object: seems OK, only the following needs a source: "Humans enjoy unique neural capacities, but much of the human neuroarchitecture is shared with ancient species" - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Weak object This does need to be rewriten, but when that's done, you're good. So when these complaints stop, so does mine.

• Weak Object- I think it needs an evolutionary history (a paragraph or so- when did brains first evolve). Also, "Other matters" is a poor name for a section (a broader discussion of philosophical and computer science would be nice and that section seems to aproximate that, but isn't named so and isn't sufficiently fleshed out). This is a really broad subject and such large topics are hard to feature. The "brain as food" section seems random, but i guess it isn't bad. Broken S 22:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Vaslui

self-nom

We need more battles on Wiki. I think this article, for being a battle article, is cool. It involves many different parties and nations. The article seems to be rather complete, but I'm sure people can still improve it in certain areas. --Anittas 15:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. No references and no pictures. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you highlight specific passages where wokr needs to be done?. Unsigned: user:Thethinredline

• Like John said, we need more references, but to say that we have no references would be wrong. I will add those that I know of and I'll ask another dude to do the same. As for pictures; unfortunatelly, there aren't any pictures of the battle, that I know of, but I do know that pictures aren't required. I guess we could add the picture of some of the leaders. Would that be relevant? --Anittas 18:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, the current references are not formatted properly; please see WP:CITE. And yes, pictures of the leaders would be fine. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How are they supposed to be? --Anittas 21:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object due to lack of references. Direct citations are necessary at least for the size of the Ottoman army and its casualties (I see three different numbers given with no explanation of where they come from) and for the assertion that the "invasion was the worst ever defeat for the Ottomans at that time"; and some more English-language references would be helpful in general. Kirill Lokshin 21:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with what others have said regarding references, though this shouldn't be too difficult to overcome as the article seems to cover the subject matter in sufficient depth (one web article I saw refers to this as the "Battle of the Buglers"). As far as images go, if there's not a nice painting of the Battle (as have been prepared for many other conflicts) something depicting the armies would be helpful; however, a map would be the most beneficial in terms of conveying information. Unfortunately, the City article for Vaslui is only a stub.--Lordkinbote 07:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm working on adding more references. Give me 4 days. As for pictures, I don't know where to find them. I have a drawing of the battle, from a book, from the communist times; the picture is not copyrighted (communist times). Is it allowed to add it? If not, we could just add photos of the leaders. Thanks for your contribution. --Anittas 14:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If it has no copyright, it is in the public domain, so sure, go ahead! Johnleemk | Talk 15:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I agree with Kirill. He and I read, write and edit A LOT of battle articles. This one is simply not yet up to the standards. There are some factual and wording problems, which I helped a bit to address in my edits (such as referring to the sipahis as light cavalry. They were actually heavy by Ottoman standards, but they often get confused in the west with the Timariots, who were the light horse, feudal levies). A map would most certainly be helpful. The author obviously has a great knowledge of the battle itself, but English is not their primary language. I would gladly help them with this. Towards these ends, I suggest it go to Peer Review for some more work, then be resubmitted.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You're more than welcome to help out, Ghost. You don't need my permission. As for the rest, I still ask for about 4 days, so that I can add references, etc. --Anittas 20:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Here's an example of what I consider a very well done battle article, worthy of FA support: Battle of Nicopolis--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the red links should be addressed. Also, any political implications of the battle? InvictaHOG 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to write a stub on Grigore, soon, if no one else is doing it. No problem there. I'm not sure what you mean when saying "political implications". I thought everything was described in the background section. Btw., is that you who made the map for the battle of nicopolis? If so, can you do the same for this article? Thanks. Be back later. --Anittas 00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support OmegaWikipedia 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Addentum: Okay, I've added new references and two pictures of the leaders. The article seems a bit messy, now. There are many red links, now. That's because the historians that I've used in my references, are not well-known. Should I un-link their names? Other than that, I don't think I can do much more. I've looked at other battle articles and they don't have that many references; probably because no-one forced them cite everything they said. I also added new information. If anyone can help, please do. I don't think the article has a chance to be nomindated. I checked on the Battle of Kadesh. If that article was not featured, then my article has no chance. I think this sucks. Most featured articles are dull. They're about train companies and stuff; and just recently someone nominated an article for chicken soup. Bad timing, dude! --Anittas 19:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Half-Life 2

Self-nomination and also re-nom. Originally submitted by me back in June of this year, the article has come a long way, and many changes have been made to fix it up. A very interesting and notable computer game. Thunderbrand 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, although I have made considerable contributions to this article, I do feel the article is comprehensive and a good all-around article. For whatever it is worth. K1Bond007 06:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object the lead has to be double the current size. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it now? I think its summarized a bit better. Thunderbrand 14:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object: Overuse of screenshots. The images Image:Breen1HL2.jpg, Image:Antlions1HL2.jpg, Image:City17HL2.jpg, and Image:ManhacksHL2.jpg are not discussed in the article, and should probably be removed. --Carnildo 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually the first three are discussed, the last one isn't though (at least specifically, it is in a section talking about the character - allies & enemies in the game. I think that's fair enough) Definitely not overuse and the screenshots add greatly to the article. K1Bond007 19:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with K1Bond007. The screenshots help greatly and aren't overused. Thunderbrand 20:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Of the four, Image:Breen1HL2.jpg doesn't appear show anything significant about the game. Image:Antlions1HL2.jpg, Image:City17HL2.jpg, and Image:ManhacksHL2.jpg are all used to illustrate combat, so all but one of them should be removed. --Carnildo 05:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Breen1HL2.jpg shows a signifcant part of the storyline. Thunderbrand 16:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree, yet again. It is an important moment in the game and is illustrated in the plot summary. There's absolutely no reason to remove it. K1Bond007 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—No mention of platforms: Mac and Windows, when/if? No mention of releases in countries other than what I presume is the US, as though that's the only country in the world. Prose not 'compeling, even brilliant'. Things like:

'1998's'

'leaked TO the internet'? This is not the right preposition. Upper-case I for Internet, still.

'advancements'—hello?

'during the course of conducting an experiment'—which four words are redundant here?

dot after 'Dr' is now very old-fashioned.

'Two distinctive elements from the original Half-Life are preserved:

Freeman is a silent protagonist

The entire game is viewed through Freeman's eyes (i.e. there are no cut scenes)'—comma after 'e,g.', and format this as the single sentence that you apparently intended it to be.

The whole text needs a thorough edit. Tony 14:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I addressed most of your concerns. However, you need to clarify a couple so I know what is wrong:

What is wrong with using "1998's"?

"advancements" - same as above. "hello?" doesn't give me much to go by. Thunderbrand 15:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

1998s doesn't need an apostrophe and advancements is a confused word that means the same as the more simple - advances (grammatically it doesn't seem correct, but I can't work out why). In general the text has improved since my last read though, but it feels odd being dropped straight into the plot, neutral.--nixie 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Support The article does a good job of summing up both the game, its development, and the issues surrounding it. InvictaHOG 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Object First there are several minor issues, the Plot gets way too detailed in some places (ex: there is no reason to mention a detail like "breifly transporting Gordon to the office of Doctor Breen twice"). Also in Narration the use of "it" when describing speculation is inappropriate, and should be rewritten. (Ex. "In Half-Life it could be said" What is "it"?, who is saying "it"?) The article is also missing a Reception and awards section. Except for a brief mention in the intro, the article does not describe how the game was recieved and if the game won any awards. (Didn't Half-Life 2 win a Game Developer's Choice Award?) MechBrowman 03:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't get that detailed, and when it does, it is necessary. When Gordon gets transported to Dr. Breen's office in the beginning, it basically sets off the whole game. The Combine, and even Breen, don't even know of his existence in the city up until that point, hence it is a major part of the story, which is why the screenshot is included. Thunderbrand 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Except that isn't necessary at all to the summary. Of course that is important to make the story make sense, but only when your playing it. When you are summarizing the game keep it simple. Remove some of the detail and just say something similar to "Alerted to Gordan's presence, Breen sends the combine after him." MechBrowman 18:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Object There's no information about the leak at all. Nothing about the hacker who stole the entire source code then released it on the net. There's nothing about the extended release dates, the stories cooked up by Valve or any of the actual interesting prose regarding its development at all. Nothing about its fan support either. James Pinnell 09:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If you read the lead paragraph, it mentions the source code leak, which directs you to the Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms page. The Half-Life 2 page was getting to large and most of the stuff was moved to that page, as well as others. Thunderbrand 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

University of Maryland, College Park

Self-nomination; more or less, since I have done a lot with this article. However, I feel it is at the point of being a model article for most universities. -James Howard (talk/web) 18:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Lack of pictures, and a lack of external references for certain key facts stated. Overall it is an acceptable article.83.77.128.225
  • In a somewhat ironic twist of fate, I have a quiz bowl tournament there on October 22. I'll bring my camera and grab some pics. →Raul654 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. I don't believe it needs more pictures. Nice work. :) --Syrthiss 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I am also working on getting a university article featured. However, after looking at this article, I would not use it as an example for a featured university article, for the following reasons:

1. There are too many lists, especially for the academics section. I would recommend that you move the list to a sub-article and summarize the material into prose. In fact, it is preferable that the article use prose instead of lists.
2. Little or no information on student life (what is it like attending/living at the University of Maryland? What special activities/groups make the university stand out?)
3. No information concerning the campus (is the campus compact? Spread-out? Modern or classical in appearance?).
4. Reference section must be separate, and the number of references is lacking (surely there must be printed publications on the flagship campus of the University of Maryland).
5. Try to avoid having external links within the main article.
6. History section must be summarized in this article, with the current form moved into a sub-article.

Another concern I have is that the article didn't go through peer review first (especially with this many problems). Unless you have the time to address these problems, I personally can't see this article being featured on the first try. Pentawing 01:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - For the following reasons (among others):

1. The campus is not adaquately described and there are no pictures illustrating it.
2. The long list of academic subjects interrupts the article.
3. There is no description of the social and cultural life of the campus.
4. The discussion of past research the university has done is lacking.
5. There is no discussion of the mission, values and goals of the University as an organisation.

The truth is this article does not compare well to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. Yet that article failed to recieve featured status in January. From the alumni this appears to be a great university and I really think this article does not do the university justice. Every useful contribution to Wikipedia is valuable, but for an article to be featured it must be comprehensive and exemplify Wikipedia's best work. Cedars 09:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Object (although I did a lot of the writing on it) The sports ... and to a lesser expent the ancient history section, which I think I started ... have a lot of arbitrary (football unsuccessful between 1953 and today?) and excessive detail. The "Diamondback" section is pretty bizarre as well. And shouldn't that humongous list be tucked away somewhere, if included at all? I usually try to improve articles rather than just take shots at'm, but I already did my part on this one.Sfahey 02:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object no chance in hell this time around... WAAAAAAAY too much list. Not even 1 photo of the campus in question! This needs a total overhaul/rewrite.  ALKIVAR™ 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I see external links in the "living learning programs" section. Could you convert those to footnotes, please? Mamawrites ^{& listens} 10:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

New England Patriots

Nomination (not self-nom). I am disappointed that that there is no NFL franchise as a featured article, and after studying all the franchise pages, i chose what i believe to be the best one, after deliberating between the Philadelphia Eagles and this article, i decided this was the best one. Expertly written with attention to detail. I will be happy to attempt to adress any criticisms of the article, however, please, do not object with the argument of "Pats SUCK!" or the like. Thethinredline 17:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lacks a References sections to cite the sources used for this article as required by criteria 2 of the featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A clear mistake on my part, and will attempt to rectify. Is there any specific area where a refernece is especially lacking?Thethinredline

The Franchise history section needs some references. Outside of the newly added references for individual players such as Jim Nance and Jim Plunket, there are no citations for anything but the 1970 season and 1971 draft. --Allen3 ^talk 01:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. I am concerned that some portions of the article might not be "stable" as per featured article criteria #2. An example of this concern is what is expressed on Talk:New England Patriots#Game by game; a number of users have been entering summaries for each game for the 2005 season, which is still currently ongoing. Until the season ends in February, I feel that this section of the article will change significantly from day to day. My other current concern is that the lead section still needs work. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. Pats SUCK! ;-)
  2. The image Image:McGinestLawSeymour.jpg is tagged as a "promotional photo". However, this tag is only for press kit and other official promotional images, while this image appears to be from a news report. It needs a different fair use tag and a rationale, or it needs to be removed.
  3. The navbox at the bottom contains the restricted-license image Image:NationalFootballLeague.png. Navboxes and other templates should never use non-free images.

  --Carnildo 04:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object lead should summarise the article. The article at 54 kb is long and winding. It should be written in summary form and details moved to subarticles. Inline links should be collected using the footnote style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I fear that this article will be long and winding for some time. As with Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants, St. Louis Rams, and some of the other National Football League team articles, it is completely out of control. It seems that users are trying to stuff every single detail they can in them with out even looking into the sub-cats of Category:National Football League. I feel like I have to wait until the season ends in February to clean it all up. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not a sportsfan and I'm not particularl interested in sports article, but I'm very sympathetic to your plight, Zzyzx, and I understand the problems you're having. I don't know what the best course of action is, but I encourage you to be absolutely merciless (yet polite) in removing trivia and other unencyclopedic material. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have done quite a bit of work in this article. (I also did some work on the Rams and Patriots articles) Just so you see from where I'm working, I am trying to focus on summaries and high points in seasons. I am not trying to put stuff in, for the sake of putting it in; but at the same time, I think it is good to be as detailed as possible. Indeed, it seems to be working, as this has been nominated for an award.

I also will agree that details about individual games in 2005 probably don't belong; however details about the seasons, and conflicts, and certain milestone games over the years make the article more useful.--Seadog1611 04:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. I've been working on the New Orleans Saints article and I think it's necessary to spin the history section off into a subpage: History of the New Orleans Saints. Also, it was mentioned, I think, at the NFL Wikiproject talk page, but someone discussed cutting out the stuff in the lead section that is already in the infobox--which obviously needs to be done--and maybe expanding the infobox to make sure all the pertinent information is there. My first suggestion would be to move all that history onto a History of the New England Patriots article; then summarize it briefly for the main article (see IFK Goteborg for an example).Kevin M Marshall 22:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey

Partial self-nom, archive from previous submission, comments actioned. --PopUpPirate 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC) No mention of William Mudge. how can this be ? Object with sadness.  :-( I think this is, overall, a good article, and about a great subject. I actually think it's pretty close. But there are a few points I think need fixing:

• Sorry to say this, but I think you're going to have an issue with the map images. Doing an article on the OS without them is going to be a pain, of course, but the licence looks to me like a "non-commercial" licence as per Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. A pic of a trig point would be good though...

Just found the discussion you've already had on this. If Fair Use applies, and I guess it does, then I think you're OK. — Johantheghost 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

One solution for this -- & would add to the value of the article immensely -- would be to include parts of older OS survey maps. I believe these maps are all Crown copyright (well, the two I own are), so that those more than 50 years old would be PD. A portion of one of the surveyors' sketches (which are available at some UK public libraries on microfiche/microfilm), & a portion of a pre-1950s map would help illustrate the historical value of these documents, a feature that the British historian W.G. Hoskins often emphasizes in his writings. -- llywrch 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Following a fire at its headquarters at the Tower of London in 1841 ... he saw how photography could be used ..." — needs more fleshing out, it looks like he started using photography in 1841 — isn't that a bit early? Or is it? Also some info on how he actually used photography would be good.

• "Mapping Britain" section jumps up to 1969, then we jump back to WW1. Same in the next section, where we have WWII, then 1920. Maybe re-org a little?

• "Some of the remaining buildings ... are now used as part of the court complex." What court? (Clarify.)

• The multi-layered "See also" is cool, but on reflection, I think this is not the best way to do this — I think using categories would be better, at least for some of this. If I want a list of mapping agencies, for example, it's not logical to look under OS (or to ask all editors who write about mapping agencies to add their one to the OS article). Ditto with the world's many grid systems.

• The References aren't linked from the text — should these be called "Further reading"? OTOH, I think you need references which are linked from the text.

• No, anything that is consulted to write the article should be listed as a reference as has been done here.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• In the reference ' "Official Homepage". Official Homepage ', I think the title needs fixing.  :-)

• Probably "Mapping Britain" and "20th Century" should be sub-sections of a section called "History"...? Likewise, it looks like "UK Map Range" and "OS MasterMap" should be sub-sections of a section called "Products", or something like.

• My overall impression is that the article is just a little "light". I don't think an article has to cover every aspect of a subject to be FA-worthy, but maybe this one could use just a little more meat? Kind of hard to put my finger on it, but eg. covering the mapping techniques used throughout the history, and today, in a little more depth would be good. I guess I would see "Cartography" being more than just a summary of the "National Grid" page, but also covering actual mapping.

Sorry I couldn't actually fix some of the above points, rather than just whinging about them. Cheers... Johantheghost 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, I still notice a number of things that I brought up during the previous nomiation that haven't been addressed.--nixie 03:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Poorly written. Let's take apart a few statements at the top.

'Ramsden theodolite'—This appears unexplained in a prominent part of the text, but very few readers will have a clue what it is, and will have to hit the link. The linked article needs work (by the end of the first paragraph of that article, you finally understand that it's an instrument for dividing angular scales with great precision, and that it was a significant step in map-making).

Reverse the order of the opening info—'national mapping agency ...' is more obvious than 'executive agency'. Can you use a consistent term for the country? Since you can't use 'the UK' historically, why not keep to just 'Britain' and 'British'.

Link the 's in 'Great Britain' to avoid blue/black conflict.

'In addition to producing a wide range of maps of Great Britain, the organisation is also working in over sixty countries worldwide.' Like 'also', 'in addition' should be reserved for where it's really needed. Almost every sentence is 'in addition' to what you've just said. 'is working' is just too vivid for something that has been occurring for quite a while. 'The organisation produces maps of Great Britain, and performs a valuable role in .... in more than (not 'over') 60 countries.' Maybe this needs to be split into two sentences.

'one-third'—why not 'a third'; keep it as plain and simple as possible.

And further down, at random:

'In 1920 O. G. S. Crawford was appointed Archaeology Officer and played a prominent role in developing the use of aerial photography to deepen understanding of archaeology.' The reader is hit with this fascinating idea without preparation or further explanation. No link; nothing about whether this was a first. Who got the brainwave of making this appointment—the Minister? How does it work? Perhaps a couple of sentences might do it; the paragraph is rather short, in any case. // 'OGS Crawford' might look better on the page, and consider delinking the useless simple-year '1920' so that it doesn't jostle with the man's name. Why link simple years at all? No one will hit those links. // Just a few more commas would improve the readability.

Tony 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900)

Big Brother (TV series)

I stumbled upon this article back in May of 2005. It was the first article I read on Wikipedia, and happens to be one of the most informative and well written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireSpike (talk • contribs) 21:39, October 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lacks a References section to cite the sources used by this article as required by criteria 2 of the featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 23:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I don't think it's informative or well written, and the lead paragraph is particularly weak. "While any pretences to be a cultural experiment are dubious" is an example of POV, but there are others. "On the other hand, other versions have involved plotting in the vein of the most cruel soap opera. Some versions have been filled with sex-crazed housemates ...." is not encycopedic. The article itself is very short, and only appears long because of the lists. Big Brother around the world - I'm not sure it's needed. I don't think it is. Some pecularities needs to be absorbed into the main text. As stated above - there are no references and that is absolutely mandatory. Rossrs 09:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth. I think naming the countries around the world that have broadcasted their own version of Big Brother is certainly encyclopedic and relevant to this article. How it should be included is up to debate. - 131.211.51.34 12:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - lacks an encyclopedic tone. See popular culture studies or try looking at material from this google scholar search. TreveX^talk 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Manichaeism

This article's come a long way. A bunch of editors have fleshed it out, given it structure, and added useful photos. Right now it is very informative and deserves recognition. Ashibaka (tock) 23:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support PHG 00:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object sorrowfully. It is not complete by too long a shot. The "and Christianity" fails too greatly for support. Manicheism is a widespread and difficult heresy in Christianity, and Augustine preached against it, but so did virtually every other Father. The term "manicheism" is not simply a "synonym for heresy," as the article states, but a specific type of heresy. It is the dualist heresy. Thus, the Bogomils and Cathars were manicheans, even if they were never in any way connected to the religion of Manicheism. I.e. they had the manicheist heresy of dualism. Their particular heresy has been revived in recent years, incidentally. I'm not sure that the Albigensians were ever orthodox in any sense, much less superficially. More people will encounter "Manicheism" as a type of heresy than as a religion, I suspect, but, even if the numbers are even, it's irresponsible for the present article to have such a stunted (and incorrect) section. The rest of the article seems ok to me, except that there are copyedit issues, such as '"scriptures.", resulting,' where the period inside the closing quote (American style) is left, while a comma outside (British style) is put in to make it part of the next sentence. That's ticky-tacky and easily fixed, but the Christianity section needs a big injection. I'll be happy to help as I am able from my sources, if the authors are interested. Geogre 02:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done some addition from an NPOV source (one unaware that anyone would try to revive it and therefore not interested in saying anything good or bad about it), but I have other objections, which are now on the talk page of the article. I have to remain objecting, so long as much of the article is reliant upon a very, very highly POV source and maintains that this is a "major world religion." I'm not sure at what point a heresy becomes a sect or a sect a denomination or a denomination a religion, but the lead suggests that this independent thing met, some time later, Christianity, and such does not appear to be the case at all. Geogre 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Tiffany Window of St Augustine - Lightner Museum.JPG has no copyright information. --Carnildo 07:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It was taken by the uploader and is thus GFDL. Fixed. Ashibaka (tock) 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. I have no clear idea whether this article should be FA or not. But I like to clarify some points:
  1. I don't think Manicheism is a widespread and difficult heresy in Christianity. In my view Manicheism is a religion similar to Christianity, but independent.
  2. The statement the term "manicheism" is simply a "synonym for heresy" is an ancient simplification. Actually, not every dualist heresy / religion is Manicheism, for instance Christian Gnosticism / Gnosticism.
  3. Bogomils and Cathars weren't manicheans, but their teaching originated from Manicheism.
  4. Albigensians were Cathars, that's why dualistic. But Waldensians were nearly orthodox, they were first of all schismatic. -- Vít Zvánovec 16:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, if it originated in a Gnostic section of eastern Persia, and if it originated also in a Christian area of Persia, then it would seem to me to be of Christian origin. Again, whether it develops into a religion, as opposed to a heresy, is another matter altogether. At any rate, the article has too many undocumented and highly controversial claims -- that it was universalist, that it was not, in fact, syncretic, but rather something akin to deistic. The rest, of course, I agree with, except that I'm not sure the poor Waldensians are part of this. Geogre 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Further objection: Given that some of the statements in the article are commonplaces and some are...esoteric...inline references or note-style citations should be used, so the sources of particular statements can be determined and examined for accuracy. WP:NOR may be at play. Geogre 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

    I don't see purely Christian origin (contrary to Christian heresies like Arianism). In my view Manicheism was syncretic. But distinction between religion and heresy is vague. Some consider Islam as Christian heresy, some consider Christianity as Judaistic heresy.

    Concerning Waldensians there is no connection to Manicheism, I just liked to distinguish between Albigensians and Waldensians. -- Vít Zvánovec 08:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I didn't know anything about Manecheism before reading this article. So I thank the authors and therefore think this article should get featured maybe not this time but maybe in the future. However I knew the word manichean which means binary or polar. See [6] for a discussion. I think this article must states this meaning already in the head. This would really help. -- Vb 12:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object — I cannot see any evidence that this artcle has been through peer review. It would have benefitted from that. There is so much more that can be said on this subject: the theology section is woefully inadequate and not enough background on the religious environment of Persia is given. The article is a good introduction, but is decidedly lightweight. --Gareth Hughes 13:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Those We Don't Speak Of

I worked a lot on this article, and with the major help of a few peer reviewers, I think the article turned out to be of outstanding quality. -- SoothingR 09:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too short and insignificant to be a featured article - this is not a comment on the subject of the article (doesn't matter here) but the general fact that the article is lacking everywhere. The use of colour in the text at one point is terribly tacky, the Manual of Style is not followed where the film name is mentioned, the reference quoted (ie. the film itself) is not enough including where you draw parallels to Harry Potter (borders very closely on original research), and the spoiler warning is in a weird place. Essentially, this is not Wikipedia's finest work and is far from it. Harro5 09:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose 1) the sections are too small, it should be increased. 2) Would like to see more references 3) Lead should be expanded 4) bulleted text converted to prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too short, as others have said, and it simply has no material. This is not a question of bytes, but of content. All it says is that this is a feature of a film and then proceed to give the plot! To add substance would mean taking the article far away from its purported subject and into a discussion of psychological film, the mismarketing of this film (as a horror movie), the expectation of movie "secrets," etc. None of that would be germane. In other words, I don't believe this object can be overcome. Geogre 02:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Dinosaur

I'm astonished such an incredible article hasn't been a featured article already. This is such a popular topic & would be great on the main page. Spawn Man 01:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Major Support. As per above. Spawn Man 01:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, a good article, but it still needs some work. A couple sections like =Behaviour= and =In popular culture= need to be rewritten. The history section ends around 1900, and needs to be expanded. The references also need to be redone. There are a mix of parenthetical and external link style references, in general both should be replaced with footnotes. The external links section is also overly long. With so many links, do we really need to include sites only available in German? Or ones on obscure theories, such as the "gravity killed the dinosaurs" ones? Also why is so much of the article quotes from other sources? The entirety of the =Lungs=, =Heart=, and =Care of young= sections are quotes from other sources. The second section also contains a not terribly enlightening quote from something called DinoBuzz. Also Image:Falcarius utahensis.jpg and Image:Dino tissue.jpg are claimed as fair use, but give no justification. - SimonP 03:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think German language links should stay if they were used as reference to write parts of the article, unless an English language reference can be found to replace it. Has anyone got an idea why the German links were added? - Mgm|^(talk) 14:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Falcarius utahensis.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but there doesn't appear to be anything special about it. It should be removed.
  2. The image Image:Dino tissue.jpg is claimed as fair use, but doesn't indicate either the source (presumably an article in Science) or a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what is needed.

  --Carnildo 06:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object: 1) The ToC is granulated. Please reduce the heading and sub headings. 2) The page size is increasing, please start summarising sections. 3) Collect all those inline links as footnotes. There are still more issues with the article, but I hope you address these first. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Just as a note everybody: I was requested to put dinosaur up for FA by a friend. I didn't actually know I would have to actually fix the article. So don't complain to me, my friend wanted to know if dinosaurs would get anywhere... Spawn Man 02:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

    Please read the text on the top of this page: It says: If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised.
    

If you wanted a general review and suggestions from the community please add it to Wikipedia:Peer review instead of WP:FAC. Please decide on what you want to do now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Those instructions should be tweaked to also apply to objectors. Pcb21| Pete 17:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. That would only serve as an unmerited deterrent for objections. Unactionable objections are not a problem since they're ignored by Raul and not making it "in time" isn't a problem either, since the comments are archived and can easily be addressed at a later date. It's certainly helpful if objectors help out and the practice should be encouraged, but under no circumstances should it be expected. The comments of those who aren't deeply involved in the nominated article should be encouraged, and not seen as some sort of burden. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Articles shouldn't be promoted just because people who'd otherwise object can't fix things themselves. If I notice a large gap in an article's coverage I must be able to object even though I don't have the knowledge to fill the gap myself. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • It is a great shame that only "self-nominations" are possible. Pcb21| Pete 09:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I could fix the objections I raise, but I'm fairly sure people would rather I didn't -- if an image is unsourced or has no copyright info, I'd just speedy-delete it, whereas the person nominating the article for FAC might know the information in question. --Carnildo 19:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Coeliac disease

I've not had anything to do with this article - just had reason to read it and thought it was very informative. A doctor or two has read it and approved the content (see talk page). Pcb21| Pete 17:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) Are the references under the =external links=? 2) Picture? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It is chaotic and lacks crucial information (e.g. rate of occurrence). It is thin on references. I added the discovery of anti-tTG2 and its cross-reactivity with gluten, but there are many more crucial papers that could be cited, such as the review in The Lancet 2 years ago. A picture will be hard - unless someone can arrange a microscopy photo of villous atrophy. JFW | T@lk 19:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Perhaps a picture of related nutrients would be appropriate?

1. Lead needs to be tightened.
2. Please seperate the external links and the references.
3. It needs a copyedit for overly academic terms. Some are bound to be neccesary, but I think some of them cane be pruned or replaced.

Templates and categorization appears to be fully in order. I think it's an FA in the making. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone else that has doubts about this disease? It just seems to me that mankind evolved with wheat. Any links to medical journals or discussions?

Doubts about the disease? there are chapters and entire books about it! S Holland, M.D. Kd4ttc 21:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article is not correct on a number of details regarding celiac disease. It is an admirable effort by what appears to be motivated and well read non-physicians about the disease, and is very good in the big picture. A lot of details, however, are incorrect. Also, the thinking on pathophysiology needs to reworked. The sections on treatment are missing a number of comments about dieticians and resources. Well, I said a while ago I was going to work on this. That will happen over the next few months. Kd4ttc 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevada-tan

Nice informative article, unusual subject matter, referenced, covers everything known about the case from english-language media sources, peer reviewed, worth featuring? Niz 21:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Nevada-Tan.jpg is tagged as "public domain". However, the upload summary describes it as a combination of a public domain photo and a "fair use" image, which does not result in a public domain derivative work. Also, there is no indication as to why the photo is public domain.
  2. The images Image:SMitarai.jpg and Image:Nevada-tan Cosplayer.jpg are tagged as "fair use", but neither indicates the source. It's not possible to claim fair use without knowing the source.

  --Carnildo 23:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object ToC is ugly. Do not use single subheadings under a heading. Also avoid sub-sub headings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I love Nevada-tan but the image of her is copyright (and probably illegal in Japan); we can't feature pages with that status. Additionally, the External Links section is far too large. Ashibaka (tock) 01:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sleep

Fantastic article! Satisfies all FAC criteria (neutral, well researched, factual, referenced). I really believe that it covers the topic sleep very well. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. Request opinion of sleep experts.Jclerman 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears I was premature here. This should be sent to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review.

1. A lot of unexplained jargon.
2. Lead is too short.
3. Has numerous (too) short sections.
4. Should have a summary of the article on dreaming in a section with a link to the main article.
5. A lot of the terms in the "see also" section need to be discussed in the article itself; not comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• The Medicine Collobaration of the Week might be interested in taking this one on.--nixie 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This article isn't there yet, by any means. But please take another look. Substantial changes have been made since this (premature) nomination was entered. Except perhaps for the back-and-forth on the caffeine issue, which may have been resolved already, I don't see that it needs peer review at this point. Sfahey 09:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The caffeine issue has not a verifiable peer-reviewed reference. Jclerman 12:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

See the Discussion page. Jclerman 03:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I see how contentious that seemingly minor point had become. I rewrote the claim in perhaps a more palatable way, and put it in a footnote, which I believe is appropriate in the English wikipedia. Parenthetically, there IS some rationale for serving coffee at bedtime(the use of caffeine in infants) and while it for sure wouldn't work for me I see no reason to question that it is done. My efforts to translate the relevant paper myself were unsuccessful. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As above, request reviewers to give this article another look. I believe the objections have largely been addressed. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• The objections I had 3 days ago have not been addressed. I still think this would benefit peer review. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, the lead has been rewritten, over half of the old "see also" list is now eliminated and incorporated into the article, and the only "short" section is the one on "measuring sleep." This could be merged with the "Physiology" section, but since I was the only critic who chose to work on, rather than simply disparage, this nomination I didn't get as far as doing that, or writing a new section on "Dreams". Sfahey 01:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• More comments:
• If the Caffeine Note refers to: <<(CoffeeInElderlyDe In verbatim, this source states under "Sonstiges": "Coffee: Helps in many elderly people because of the decrease in respiratory rate". German text: "Evtl. Kaffee: hilft bei vielen älteren Menschen wegen des nächtlichen RR-Abfalls")>>, the German quotation is NEITHER from what is understood to be a "paper" NOR it has been peer-reviewed: it is just a list of points without references, thus not a "verifiable source." See numerous entries in the Discussion page.Jclerman 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The need for a close scrutiny of the verifiability and reliability of sources on which the article is based has been emphasized by the comments on an edit by "user 80.129.140.252" who stated: "(→Notes - german 'RR' is Riva-Rocci (method of measuring blood pressure, used as synonym with blood pressure), not respiratory resistance!)". See full discussion of this point in the article's discussion page which contains numerous exchanges about the caffeine issue and its repercussion on other web articles. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, to reach a consensus text a detailed verification of its statements, based on reliable sources, and the opinion of sleep experts will be needed. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought that is what I have been doing for the last few months. I have been working on a grant for the last couple of weeks... So I have been busy, but I have put a lot of effort into this article. When I found it, this article was a shambles. I have added properly referenced materials, and useful information. Unfortunately, whenever I remove less relevant information, it turns into an edit war (just look at the discussion page). While some of the "fat" on this page does need to be trimmed, that is almost an impossibility in this format. It is difficult to keep a page like this clean when people start posting their own unsubstantiated pet theories, and hold on to them until the bitter end.However, I will continue adding and subtracting based on what is happening in the field (which I am a part of) because of the time I have already invested. Sleep is an issue that few people know much about, and, as a sleep researcher, I feel it's part of my job as a responsible scientist to direct the public to information that reflects the popular consensus in the field.

MrSandman 03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment re above issues: I still do not understand why this point seems so controversial. This is a tempest in a teapot. User "Keimzelle" has presented:

1. A (sloppily) translated quotation supported coffee at bedtime.

2. A personal report from a German nursing home confirming this.

Additionally, there is a physiological rationale (caffeine's demonstrable ability to stimulate respiration) for this unusual practice. As for a documented source, how about the German wikipedia article on Sleep. In its "Pharmacology" section the authors describe the paradoxical benefit of caffeine in the elderly:

Es klingt paradox – in der Pflege wird Kaffee manchmal gebraucht, um das Ein- und Durchschlafen zu fördern. Besonders bei älteren Menschen hilft das Koffein, den Abfall der Atemfrequenz zu bekämpfen.

This German translation is affected by the loss in translation pointed out above under "more comments"; plainly stated: the original German cited means "blood pressure" incorrectly translated as "Atemfrequenz = respiratory rate".Jclerman 15:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not to suggest that this article is up to "F.A." quality. But it is a lot closer than the current flock of naysayers insist. Sfahey 02:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Daily Show

I must say that, for a featured article, the content completely ignores 33% of the show. There is virtually no content regarding the fresh new years of TDS when Craig Kilborn was the host. I realize Jon Stewart is more well-known but my opinion is the best writing years of the show were 1996-1999. If you want to make this a featured article, it should exemplify the thoroughness of the content, which this doesn't. If you want to ignore that content as unimportant, the article should be renamed The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and NOT The Daily Show. --Davidp 18:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never edited this article. I stumbled across it and I think it's featured article calibre. moink 03:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's got potential, but it's a bit list heavy -- nothing that a good copyedit couldn't take care of. . →Raul654 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object I saw this article before over the template debate and it's quite good, but its got three main issues still (both are more than doable within the FAC timeframe)

1. There are quite a few short paragraphs, esp. towards the beginning (and why is the awards section first? Consider putting it towards the end...)
2. Too list-heavy where there should be prose or something similar
3. You're gonna need a fair-use explanation for Image:Dailyshow-invite.jpg most likely. I'd double-check the others too.

Also, consider sorting the see also section like Autism#See also, for example. In addition, the lead seems like a bunch of facts mashed together, but its not too bad at all. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object the lead is too long- and is not a summary of the rest of the article- much of it could be split off into a history of the daily show section. The position of awards as the first thing in the body of the article seems misplaced. I see the list of daily show guests made it though vfd- since this is the case why is there such a massive list of guests in the article- should be condensed to a couple of paragraphs with a {{main}} link to the list. There are html links in the text that don't appear in the list of references, and they should so that there is a record of the source if/when it is moved or removed from the source site.--nixie 03:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't this should go to peer review first? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaosworks (talk • contribs)
  • No, peer review is an optional part of the FAC process. →Raul654 05:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Far too many "fair use" images. I'd suggest reducing it to the logo plus the one or two most representative images. --Carnildo 07:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object too jumbled, too many lists, too many images (many of which are questionable fair use). -Greg Asche (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object per too many fair use images comment above. Just doesn't look tidy either. Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, if for no other reason than this is a good example of a recurring problem with wikipedia: anything from the past 3 years (the years wikipedia has been profusely edited) gets coverage in great detail, while anything from circa 2002 or earlier gets little mention. For several years the show had a substanitally different format and was hosted by Craig Kilbourn (who I never liked), but he gets the briefest of mention while Colbert and company get extreme coverage. Its current form should get more attention, but this is almost like an article on SNL with several paragraphs on Horatio Sanz and a one line mention of Chevy Chase. -R. fiend 06:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, Sorry but I have to agree with my fellow conscientious objectors. This article is off to a promising start, but it needs work to get it up to FA status. Send it in for peer review and tune up, then renominate it later. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, when I am signed in I have been active in editing this page...and to be honest it is nowhere NEAR ready to be featured. Maybe as a featured TV article maybe, but the whole issue of the guest list has to be solved before any further moves should be undertaken. --136.159.142.84 15:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (User:J L C Leung)

Removal from the Order of Canada

Self-renom. I had two attempts before, but since the last one, I had it spell and grammar checked and the images have not changed a bit. Zach (Sound Off) 02:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Since the book depicted in Image:AlanEaglesonbookcover.jpg is not discussed in the article, use of the image is not "fair use". --Carnildo 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure it really makes sense to me to have an article about removal from the order as a standalone. Should this not be merged into Order of Canada? It seems to me on reading it that the prose is far from concise and could be condensed substantially in any case. There are also numerous spelling errors at the moment. Worldtraveller 11:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There was an AFD that asked for this article to be merged into the main Order of Canada (also an FA), but after I beefed it up, many who voted merge said to vote keep instead. I still believe this can stand out on its own. I also fixed the spelling errors and I also made the article into British English. Zach (Sound Off) 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would change anything, but shouldn't this be in Canadian English? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will get the Firefox spell check add in for the Canadian EN and run that through all Order of Canada related articles. Zach (Sound Off) 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The only word that seems to have issues is "criticised," but I am not sure how it is spelt in Canada EN. Other than that, the article is fine on the "spelling" front, unless something is added to it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian spelling typically uses -ize over -ise. — mendel ☎ 20:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—prose not good enough. Here's just one example:

'though the removal process is started by individual Canadians or by various groups inside of Canada'.

It's a false contrast to use 'though' (better 'although') here. 'Initiated' rather than 'started'. Remove redundant 'of'. 'Inside Canada', in any case, is another false contrast, because the institution is also that. Needs thorough editing to be considered for nomination. I agree with the comments above about the need to merge this with the related article. Tony 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I fixed the above statement, but I had the article copyedited before I sent it here. I am still against the idea of a merge, since the AFD I pointed out earlier called for a merge, but was defeated. I personally believe this article can stand out on its own. Tony, if you think my grammar is not that great (which you said this at other FAC's I started/worked on), then I welcome you to come in and fix it yourself. Zach (Sound Off) 02:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose The process of removal may be interesting, but it has only been successfully applied against two OoC recipients (Alan Eagleson and David Ahenakew) and is therefore not significant enough (i.e., there are other worthy candidate articles) for nomination. As well, more of Eagleson's situation should be described (being the first inductee removed), and the syntax and content of the article can be improved upon (e.g., Christie or Christy)? E Pluribus Anthony 07:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sinclair Research Ltd

self-nomination, I worked a lot on this article, it's very detailed and includes lots of pictures, and has a good lead paragraph (might need expanding though). It went through peer review and got some good comments. Includes references, further reading, external links and see also section. — Wackymacs 08:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a good article, but it just not sufficiently comprehensive and detailed, therefore object. Also the only reference is from 1985 - I should like to know where the post-1985 stuff comes from. Basically everything Sinclair did after 1983 was a failure (and in some cases was very dodgy), there are underlying reasons for this that need mentioning. (Sinclair got lucky with a good design team for the Spectrum and then thought he was the one responsible for its success). The failure of QL is attributed here due to "it's strong competition", and not the nearly total loss of confidence in Sinclair after his actions "launching" it before they even had a prototype.

There's an online exposé of the downfall of Sinclair that I'll try to find. Morwen - Talk

*Most of the post 1985 information is from the 'Planet Sinclair' website (linked in the external links section), a very informative website all about Sinclair himself, and all the products the company ever made. I'll see how I can improve it, if you can help it'd be very useful in getting this closer to FA status. — Wackymacs 15:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  1. The images Image:Tv1a.jpg, Image:Sinclairblackwatch.jpg, Image:SinclairStereo25.jpg, Image:SinclairC5.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but it should be possible to create or find free-use replacements, so there's no reason to use "fair use" images here.
  2. The image Image:SinclairC5.jpg is tagged as being under the Creative Commons Attribution license, but does not indicate the creator. This needs to be fixed, or the image needs to be deleted.

  --Carnildo 19:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Image sources have been added to all the images you mentioned, and the SinclairC5.jpg image was tagged wrong, it has been replaced with the promotional tag. — Wackymacs 20:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, good work but some improvements could still be made. The lead should be longer and more than one section. There should be more descriptive section headings for the history section than simply date ranges. The long and thin financial data column needs to be better placed. I would suggest having it as a side bar to the history section. See for instance how I did this with a long thin table at voter turnout. The article also seems lacking in some areas. It needs to be more on the company today, how many employees, what it is working on etc. The article is too focused on the company's products with very little on corporate structure, leading figures, or facilities. Specific figures, such as most of the financial figures, should be sourced with footnotes. The table especially needs a source. - SimonP 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion of putting the finance table as a sidebar to the history section, this has now been done. — Wackymacs 15:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Lots of prose problems. Just a FEW examples at the top:
  • 'founded Sinclair Radionics, a company developing hi-fi products'—so the company was already developing these products WHEN it was founded?
  • Is a calculator a hi-fi product?
  • 'In 1965 the "Micro-FM" debuted as "the world"s first pocket-size FM tuner-receiver", but was poorly acclaimed due to technical difficulties, though in the far-east illegal clones of the product were being produced'—many problems:
    • why 'but'? Are you contradicting the first clause in some way?
    • better to insert 'it' after 'but'
    • punctuation needs a thorough audit for clarity and ease of reading
    • 'though' (better 'although') comes after 'but', and I can't see why it's yet another contradiction of what precedes it—you need to spell out why 'poorly acclaimed' (better 'reviewed'?) somehow makes the illegal cloning surprising. Or break up the sentence to avoid these false contrasts.

How did this ever find its way straight into the FAC list? Withdraw, rewrite, possibly resubmit. Tony 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - A company information box should be added to the article. Cedars 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• A company information box has been added, and I'm working on the prose problems and other grammar issues. I'm also trying to add more info about the company itself, and will look into moving the financial data table to the side of the article rather than in it's own section. Some more references are going to be added too.— Wackymacs 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Good work. Though the company type field is very important and still not filled in yet. The revenue field should also be filled in but because the success of this company was largely in past years you may want to use historical data. "N/A" could also be used if you so desired. Cedars 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I put N/A in the company type entry, because it is almost impossible to find out if they are LTD, PLC or sole trader. For the revenue entry I added the data for 1984, Sinclair's best financial year, with a revenue of £77.69 million. I think the company infobox is now done. — Wackymacs 17:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Miami, Florida

This page I been protecting from vandals for a while now and its mostly written by others but this is also well-written, informative, and very intresting as well. Its Intro is Very Good as well. --JAranda | yeah 01:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, see Ann Arbor, Michigan for a good article of this type, history is long and there are too many lists.--nixie 02:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. No references, which is a requirement for articles to be featured. Also, Image:Miami sunset.jpg has no copyright tags (which can be an issue with others) and Image:Metro cc.jpg is marked as copyrighted without fair use (articles must have GFDL-licensed images unless there is no choice. I believe someone can take a picture of the Miami Metro instead). Pentawing 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Pentawing, the article must have GFDL-compatible licences, not necessarily GFDL-licensed ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. Pentawing 07:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The images Image:Miamiflag.jpg and Image:Miamiseal.JPG are tagged as public domain, but there's no evidence that this is the case.
  2. The image Image:Miami sunset.jpg has no source or copyright information. In case you missed the announcement, that's grounds for speedy deletion these days.
  3. The image Image:Metro cc.jpg is tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, but no conditions are specified in the tag, indicating that the tag is probably incorrect. This needs to be cleared up.

  --Carnildo 05:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object – as nixie says, model the article as per Ann Arbor which is well written and balanced. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

West Indian cricket team

Although I have contributed to this article, most of it has been developed by others. I'm happy to make any positive changes that are needed for this to become a featured article, jguk 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Jguk back to FAC after a long hiatus! Ok, Object 1) The west Indies flag should be a .png type. 2) Lead should be doubled and summarise the article. 3) Other theorists point out; It is theorised would like to know the source. 4) ToC granulated. Please shorten it and remove those ugly subheadings. 5) This needs a grammar check. Found missing full stops, play against side 6) Wikify Busta Cup and mention what it is. 7) The first sentence of =Early tours= should mention the year when WI first played. 8) Scarborough festival? 9) I think this needs a copyedit before I review further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object too, I'm afraid. Much as I like to see lots of cricket featured articles, this one just isn't up to scratch yet. I found sentences like "The bowlers to follow had big shoes to fill, and ultimately, have not responded to nowhere near the level that Ambrose and Walsh have set". Also no mention of England's last tour (Harmison 7/12, Lara 400*). And somehow the statistics at the bottom are ugly and disconnected from the rest of the page. I didn't do a thorough review, but I can't support it at the moment. Stephen Turner 19:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate the difficulty of finding pictures, but in this case, a few more would vastly improve the dry look of the page. Candidates: Headley, Worrell, the 3W's, Ramadhin&Valentine, the Tied Test shot, Lloyd, Viv Richards, the 70s pace quartet, Greenidge&Haynes, Lara. --Peripatetic 23:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:West Indies Cricket Board Flag.PNG and Image:WI shirt.jpg are claimed as "fair use", but no source information is provided, making it impossible to evaluate fair use. Further, it seems to me that it should be quite possible to make free-licensed replacements for those images. --Carnildo 06:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • May I ask how? The logo will be a trade mark and the design of the shirt is what has copyright (the photo of it won't). These rights will belong to the West Indies Cricket Board. We have to rely on free use to use them, don't we? jguk 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft Jet Database Engine

A Ta bu shi da yu-driven article. He did a heck of a lot of work during and after the first FAC, and I went ahead and added another paragraph to the intro and delistified a list. It seems readable even to a layman. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Supported it the first time, and think it is even better now. WegianWarrior 07:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Still not accessible to a non-computer bod like myself. The explanation of a database engine as being "...the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS." might as well be in Greek to me. I don't think the article needs to expand greatly to explain this to everyone - just a bit - but it is essential that it can be understood by a layman if it is to be an example of WP's best work, jguk 15:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... not sure the best way of rephrasing that. There are wikilinks to the terms, but was wondering if you want a short explanation of each of those terms? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I asked on his talk page a while ago too... he's still actively editing so hopefully we'll get a response :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The lead is now updated - hopefully it satisfies the objection. - 203.134.166.99 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Apologies for not getting back earlier (I was unfortunately distracted onto less enjoyable things). I still can't understand the sentence "A database engine is the underlying component that a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) uses to create, retrieve, update and delete (CRUD) data from a database, and is accessed by the user interface part of the RDBMS (an RDBMS generally consists of a component that manages the data itself and a component that allows a user to manipulate the data that resides in the database)." Can it really not be explained to a layman? Without using jargon, what does a database engine do, and why is it important? I appreciate explaining a technical subject to a layman is difficult, and if you are patient with me and see me on IRC, feel free to page me and I'll help, jguk 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I'm disappointed. Many of the questions I had asked in the first FAC are still unanswered, in particular my questions #1 (locking/data integrity/transaction processing are standard, nothing unusual, and should be treated in their own articles), #2 (the optimistic/pessimistic locking paragraph needs to be rewritten by an expert and outsourced to its own article, see 1), #3 (2PL?), #4 (read locks? Only write locks makes no sense at all!), #6 (what is a "user"?), #7 (on SQL queries), and #8 (when was is phased out?). Lupo 07:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ya, I didn't resubmit it however. The truth on this matter is... I'm not rightly sure how to action the stuff (I'm not saying they shouldn't be actioned, I'm just saying I don't rightly know the best way of doing it). I'm still not sure about 2PL - the article, regrettably, is pretty unclear! I think we should move this to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Seems perfectly readable to me. If they want a definition, they can click the interwiki links (one of the great advantages to an online encyclopedia). This is well-written and researched, but it could definitely use a defining picture (I like the idea of putting the manual up.) -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)}

Battle of Stalingrad

No self-nom. Very good article about a very important historical event. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 10:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment please reduce the image sizes to around 240-270 px. Images larger than these take a longer time to load on narrowband connections. (ref to that 650px image) =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It's a while since I read Beevors's Stalingrad but I recall him reporting that the German forces included a large number of Russian auxiliaries (Soviet POWs who had changed "sides"). This doesn't seem to be brought out in the article.

--Sf 11:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment "helpworkers" (hilfs-somethingorother in german) were not a significant factory in Army Group South, Vlasovites were even less significant. Should be treated under Vlasov / helpworkers. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Reply Russian/Soviet "Hiwis" or Hilfswilligers may have comprised up to 60,000 of the 6th Army's strength (Not Army Group South) at the time that operation Uranus closed the "Kessel". --Sf 08:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Casualty figures must be agreed upon and substantiated by reliable sources. See the articles talk-page.--itpastorn 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Further to this issue of casualty figures there is clearly an ongoing dispute happening on the page regarding this matter which (IMHO) is unlikely to be resolved very soon. --Sf 12:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. This can use more ilinks and pics. Also, I'd like to read more about post-IIWW impact - for example, on the city's inhabitans (were there any memorials, festivities, special statuses?). The 'Dramatization' section should be expand into a normal text section describing the related texts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As I recall (imperfectly), the initial defence of the city was conducted by young women volunteer aa gunners who stayed at their posts and actually stopped the advancing panzer columns until they ran out of ammunition and were overrun. This isn't in the article either. It may seem a minor point but it sets the tone for what followed. --Sf 14:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds a tad idealized to me. Are you sure it's not just Soviet propaganda? / Peter ^Isotalo 19:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Trivia like this doesn't belong on the battle page. Probably Soviet depictions of heroic women fighters in the Great Patriotic War would be a better place for this stuff, placing them alongside the nightwitches, partisans, logistic, communication, command and medical Soviet women soldiers would be more appropriate. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Talk about a super-crufty (and POV:ed) title. I'd say it's pretty darned sexist to imply that female participation in the Soviet-German war should be considered "trivia". / Peter ^Isotalo 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support: If the article contains a Historiography section covering the major historical attitudes towards the battle before the end of the vote, great. Otherwise, nope. A major historical article like this must address the historiographical issues before becoming a featured article. Fifelfoo 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object: I've now firmed up to an object on this. In my view "The battle in the city" section needs to be either expanded or reworked. Much of the fighting, particularly initially, involved not just trained troops but workers from factory militias - including defending their own factories and trying to keep them in production at the same time. There is also the issue of the use of civilians by both sides - eg women and children in mine clearing units. Also some possibly unique features of the battle don't come out. E.g. Tanks being produced in Stalingrad during the battle and being driven straight to the front line by volunteer crews (without even being painted and not even having gunsights). --Sf 09:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgot to mention that I can't find reference to Nikita Khrushchev's role as a senior political commissar in the battle. --Sf 10:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Re mine clearing - now realised where I got this. Much of the mine clearing and disposal of unexploded munitions after the battle was done by women and teenagers. This aspect and the aftermath of the battle in the city warrants exploration. --Sf 13:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• this looks like a good article which deserves to become featured, unfortunately reluctantly but strongly object. a) It's impossible to tell which reference backs up which fact. This article is one in which facts may easily be disputed; Neo-Nazis may vandalise etc. Please provide inline references. b) From my understanding, Stalingrad is one of the first places where Hitler's interference with the German army had serious negative consequences. This context should be covered, and particularly the later disasters which it foreshadowed (see German WWII strongholds to start with). Mozzerati 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support It could use a few more references and perhaps some "tidying up", but I don't think I could have done a better job at tackling such a long, complex and decisive battle. Neo-Nazis be damned! It deserves FA status. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Surrender of Japan

user:Wwoods wrote most of this, with Taku and myself making some minor tweaks. I think it's a wonderfully well-written article. →Raul654 23:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  • The image Image:Hiro2.jpg has no source or copyright information.
  • Some other minor points: The intro says the day is called "Shusen-kinenbi" in Japan. What does that mean in English? Also, IIRC, the last military action of the US against Japan was a thousand-aircraft bombing raid after the decision to surrender was made, but before the Emperor made his broadcast. I see no mention of this in the article.

  --Carnildo 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • • Erm, I could be wrong, but thousand-bomber raids were confined to the European theatre of operations. The pacific saw smaller raids of B-29s flying much longer distances. You might be thinking of the Tokyo firebombing (consisting of 330 bombers on March 9-10, 1945) →Raul654 00:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I found the reference I was looking for. It was a raid targeting eight cities, carried out by 800 bombers and 200 fighters. I've added it to the article. --Carnildo 05:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object, from a preliminary scan (1) no cats (2) ex link not not descriptive (or realted? It's a blog) (3) no ex or wikisource links to the source documents which are heavily quoted from (4) There should be a summary section at the end to better lead into Occupied Japan putting the surrender in context with what followed, main link should probably also be made more obvious for the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (5) Are all quotes in MoS sytle- the indentation seems to switch around, as do the quotation marks.--nixie 02:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – seems more like an anthology of quotes rather than brilliant prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object – too many quotations, and not enough prose between them. Potsdam Declaration, for example. Decide which quotes are unnecessary and reword them as general statements. KingTT 05:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

George Galloway

• Support yeah it should be, why not

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.150.220 (talk • contribs) 18:43, October 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There is too much doubt about the status of the images. The first relies on a dubious fair use claim (the article is not about the TV programme); then the second is a "not for commercial use" photo uploaded after 19 May 2005; and then another fair use one. Stephen Turner 19:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be easy enough to get overt permission to use an image of Galloway. He just did a speaking tour of the U.S., and there were plenty of publicity materials. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The newsnight screenshot has been replaced by a picture taken from election publicity.--JK the unwise 13:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's quite close, but it needs more on his time as a Labour MP - I remember him winning debating contests in the House of Commons, and he must have done something else during those years. It should also mention his position against taking an average worker's wage as this has been a major bone of contention for some socialist groups, although that's quite a minor thing. Warofdreams talk 13:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I've added the average workers wage information and a little more on his time as a Labour MP, but that section still looks a bit short. Rethinking the structure as per Worldtraveller's comment might also be wise. Warofdreams talk 09:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing how stable it is for such as controvercial bloke. I'm sure some more free photo's can be found. It would be nice if we could find some more copyright appropreate photo's but including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article[7].--JK the unwise 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support u cant fault the content though, it seems pretty thorough. -- LJ
• Object for the moment - there's lots of great content but the sructure seems awkward to me. Would be better arranged more chronologically, and the sub-sub-subsectioning is a bit much. John Malkovich and the Muslim/Progressive alliance sections are too short and should be merged into the rest of the text. I think it also needs less emphasis on recent years and more about what he was doing in the 80s and early 90s. There are also some POV issues, for example In the speech, Galloway clearly is addressing Saddam in support of his fight against U.N. sanctions. Worldtraveller 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very complete and well written article, but perhaps too detailed and too long - it is currenty 55kb which is about twice the recommended length. The level of detail particularly in sections 4 and 5 is distracting for casual readers. I think that much of this material should be moved to dedicated daughter articles, such as Corruption allegations against George Galloway. On the issue of images, we could try politely emailing Mr Galloway's office on press@respectcoalition.org and ask for copyright free images. I have tried this approach in the past and I usually get a favourable response. Seabhcán 18:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

lostprophets

self-nom

More and more depth has been added to the article over time and any PoV issues have been sorted out through the peer reviewed process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.242.68 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 September 2005

• Object. The images Image:Lostprophets-start.jpg and Image:Lostprophets-fsop.jpg have no source information. --Carnildo 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The three things that can be done to improve this article (and I mentioned some of them in Peer Review) 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.
2. Highlight the literal themes of the album(s). I have deleted the "apathy of their detractors" comment but apathy is a valid theme of the album and probably should be readded somewhere.
3. Add the Infobox_band template.

Cedars 09:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object -- 1) image size too large (under 300px plz), 2) skewed heading (images push them to the right or force a wrap), 3) =members= and =Discography= need not have subheadings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The references section needs to be improved. Currently much of the material is apparently referenced with the citation: Interviews and features from Kerrang!, NME, Metal Hammer, Rock Sound and other music publications. This needs to be improved to the point were a person not familiar with the subject is able to find the magazine articles used as sources without resorting to an exhaustive search of back issues. Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style for examples on the level of detail typically used for citations. --Allen3 ^talk 17:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey

95% non-self nom - just painstakingly referenced it. --PopUpPirate 22:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object

1. Lead too short
2. Too many short paragraphs (combine or make longer)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Had a go at fixing it --PopUpPirate 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The lead looks better - thanks. The paragraphs are still short though - and there is at least one one-sentence paragraph. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Actioned. --PopUpPirate 19:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Why are there two lists of external links? Notes to editors, like that in the first caption should be commented out, and the image caption should come before the source acknowledgement. To link to main artiles use {{main}}. Try and work some of those see alsos into the text since they seem to be relevant, and remove others like UK topics. The Ordnance Survey working in 60 countries seems like it would be worth expanding on in the article - but there is no other mention of it beyond on the lead.--nixie 23:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Another editor has kindly fixed the external links thing - I agree with your comment about the 60 countries and will try to add to it. Pity it didn't appear in Peer Review but then these things never do! (wasnt directed at you btw!!) --PopUpPirate 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object due to the two unfree images. Not sure what they add to the article, could they just be removed? JYolkowski // talk 02:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The 2 map images are imo crucial to the article, and could in no way be obtained in any other way. --PopUpPirate 11:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, an alternate suggestion might be to get rid of one of the images, and write up a fair use rationale for the other one. It seems like there might be a plausible fair use claim. JYolkowski // talk 23:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm happy to go with that - do people think the article would be better with only 1 OS image (all things considered) - I think the 2 images make a good comparison but I understand the counterclaim. --PopUpPirate 00:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object

Why does the lead mention only the 18th century? An overview is required.

A 'one inch' map?

Lots of short paragraphs inhibit the flow.

Lacks depth and is not comprehensive. For example, what were the economic/social circumstances that led to the establishment of the OS? Do the maps have distinctive features? Have they played a role in historical research? Have they made a significant contribution in the history of map-making? Tony 12:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment – please reduce the size of those images. In lower resolutions, 600x800 it squeezes the text alongside. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Width reduced by 100px --PopUpPirate 14:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I notice some inline comments. Please convert them to {{inote}}. Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Actioned. --PopUpPirate 19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • The first time it says 'one-inch', 'six-inch' etc it should explain that this means 'one inch to the mile' (at least I assume it does).
  • What year did the fire at the tower of London take place? How severely did it affect their work?
  • The footnote contradicts the bit about the OS doing maps abroad during WWI. Maybe it just needs 'currently' inserting into it?
  • Something showing what one inch to the mile is as a ratio would be useful.
  • I'd like to know which countries the OS prepared maps in during WWI. Is this the only overseas work they've done?
• CTOAGN 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comments actioned. --PopUpPirate 19:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object Title of this article needs to be changed to reflect the fact that it is about the British OS rather than the OS services of other countries or OS type services in general. --Sf 12:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The name of the organisation is Ordnance Survey, the only other OS's are called Ordnance Survey Ireland and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland. --PopUpPirate 19:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Gimli Glider

Not self-nom; I had nothing to do with this article, but IMHO it is extremely well written, has relevant and interesting photos, and above all, it's quite a great tale. --Fo0bar 07:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object – no references, lead too short. Last section also too short. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object: needs to be more comprehensive for a FA. For example, more information is required on the aftermath; investigations into aviation incidents are usually involved and complex. What was learnt from the investigation? Did heads roll? Not all measurements include the metric equivalent, and the vexed process of metric conversion in Canada (from 1984?) might be relevant, and requires mention.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 16:03, September 26, 2005

• Object. The image Image:Gimlix.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 20:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I copyedited the article some time ago (including breaking the middle section into sub-sections). Nevertheless, much of it read more like a story/essay than an encyclopedia article. Someone needs to look into the wording and change it appropriately. Pentawing 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Engrossing article. More images would be nice, though. It would be good to get permission for a photo similar to the removed image[8]. I have sent a request to another photographer to see if we can include [9] instead. Pburka 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Slight support The article can be enhanced (improving its structure and readability), but this aviation event is interesting and definitely worth noting. E Pluribus Anthony 07:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

American popular music

I split this off music of the United States because that article was way too big. I worked quite a bit on it after that, also including bits and pieces from various other articles (e.g. disco). Please note that pop music and popular music are different, and that this is not intended to be a historical article (music history of the United States exists), merely an overview of the major fields of American popular music. As such, the content is chronological based on when the top-level heading became a major part of popular music -- for example, country music is placed just after blues, but then the whole spectrum of country is explained before going on to the next field, jazz. The article is long, at 93 kb (72 without refs, images and such), but I don't think anything can be cut without losing important information. Tuf-Kat 21:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The image Image:RayCharles.jpeg is tagged as "public domain", but I can't verify that, as the source website appears to be down. However, as I recall, much of the media on the "Centennial of Flight" page was not in the public domain, despite the page being a ".gov" domain. --Carnildo 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That image was uploaded by a respected Wikipedian more than a year ago and has an entirely reasonable claim for being a public domain US government work. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that an image can't be used because the website that supplied its copyright info eventually goes down -- that's why we have an image description page. You can't verify Image:Willie Nelson 1996-05.png either, but luckily the person who uploaded it made a reasonable claim of its copyright status. Tuf-Kat 23:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It is entirely possible for a respected Wikipedian to upload an image and, believing that because it was from a US government web site, in good faith tag it as "public domain", and still be wrong. There are some US government websites, such as NARA and many .mil sites, that contain mostly or exclusively public domain material. There are other web sites, such as the Library of Congress and assorted Library of Congress projects, which contain material that is mostly not public domain. It is often neccessary to visit the web site to tell the difference.
      
      I can verify Image:Willie Nelson 1996-05.png to my satisfaction by contacting User:Hattrem on Commons and asking him if he took that photograph and licensed it under the terms on the image description page: if he says "yes", I can take him at his word.
      
      I cannot do the same for Image:RayCharles.jpeg. I could certainly contact the uploader, but what would I ask him? "Did you upload it from 'centennialofflight.gov'?" I know that already, and that wouldn't tell me anything about the image's copyright status. --Carnildo 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think it's proper to assume an individual doesn't know how/didn't check on an image's copyright status. Hephaestos' talk page indicates he had discussed a different pic and said he was aware that not all .gov pics are pd and that he had checked on the image in question. WRT to Hattrem, what's the difference between trusting Hattrem at his word and trusting Hephaestos at his word? Either way, you have no way of knowing aside from trusting an individual you don't know. Tuf-Kat 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I have visited the Internet Archive. Most of the images on that site won't display, but it does say Generally, the information contained on the Web site is in the public domain, and permission for its use is not required as long as the Commission is acknowledged as the source of the information. However, there are certain materials on our Web site, such as photographs, images, narratives, movies, web casts, etc., that have source information provided for them. If there is source information provided for these materials, permission for their use should be obtained from their providers. Since Hephaestos said on his talk page that he specifically looks for "an author or a disclaimer on it" and the page in question says that source information is provided for non-pd material, I think it's reasonable to assume he did not see any source information and that it is therefore pd. Tuf-Kat 01:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • That's good enough for me. I tried the Internet Archive, but I couldn't get it to load. --Carnildo 06:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I've copied this convo to the image page for future users. Tuf-Kat

Object - As is, the article is a collection of summaries of the genres of American Popular music instead of really being about American popular music (there is a very important difference: read on). Also, the article is huge and thus takes a very long time to read (even w/o refs, notes, and external links, it is well over twice the size when an article may start to be considered too long: See Article size and Summary style). By itself size is not a reason to object since some topics do require more space. However the burden of proof is with a nominator when an article is this size. Here is a run-down of my reasoning:

• Instead of taking the topic holistically, it breaks it up into summaries of the different genres of American popular music.
• An article is not supposed to be just a collection of sections of related sub-topics; it needs to be a cohesive whole. Or in Yoda speak, a collection of related sections does not an article make.
• The current structure is not optimal since each section links to a daughter article that is started by a lead section that is similar in size to the summary section in this article.
• This reminds me of the nomination of History of science, which was, and still pretty much is, a collection of 'history of ...' summaries of the sub-disciplines. A proper article on that topic would take the reader through the development of science, from the start in pre-historic times, through the development of the scientific method, explain how science was first used by religion and then later how the schism between the two developed, etc.

In short, this article needs to take the reader through the development of popular music in the United States instead of merely summarizing each sub-genre. --mav 01:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I either disagree or don't understand your objection. This article does take the reader through the development of popular music in the United States. It starts at the beginning in the late 19th century and ends with hip hop (actually with the international and social impact, but that's rather separate from the rest of the article and wouldn't make sense until after the rest has been introduced). It is divided into sections by genre, with each genre explaining how it developed, how it's related to other genres and how it changed over time, especially regarding popularity. It is about American popular music, which is made up of various genres -- it's not like "history of science" because a) this is not a history of anything (would you rather see a stricter history focus?), and b) "science" is itself something that can be documented over time (i.e. one can talk about how the process of scientific discovery changed, irrespective of the general development of chemistry or physics) -- "popular music" is "any of a number of musical styles that..." (i.e. one can not talk about popular music except in the context of a specific style). I have three books specifically on "popular music", and all three are divided into chapters based on styles. You said "As is, the article is a collection of summaries of the genres of American Popular music instead of really being about American popular music (there is a very important difference: read on)", but I don't see any explanation of what you think this difference is. I think this is about as cohesive as it can be -- it explains how the different genres are connected with each other, and how they evolved in tandem with each other, providing links to more specific articles on each individual genre. Popular music is a kind or type of music, distinct from folk or classical music; thus, an article on "American popular music" should be primarily about what kinds or types of American music are examples of popular music; more detailed info on how each style developed is better for their respective genre pages or for the music history of the United States. WRT to length, I agree that it is long, as noted above, but don't see what can be removed -- since you feel the whole article (or most of it) should be rewritten, this point is presumably secondary. Tuf-Kat

Tuf-Kat, I have to say that I think there's some substance to Maveric's comments. You might be able to integrate the currently 'lumpy' feel to the structure by adding some statements at strategic points that remind the reader of the historical flow, and point to interrelationships between the genres.

In addition, I'd like to see the sound excerpts more closely embedded in their associated text by referring the reader to specific musical features in the excerpt; this would strengthen the case for fair use, too. In a few cases, you've done this, but perhaps this aspect could become a more robust feature. (I may be of assistance in this respect, although it's not my musical area.)

Can you think of ways of delineating the scope more tightly? Must jazz be included in popular music? Some would disagree that it's that. Can you create a chronological boundary, splitting the article into two: say, pre- and post-World-War-II? That might allow you to fill out information that is a little thin, still; for example, Tin Pan Alley should mention the wave of European immigration (much of it Jewish) that fed into it. At the moment it's too little and too much at the same time.

The prose still needs a good massage, and my time-budget for big jobs is a bit limited over the next few weeks. The opening section is problematic in a number of ways. I think that there are too many external references, whereas Wikipedia should itself be an authority, and shouldn't need to tip its hat to them so early on in an article. Is the quotation necessary, or can we make a general assertion from scratch? I'm not sure that I want to hear about other histories and authors in the second paragraph.

As you know, I'm thoroughly on-side with respect to many aspects of the article; but it needs a big rethink. Tony 06:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Undecided I'm not sure I object to this, but at the moment I'm not sure I really want to support it either. Why isn't there a category for pop music? I mean I know the general definition of pop can sometimes refer to anything popular, but I think there needs to be an article for the pop music genre. Teen pop can be put under pop, along with A/C pop and Pop-Rock which should also be put in there. Can Soul and R&B be brought next to each other? It would help the article to flow better since Soul and R&B are related. I know the two genres jumped back and forth over the years, but maybe soul should be placed first since the R&B article talks about contemporary R&B. Can we also add something about the current music scene with the popularity of the hip-hop colloborations? Also mainstream rock and alternative rock have kind of meshed together in today's music. Can we mention that alternative and mainstream are pretty much equal in a way today? Maybe indie rock could be more emphasized in the alternative rock section. OmegaWikipedia 08:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have begun working on a reorganized article at American popular music/temp. Opinions are welcome. The section I've written out is about 20k, which is disheartening because it only goes up to the 1920s and I can't think of what to cut, so it's still going to be very long. Tuf-Kat
  • Okay, American popular music/temp is more or less done. It needs a lead, and refs, links et al moved over, and I'm going to fiddle with images and sound samples. It's at 56k at the moment. Tuf-Kat 04:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And it's done. Does this satisfy anyone? It's now at 72k total, and about 55k without all the bells and whistles. Tuf-Kat 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've written a new suggested opening on the discussion page, which is much shorter at just one paragraph long. I really think the last three paras of the existing opening are a problem, and need to go. See what you think. Tony 05:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• The section on the 90s/00s seems a bit awkward. I see what you're trying to do, but is it possible for you to to combine your prose on the early 90s with your musical definitions of the early 90s? Like...

Perhaps the most important change in the 1990s in American popular music was the rise of alternative rock and grunge. This was previously an explicitly anti-mainstream grouping of genres that rose to great fame beginning in the early 1990s. At roughly the same time, a kind of hard-edged hip hop called gangsta rap also became very popular among mainstream audiences. Grunge music is an independent-rooted music genre that was inspired by hardcore punk, thrash metal, and alternative rock. Grunge has a "dark, brooding guitar-based sludge" sound ^[10], drawing on elements of earlier bands like Sonic Youth and their use of "unconventional tunings to bend otherwise standard pop songs completely out of shape" ^[11]. With the addition of a "melodic, Beatlesque element" to the sound of bands like Nirvana, grunge became wildly popular across the United States ^[12]. Grunge became commercially successful in the early 1990s, peaking between 1991 and 1994. Bands from cities in the U.S. Pacific Northwest especially Seattle, Washington, were responsible for creating grunge and later made it popular with mainstream audiences. The supposed Generation X, who had just reached adulthood as grunge's popularity peaked, were closely associated with grunge, the sound which helped "define the desperation of (that) generation" ^[13].

Gangsta rap is a kind of hip hop, most importantly characterized by a lyrical focus on macho sexuality, physicality and a dangerous, criminal image. Though the origins of gangsta rap can be traced back to the mid-1980s raps of Philadelphia's Schoolly D and the West Coast's Ice-T, the style is usually said to have begun in the Los Angeles and Oakland area, where Too $hort, NWA and others found their fame. This West Coast rap scene spawned the early 1990s G-funk sound, which paired gangsta rap lyrics with a thick and hazy tone, often relying on samples from 1970s P-funk; the best-known proponents of this sound were the breakthrough rappers Dr. Dre and Snoop Doggy Dogg.

By the end of the decade and into the early 2000s, however, pop music consisted mostly of a combination of pop-hip hop and R&B-tinged pop, including a number of boy bands and female divas. The predominant sound in 90s country music was pop with only very limited elements of country. This includes many of the best-selling artists of the 1990s, like Clint Black, Shania Twain, Faith Hill and the first of these crossover stars, Garth Brooks ^[14].

It makes the section flow better imo here. Of course that was just a rough idea, and so the transitions werent smooth, but something along the lines of keeping things in order from when they happened. And also could you talk about more current sounds in today's music? (Like pop rock and the hip-hop collaboration). Thanks OmegaWikipedia 13:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've put a slightly revised version of those three paragraphs in. I don't really think more info on current music is warranted -- it's not possible to put stuff in its historical context right away. And I'm not sure what you mean by "hip hop collaborations". Collaborations are not unique to modern hip hop, and aren't unique to hip hop at all, and aren't a particularly notable part of hip hop AFAICT. Tuf-Kat 18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support, I enjoyed the rewritten version. Two little things, the number of the notes is messed up- there are 80ish inline notes and only 30ish in the notes section, in long articles I have used footnote 3, so that I can specify the number of the note and multiple inline notes can link to the one reference- it keeps the list a managable length for a long and detailed article, however you decide to do it the numbers in the text should have corresponding notes. Why does the same pic of Willie Nelson appear twice?--nixie 23:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Because Willie Nelson RAWKS! Footnote3 looks nice, but complicated. I guess I'll look at an article that uses it and see if I can figure it out. Tuf-Kat 02:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• To be a FA, I think it still needs copy editing by a fresh pair of eyes. Tuf-Kat has really improved the article since it came onto this list, but I'm still uneasy about the depth, authority and cohesion of the text. I wish I had more expertise in this musical area, because I'd love to help on a deep, stylistic level. It involves some very subtle and complex issues that are beyond me. Tony 13:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: there is a real shortage of discussion of the music industry as an industry: the rise and fall of sheet music, the importance of intellectual property rights, the growth of A&R departments, the consolidation of the major record labels, the shifts of power and influence between an industry based in NYC and later in LA and between various regional musics, the rise of popular music criticism, you name it. It's as if all of this music occurred in a vacuum. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object with great regret. There are some POV and bias issues that need to be worked out in respect to ACTUAL pop music, as bland etc. one may think it be. Maybe you could have something about them being manufactured if you want. However, it should probably split off 1990 into its own section and expand it, and have a careful sifting through for bias and POV, and just in general EXPAND the pop music parts. I also echo all the above comments. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Party (United States)

I've been working on this article a lot, and I feel it is ready for nomination. It has been through a peer review, which you can view here. --Revolución (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor note... I don't see any mention to the current house minority leader or the senate minority leader. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—needs lots of work to bring it up to standard; good topic for a FAC, so get someone else to help. Let's have a look at just the lead, as an example of what needs to be done throughout.

'The party is currently the minority party in the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and among state governors.' Since the governors don't vote as a block, it's misleading to list them with two chambers in connection with 'minority party'.

19:21 is hardly 'trailing'.

What are 'divided legislatures'?

'much of the rest of the world'—remove the three redundant words.

'over the course of' implies throughout the 20th century; shouldn't this be narrowed down?

'In a way, one could say the parties'—bit clumsy and informal.

'anymore'—let the dictionary know of this new word.

'the political center' at the end of the lead—some readers will be confused as to whether this is a move to the left or the right. Tony 04:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know what "divided legislatures" is supposed to mean either. --Revolución (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, somebody explained what divided legislatures were. --Revolución (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object: The image Image:ClintonRecent.jpg has got to go -- there are about a bajillion public-domain photos of the guy out there, so there's no reason to use anything less free. --Carnildo 05:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --Revolución (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object I do have a bit of a problem with the "Factions of the Democratic Party" section because it still is more of a list than actual prose. And I still think the history is too long that it should be split into a new page called History of the United States Democratic Party. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well it would be hard to turn it into prose, but I'll try and see what I can do. --Revolución (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object, for now: On a quick skim, I counted four different foundation dates: 1792 in the intro, 1793 in the infobox, 1794 in the History: Origins section, and 1828 in the infobox and the history section. Of these, only the latter is explained. This does not bode well for the article's credibility. J.K. 00:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I researched a bit and the official DNC site says "Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party." So I'm going with 1792. [15] --Revolución (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The article is good overall but Factions needs to be redone into prose, and there are a lot of two sentence paragraphs under Issue positions. I'm not sure how you would go about combining them, but it breaks up the flow right now. Falphin 01:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Quite a number of grammatical problems, like "others were made active by the candidacy of Howard Dean" and "More than any other faction, conservative Democrats have lost office or retired in the Congress." The introductions to several sections (such as the one preceding Factions) should be at least a paragraph long. Use &mdash (—), not "-". It would be appropriate to define "liberals" and "conservatives" better, as the rest of the world often has differing interpretations of these words. A lot of other America-centric phrases like "states' rights" ought to be explained briefly. Some sub-sections like Budget are a bit short. Oh, and why are there two sections titled Factions? Rename one of them, please. The Organization section is also a bit short; I'd expected at least three or four paragraphs. No section titles should be wiki-linked. The Notes section should stand on its own, and not be a mere sub-section. The History section is quite heavy on the 20th century's side, and a bit long; I'd recommend breaking it off into a separate article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Note that the following comment was made six months after this FAC had failed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

just leave this here. It is perfectly valid criticism thewolfstar 09:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I am suggesting why this article did not get Featured Article status, and I am disputing the neutrality of this article because:

• It makes subtle suggestions through the use of language.

• It's implications contradict fact. (Thomas Jefferson's writings will show clearly that his ideas and what he fought for in this country are not represented well in either of the two major political parties of this country, though they both make claims, in one way or another, that their philosophies are concurrent with Jefferson's.)

• It contradicts itself. While it first states that "The party traces its beginnings to Thomas Jefferson in the early 1790s" which can be interpreted as neutral, in the same sentence, it then blatantly claims as fact that the Democratic Party "is one of the oldest, if not the oldest,

political parties in the world." Whether the Democratic Party can trace its roots to Thomas Jefferson's party is disputable and noted in the article itself: "The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792, although some scholars date the party's beginnings to the late 1820s, when Democratic-Republicans Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren built a new party along with ex-Federalists." Furthermore, this is the first statement made under the heading: Beginnings, Jacksonian Democracy, and Manifest Destiny: 1792-1854, an historical section of the article. Indeed, it is the first attempt to trace the roots of the Democratic Party, of any kind, actually done in the article, at all.

Thewolfstar 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

self-nom. I conducted research and then substantially rewrote this article earlier this year. I'm rather new to Wikipedia and would welcome constructive advice on this article's further improvement. Ideally, I would like this article to be the Featured Article on or about November 19th, the 142nd anniversary of the speech. BartBenjamin 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I've only glanced at the article so far, but the thing that jumps out at me is all the external links in the text. These need to be turned into footnotes. The actual address set in bold is rather jarring. Since it is already set off from the rest of the text, the use of bold is unnecessary, IMHO. —Wayward 02:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. References need to be put in a seperate section even if they are external links. And this article is also quite quote-heavy. If you're looking for constructive criticism, it might be a good idea to try peer review first. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looking good. OmegaWikipedia 12:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I did not know about peer review status. I have changed the designation of the article to reflect standard practice. BartBenjamin 15:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hamburger

I randomly came across this page and was very impressed. Seems to be well written. In fact the article was even cited by the Cleveland Plain Dealer as a source! [16] I think that shows how well of an article it was to be cited by the media. OmegaWikipedia 12:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Lacks a References sections to cite the sources used for this article as required by criteria 2 of the featured article criteria. --Allen3 ^talk 13:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review.

1. Size of lead is too large in relation to the article itself.
2. Article contains unneeded fair use images.
3. Wiki Cookbook link is not in the external links section.
4. There's no sources (especially the etymology needs them). They need to be in a seperate references section.
5. Article is missing references to popular culture (for example Supersize Me). Not comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. As per previous objectors and because of the over-specifics of the "Serving style"-section. Keeping separate sections on individual countries is not a good idea. You'll just wind up with users adding the serving style of their own country sooner or later. Revamp it into a more generalized section that describes hamburger styles in how they differ from larger cultural areas, not individual nations.
• And what's with the promotional photos? If there are to be pics of franchise burgers, I want them to be of what the actual burgers look like, shot by Wikipedians, not corporate propaganda centers. Anyone who's ever eaten at a fast food restaurant is very aware of the fact that the photos used to display the merchendise is a shameless destortion of reality. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Responses Ahh, the article does have references, but I suppose they arent referenced correctly, and that they could use some more. I dont know if I'll have time to fix up the article before this FAC fails, but thanks for the comments everyone. Don't know if Supersize Me should go in this article, because that applies to all products of McDonalds (not just hamburgers) but I did expand on the cultural references. And I think the professional work better....unless you seriously want me to go and take a picture of a hamburger with my camera. OmegaWikipedia 12:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Omega, is snapping one a great nuisance? If it is, I can do it for you.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, its not a problem at all. I was just thinking that the hamburgers should presented the way they are, because even though is it marketing and I agree with you...these are the images most people are used to and I'm wondering how they'd react to not having it. But Carnildo makes a point about the image's fair use, and taking the pictures is not a problem either OmegaWikipedia 19:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying before the FAC was taken off the main page. But, how about using both? I know most people are aware of the discrepencies between hamburger franchise promotional fantasy and reality, but I thought it would be good to actually point this out in an article. Not overly anti-corporate, but still.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now. A section on references to popular culture is still needed. And I suggest you split the "Serving size" section into a separate article if you ever want this hamburger article to have a decent chance to become an FA. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object—the prose needs tightening up. Just looking through the lead, I see:
  • two 'alsos' and 'specially' that need to be removed as redundant;
  • a 'generally' that should be 'typically';
  • 'very good', both of which words are weak (try 'suitable');
  • a comma that should be a semicolon, for the sake of the grammar (Plus: the text could do with a few more commas throughout).

Not good enough for a FA. Tony 04:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Whopper TIME!.jpg and Image:Monsterthickburger.jpg are licensed under a "fair use" license. Since it's quite possible for a Wikipedian to make a free-license replacement for these images, there's no reason to use them in this article. --Carnildo 07:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Clunky prose in many places. Also, I think the history is skewed, giving too much credit to McDonald's and not enough to White Castle, which (if I recall correctly) predates McDonalds and was quite important. If I remember right, fast food hamburgers in the U.S. were first considered somewhat suspect food, appropriate only for single men as it were, and White Castle and McDonalds turned them into acceptable family fare with their focus on cleaniless, etc. The book Fast Food Nation, though very POV, has a lot of the history of this topic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Chicken soup

I love how this article evolved, and what it has become. From a mere recipe which was once nominated for deletion, it has become about as informative and entertaining as an article about a particular food can be. The article currently gives the history and cultural background of Chicken soup, and refers to scientific experiments conducted with Chicken soup. There's a nice picture, and of course a recipe. While I contributed to this article at one point, I was not the originator of the article, and it has since evolved far beyond my contribution. --Woggly 18:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose The FAC template should go on the talk page. 1) There is no lead. 2) Content is scant and seems to document mostly Jewish customs. 3) Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Please see: Wikipedia:What is a featured article =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I did read Wikipedia:What is a featured article before nominating this article. Nowhere does it say that articles cannot be about food, nor does it say that articles must be long - only of "appropriate length" to their subject material, and comprehensive. The article documents mostly Jewish customs because Chicken soup doesn't play that great a role in other cultures. There isn't that much more that can be written about chicken soup without getting silly - however, what has been written is well written and appropriate. This article is much more than a mere recipe. How would you elaborate the lead? FAC template has been moved. --Woggly 19:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You are correct in that it does not state that articles have to be long, but they can't be this short, either. This ties into an articles' comprehensiveness. The less possible information there is available on a particular topic, the harder it is to have the article featured. Phoenix2 23:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

    There's a story on Gandhi having chicken soup even though he was a vegetarian, maybe you could add that. 2) I was referring to the recipe. This should be referred to peer review for more ideas. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

    • I'd appreciate if you could help me find a reference for this anecdote, which I will gladly add to the article. --Woggly 06:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. The recipe should be moved to the WikiBooks Cookbook and linked to like all recipes. A recipe is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, the article is short, and while I can't think of anything to add at the moment, I'm pretty sure it needs to be expanded in order for it to be comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify that I'm not arguing for the sake of being antagonistic, but because I really do find this an interesting discussion. Who said that comprehensive is necessarily long? Sometimes a short article is enough to sum up a topic. Can a short article never be a featured article? As for the recipe, my personal feeling is that an article about Chicken soup would not be complete without a recipe (and I'm pretty sure I read a recipe for ibex in the encyclopedia Britannica, I remember being shocked by it). I know consensus is that recipes should be transwikied to Wikibooks, when they are the sole content of the article. But when the article has significant enough substance to merit being an article without the recipe, why not *also* include a recipe? Sure, wikipedia is not a recipe book, and I don't like articles that are nothing but recipes either. But isn't a general sort of a recipe crucial information when writing about a food? --Woggly 22:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • (Let's try that comment again. When I tried to reply earlier today, I lost my net access.) That's why one should link to the Wikibooks Cookbook. Not having the recipe itself in the article is a direct result of Wikipedia is not a recipe book and Wikipedia is not a How-to guide. For example, the article on the Decleration of Independence wouldn't be complete with the complete text of this document. But this text is not appropriate Wikipedia material and the document text should be linked to on Wikisource. Short articles CAN be featured, but only if they are complete. Why not take a featured article on some form of food and see what's in that? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Chicken Soup would be a fantastic featured article. I'll say more later as this discussion evolves. Kind regards Joaquin Murietta 22:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment—Right at the top, can you avoid the implication that the United States is the 'default' nation. Surely chicken soup is used abroad as a remedy ... Tony 05:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I've already erased that at least once, someone else must think it's important (look at the first comment on the talk page). --Woggly 06:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The recipe needs to go. There is no authoritative recipe for chicken soup: the only ingredients that all chicken soups have in common are chicken and water. --Carnildo 19:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. In addition to the recipe having to go (recipes are inheritly POV, in my opinion), I can think of a number of other topics this article fails to address:
  • (Somewhat mentioned before) Chicken soup in other cultures. I think Greece has a chicken soup with lemon and egg, for instance. I'm sure it's nearly universal, in fact, so the bias toward the Jewish tradition is quite severe here.
  • A discussion of the difference between chicken broth and chicken soup.
  • Non-homemade chicken soup, including canned products, powdered dry products, or bullion.
  • Chicken noodle soup should be dealt with as more than just a see-also link; perhaps it should even be merged into this article.
  • I'd like to see some information about the science of chicken soup. What's really in a broth? Why are some clear and some cloudy? That sort of thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • On that last point you haven't erased yet: not quite sure how to put in in the article. Under "preparation" there is a description of how the soup is clarified. What makes soup cloudy, basically, is sediment: miniscule bits of mostly chicken tissue floating around. Clear soup has simply been strained and filtered. Not that fascinating. --Woggly 08:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object - it's too short. Funny topic, but needs something more to be featured. So far it's just a good ordinary Wikipedia article. I think Bunchofgrapes had some great ideas how to expand it. Renata3 12:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - non NPOV. Strong Jewish bias. Type "bouillon de poule" on google to see how important "chicken soup" is in the French cuisine. Vb 09:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I've now amended the article, addressing most of the comments and objections above. I've also listed this article on Peer Review, but I'd appreciate it if those of you who already voted could take another look at the article before booting it out of here. Thanks. --Woggly 14:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It has improved a lot, now taking on most if not all the areas it needs to for "comprehensiveness." At this point, it's a little choppy (my own FAC, Cheese, has had a bit of trouble with overly-short subsections... apparently one-paragraph subsections are considered bad) and perhaps could use some section reordering (I don't really "get" the logic of the flow as it is now). It also lacks references for any of the newer material.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Added links to two sources. Feel free to reorder the sections in a more logical way, I'm too "involved" at this point to see a clearer way to organise them. --Woggly 15:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer Review - It's a decent article, but not featured quality yet. Needs more information, which might require a certain amount of research. It's hard to say exactly how an article isn't comprehensive, because the article lacks the information nessessary, but generally shortness is a good indicator. Layout could use some work. The various sections on the soup around the world are really really short, and either need beefing up or restructuring. Fieari 01:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Much improvement with respect to NPOV. However, the title "Around the world" hears more like outside of the US and Israel. Why isn't there any section in the US? "Booyah" is not known to me and I am a Walloon! It may be known in the US but not around Liège. Though walloons like to eat Chicken Soups they don't have any special tradition. Cite your sources. On the other hand the article is missing the chicken "waterzooi" which is a typical Flemish food (more precisely from Ghent) and a very original way to use chicken for a kind of soup. Vb 09:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Citybus (Hong Kong)

• Support

Citybus (Hong Kong) should be a featured article for several reasons. First it tells a comprehensive history of the company and service it provides. In addition, it lists ALL of the routes Citybus operates (including Cityflyer). No bus article can achieve the stats it has reached. It is simply a featured article. This article deserves it! - Carsonley

• Oppose. Although I really hope that there can be some hong kong buses articles can become one of the featured articles, however, I think this article is still far from the stanard. I think that the article is not well-organized and not fruitful enough. I would expect there are more introduction to the company, not only facts, but something like the road of success, leader in the evolution of HK bus industry, etc. Anyway, let's work hard to achieve the standard that the MTR articles has achieved. -- Spring Dennis 10:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering

Partial self-nom. This article was up for FAC ten months ago (see here); the vote was pretty much evenly split between Support and Oppose, and I think most of the concerns raised at the time have been adequately addressed. References have been added, the sections are more balanced in length, and much of the unnecessary details of gameplay, tournament structure, and strategy have been moved to separate pages. This article has not been through peer review, but it has been the center of the Magic: The Gathering WikiProject and has been shepherded by several dedicated users. Andrew Levine 21:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Andrew Levine 21:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Looks very promising, but (1) List of card types should be edited to fix grammar, as well as standardize the definitions. As it stands, half the definitions make correct use of the colon, and the other half are written as though it isn't there. (2) Clarify terms such as "graveyard" and "tap" before they are used. (3) Clarify which card types are permanents and which are spells. (4) "A detailed rulebook exists..." needs a footnote linking to the rulebook's name or website. KingTT 22:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Even in the most recent edit, I have no idea what the purpose of artifacts in MTG are. The only information I can glean from the list of card types is what kind of fictional objects the cards represent. KingTT 14:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If that's your biggest objection for that section, we're making progress. You would not believe what this looked like last time it was nominated. --Khaim 01:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:White mana 40w-1-.jpg, Image:Blue mana 40w-1-.jpg, Image:Black mana 40w-1-.jpg, Image:Red mana 40w-1-.jpg, Image:Green mana 40w-1-.jpg, and Image:Magic old new border2.jpg have no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 23:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: The images mentioned by Carnildo, with unclear copyright status, have been removed. Andrew Levine 02:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:MagicCards.jpg appears to be incorrectly labeled also. That isn't a board game cover. KingTT 23:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object I had a long list of objections last time around, to refresh:
  1. intro section too long (shouldnt be more than 1 or 2 paras)
  2. history seems awful brief.
  3. game play should be shortened and split into sub articles, this isnt a HOW-TO article.
  4. is the section on secondary markets really necessary?
  5. artwork is very brief, needs to be beefed up a bit (I originally collected for the artwork, so did many of my friends)
  6. controversy should be spun off into a stub and expanded, theres been a lot of it and this brief mention doesnt do it justice in my opinion.
  7. needs a few more references
  8. external links are extensive and should be split into groups.

     I would say these have all been fulfilled, however my new objections follow with the opposition of the users above, 1) this desperately needs a grammar/spelling check. 2) Some of the formatting doesnt have parallel form, 3) Images need to have clear copyright status. Once those are cleared up you have my support. Overall this is in MUCH better shape this time.  ALKIVAR™ 02:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing the improvements. But what do you mean, "parallel form?" Please help, I want to have all objections satisfied by the end of the weekend. Andrew Levine 03:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—poorly written; Wikipedia requires the prose of FAs to be 'compelling, even brilliant'. Most sentences require surgery; here are just a few examples from the top to demonstrate that the whole text needs a thorough edit, preferably by someone else who can use 'fresh eyes' to turn the current chaos into an error-free, logical, and user-friendly article.

We'd like to know what 'Wizard of the Coast' is, without hitting the link. What do you mean by 'introduced'? ('published'? 'developed'? For Windows alone?)

'and continues to endure with an estimated six million players in over seventy countries worldwide and on the Internet'—'70' better than 'seventy'; use 'more than', not 'over'; 'continues to endure' is tautological; is 'on the Internet' part of your 70-country and 6M count? (Categories a little fuzzy.)

'The game plays as a strategy contest'—'is played' or just 'is a'.

'In the game's primary fictional setting, each duel represents a battle'—Introduce the fact that the game consists of duels before you tell us something more detailed about them.

'upon'—use 'on' wherever possible.

'drew heavily from'—use the correct preposition.

'The game boasts a thriving official tournament system'—I get the point, but the first three words are a bit hyped; just be plain and straightforward.

What is a 'scholarship prize'? Briefly gloss here, or deal with it later or not at all.

'but is also known to be very well supported by casual gamers who only play with friends at schools, clubs, or home'—'but' is a false contrast here; you're not contradicting the previous clause, are you? 'known to be'—remove so that it's a plain statement. Remove 'only'? 'and' may be better than 'or' (same problem with your list of colours below). To follow this with 'The cards themselves also have value, much like other trading cards, but in this case based on both scarcity and game play potential' raises the question of 'also'—how is this statement connected with the previous sentence? What kind of value—real money?

• Comment: I see external links in the "Colors of Magic" section. Could you convert those to footnotes, please? And "parallel form" means that in lists or complex sentences, the things being listed should be in the same form. A sentence not in parallel form would be something like this: "Three powers are most valued: being able to fly, the knowledge of another player's deck, and black magic." (I made this up, obviously, it's not in the article.) To put it in parallel form, rewrite like this: "Three powers are most valued: flying, casting black magic spells, and knowing the cards in another player's deck." Mamawrites ^{& listens} 09:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object per above. I hit the second paragraph and got confused. "In the game's primary fictional setting, each duel represents a battle between very powerful wizards called "planeswalkers"..." What is a "primary fictional setting"? I take it the game somehow tells a story, but are there multiple stories in the game? That meant that I hit the history section without much of an idea why the game could be played in "downtime". The rest of the article is reasonably good, so I'd suggest rewriting the lead with the idea that the reader may not have a clear idea what the game is. Jkelly 04:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I'd like to support, after all, I was the past nominator - but above objections raise a good point. This needs language improvement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Schabir Shaik Trial

Self-nom. What I think is a well-written and researched article on one of the most divisive court trials in South African history. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 04:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, and comprehensive, although a few more pictures might be helpful. However i support. Thethinredline

• Object to lead, which needs ruthless editing. "Chippy"?? 64.251.55.196 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, his name is Chippy. Would you tell me please what you object to in the lead? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The article appears to be well researched and written. The main complaint I have is that the article seems to be written more for South Africans who know about this case than for outsiders, like myself, who have not heard of it. In other words, too many things are not immediately explained such as who the gentlemen involved are--you give their names but not who they are and what they do--and I had to click on the links to the people before I began to understand. Try having someone who is not familiar with the case look at the article. Cheers! Ganymead 01:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I tried to address that in the second sentence. Does that work ebtter? 165.121.145.199 21:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• mild object deal with the red links. Borisblue 13:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Having red links is not a valid reason to object to an article. The questoin here is the quality of *this* article - not the (lack of) articles it links to. →Raul654 16:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment-are there any other similar cases that could be put under See also? I know there are a lot of online references, but could we have an external link section? Falphin 02:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Good article, but I'd like someone familiar with Floridian copyright law to confirm whether usage of those two piccis is ok. Support is conditional on that, jguk 18:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

Self-renom.

• Attempt 1
• Attempt 2

Ok, I had some minor edits on the article and added a few more things (a photo, a source and two awards), but the article has been pretty calm [17]. I think the main concern, most likely, is going to be the grammar of the article. I will check up on that every day, though that is a problem in every article I write on here. POV is not an issue, since I was pretty much the only guy who wrote it and tried to be as fair as possible. Zach (Sound Off) 02:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - OK... here's some of my own issues:

1. "The Belarusian Republican Youth Union (BRSM) (Russian: Белорусский республиканский союз молодежи, БРСМ) is a youth group that is organized in the Eastern European country of Belarus." I think this could be worded better....
2. "The goals of the BRSM are to promote patriotism and to instill moral values into the youth of Belarus." POV sentence - moral values are relative! Needs rewording.... maybe something like "The goals of the BRSM are to promote patriotism and to install their own brand of moral values into the youth of Belarus"... well that may be POV too but you get the idea :).
3. Writing style needs a bit of work and is in general too passive.... example:

   "President Lukashenko has said in the past that while membership in the BRSM is not required for advancing into the higher ranks of the government, a person who joins the BRSM has a possibility to increase their chances for success" try something like

   "In the past, President Lukashenko stated that while membership in the BRSM is not required for advancing into the higher ranks of the government, it is possible for a person who joins the BRSM to increase their chances for success"

   Also see my recent edit too. It's fine to use a lot of passive voice, but using too much makes it more dreary then neccessary

A very interesting and unique article - I commend the authors of it. Don't get discouraged! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I have added some of your changes, but the reason why most of the article sounds passive is that most of the information I have is around a few years old, and most of the current information is in Russian, and I was told not to use Babelfish unless I have to. Zach (Sound Off) 03:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Object - The article remains substandard as far as prose. You might consider adding it to "Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit". The "install" issue mentioned in my previous objection remains and the article begins with "is a organized youth group". See "A, an" for details of what is wrong with this. Don't let this nomination disenchant you though, English grammar is difficult to learn and the best way to master it is to learn by doing. That said, unfortunately good grammar is essential for a featured article. Cedars 04:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed that, and I will add the category soon. Zach (Sound Off) 05:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object—this should be on the Peer Review list, not here. Prose needs fixing; not in enough depth. Tony 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, what do you mean by "depth." Am I missing stuff content wise? Zach (Sound Off) 17:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object. I think the prose could be tightened up quite a bit.

1. "The BRSM has been accused of using tactics of coercion and empty promises. . ." I don't think tactics of is needed here.
2. "Lukashenko not only issued a decree to call for. . ." is better written as "Lukashenko not only issued a decree calling for. . ."
3. "President Lukashenko stated in his 2003 address to the nation about the need for. . ." About is not needed.
4. "To be able to join the BRSM, the person must be between the ages of 14 and 31, be able to send a photo of themselves and if they are between the ages of 14 and 16, written permission from their parents or legal guardian must be granted." There are several problems here. First, Be able to is not needed. Second, person is singular, while themselves and their are plural.

There are more, but you get the idea. —Wayward 18:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I fixed those. But really, is the only issues for this article is grammar? If so, please, {{sofixit}}. If you think key information is missing, just let me know. Zach (Sound Off) 18:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• The previous reviewer was exemplifying problems in the prose, not identifying just a few things that need fixing to make it 'compelling, even brilliant' (see criteria for FACs). Saying that you've 'fixed those' is irrelevant; the whole text needs serious attention.
  • I mainly mentioned that I fixed whatever they specifically mentioned.

For an institution that appears to have controversial links with the highest levels of government, the article needs to treat the political and social context in much greater depth. Instead, towards the top, we're treated to trivia such as '... be able to send a photo of themselves and if they are between the ages of 14 and 16, written permission from their parents or legal guardian must be granted. A person must also pay a one time fee of 1,400 rubles (0.65 USD) and must pay a mid-year fee to continue their membership in the BRSM. The total amount of the fee is adjusted based on the person's working and living status and fee waivers are granted for children who are orphaned or disabled.' Wow, really?

This is how the people join the BRSM, and with other youth groups like the Boy Scouts of America, I need to have information on how one person can become a member.

There's not enough coverage of broader views to put Lukashenko's agenda into a NPOV perspective. Just a quote from the great leader at the top, as though this article is propaganda. Tony 03:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That is all I could find, since internet resources on this group is limited. Personally, I have no clue why Lukashenko created the group (I just knew how he done it) or to what extent is use by the Lukashenko Government (but his presence at the recent 29th Congress of the BRSM still shows government support). Zach (Sound Off) 03:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, this was moved by a page vandal, so if this came off your watchlist for a moment, that is what happened. Zach (Sound Off) 03:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• OK, then may I suggest that the nomination be postponed pending further investigation? There's currently a barrier to comprehensive treatment. Tony 04:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and I will let the grammar folks take a stab at it. I could do some more research in time. Zach (Sound Off) 04:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

I understand that this article may not be ready yet for featured article status. A couple of weeks ago this article has gone on a massive diet. The change is somewhat controversial; there're some like me who feel that the change has been too concise and drastic. (A pre-edited version is here [18]. Immediate post-edition version by User:Iago Dali is here [19]. User Iago Dali has since gone on to use the same treatment on many other literary articles) Since then it has gained back a few pounds :-), mainly worked back by User:The Singing Badger and User:Alabamaboy. However, in the early days it was still too concise for me, and I make a few noises about it being too dumbed-down; happily (to me) this article has began to put on more weight than previously. It is agreed on the talk page to bring it here to see which direction this article can move so as to gain FAC status. (Particularly, and if there's anything in the pre-edited state at [1] that needs to be brought back.)Also, if possible, please comment on the treatment used by User Iago Dali, since he has applied this "slimming" treatment to many literary articles, like Hermann Melville, Anton Chekhov, Charles Dickens (some of which are partially reverted). It's a matter of some concern as he does not seem to be open to criticism, insisting that his edits are truly for the better.Mandel 03:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia: peer review. Mandel 04:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Refer to peer review, FAC is not for test runs.--nixie 03:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Norse mythology

Note the timestamp. This article was apparently renominated without making a new FAC page. I would just fix it, but I don't have time now. Tuf-Kat 04:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Recreated from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norse mythology/archive

I believe that the article looks much better now. There are, however, some links that lead to non-existent articles, and some who just redirect to a more general article, but I still think it looks great. It has some great pictures as well. But the "Kings and heroes" and the "the future" sections could improve a little. Some of the articles that are linked to that page are also quite naked, and could use a little improvement. But I do believe that this article can reach FA status, very possible indeed. Satanael 11:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you first announce it on Wikipedia:Peer review so that people can comment on it first.--Wiglaf 11:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose – This article has style problems in lower resolutions. 1) In 800x600, Thor.jpg is responsible for pushing sectional [edit] much lower than necessary. I suggest you add this image under =cosmology=. 2) Bad placement of images. The images should not shear headings, =Völuspá:=, =Centres of faith= are guilty of this. midwinterblot.jpg should be brought under =Human sacrifice=. 3) The ToC is granulated. Headings should be as terse as possible and subheadings minimal. 2.2.1 & 2.2.2 * 6.1 should be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

Comment, 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)

• Support as it is now. Much improved article indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)