Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2004

The Wonderful Wizard of OzEdit

  • Wow. I think this is terrific. Kingturtle 07:10, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • It's about to get a lot better, so I think better to wait a couple of weeks and check again... --Woggly 11:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Objection removed in large part, but would like to give Woggly a chance to do what she will before putting it up for this. Wally 02:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Very nice --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:33, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • Wonderful article. I support. - Moby 11:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Fabulous. It's everything a great encyclopedia entry should be. - Lucky 6.9 21:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anatoly KarpovEdit

Self-nomination. --Etaonish 20:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(This was promoted directly from the objections section without much commentray - restored to candidate status pending more commentary →Raul654 21:51, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC))
  • Object for now. Although it's quite good, I think this article needs some work before it can be featured. There are some POV-ish parts ("which is saddening", "Nigel's success was richly deserved"), and several parts of the text are not wikified even though it seems appropriate. Some chess jargon or chess specific terms might be briefly explained or at least linked. Finally, there's hardly anything to find about Karpov's personal life. I'll go and do some minor edits now, which may "disqualify" me as a voter. Jeronimo 20:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay. Will attempt to update on personal life, but there really isn't much to find on that. Should have reread a bit closely on someone else's work. --Etaonish 21:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Have added much info and wikified. --Etaonish 16:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm withdrawing my objection, and vote neutrally. The article's allright as it is, although I still think some more background would do it good. Tell more about Karpov's second era of being a World Champion, and more about the Kasparov/FIDE-split. Why did Karpov not defend his title in 1999? What is prophylaxis exactly (the article refers to Petrosian, but nothing is said about it there)? Jeronimo 09:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, very well written.--TheEvilLibrarian 11:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Auto rickshawEdit

Self-nomination. Auto rickshaw is a mode of transport in Indian subcontinent. Hope you consider it. -Kesava 05:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, good article though slightly obscure -Aaron Hill 12:54, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fascinating and concise. Support. - Lucky 6.9 21:12, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An example article, which in my opinion, covers almost everything that can be said about the topic in question. I would rate this on par with Crushing by elephant which was featured recently. Chancemill 12:18, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written and, yes, encyclopedic. :) jengod 18:31, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Kaihsu 20:09, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • Neutral - This is perhaps the dullest article I have read all week. I'm not sure it should be featured Dmn 19:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • A neutral vote is not an objection and so I (mis?)use the line "If there are no objections after at least one week, candidates can be added to FA" and add this article to FA. - Kesava 13:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Trench warfareEdit

I've done no work on this except adding three bits of punctuation, but it's an extremely well-organized, informative article on a fascinating topic. Meelar 04:48, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Amazingly comprehensive and detailed. The article itself could use a few more pictures. How about some World War I trench photos? Ex1le 18:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Meticulous! jengod 19:34, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. BTW, I wonder if I'm unique in having relatives (okay, one is the uncle of my step-mother) who experienced trench warfare on both sides? -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good use of pictures and links. -Litefantastic 18:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Plus, this should go on the main page ASAP. -Conover 00:49, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not long enough. Nah only kidding, support. LUDRAMAN | T 14:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • wow. Exploding Boy 15:44, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Adam Bishop 17:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Moby 14:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • A fabulous article worthy of any encyclopedia and a fabulous example of the potential of Wikipedia. Wholeheartedly support! Lucky 6.9 16:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to History section. jengod 19:33, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)


Article on the county in England mainly developed to its current state by myself. I believe it's a good model for other county articles to copy. I finally decided to list it here because I've managed to find some artwork to display alongside Morwen's marvellous maps. Graham :) 00:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow, that is tremendously comprehensive. Is it too comprehensive? Kingturtle 05:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Well there's nothing there that you won't find on any of the other county articles, except due to my local knowledge there is every single place in the county. I think it would be a travesty to not include those, but I suppose what you could do is to move the full list to a separate article and just have the key places in the main Buckinghamshire article. -- Graham :) 16:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's great, there's a lovely sense of politics and geography shaping the county. I will second it if we can break the long list of places off onto its own page. I think a list of (say 20?) principle towns/cities should remain on this article (you'll need to pick them, I have no idea!), and there can be a link to the entire list of cities/towns/villages in Bucks. How does that sound? fabiform | talk 18:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • How is it now? -- Graham :) 21:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Excellent work. Still, it seems too much. Maybe Famous people from Bucks should be List of people from Buckinghamshire, and Towns in Buckinghamshire should be List of towns in Buckinghamshire? Maybe? What do you think? Kingturtle 22:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • No I disagree, and I quite like fabiform's edits making the lists into two columns. -- Graham :) 23:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with it now. The famous people seem fine on the main article to me. I've just tweaked the two lists of places so there's less white space. Anyway, I second this article now. :) fabiform | talk 22:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely lavishing of locale-loving effort on what is at first blush an unremarkably-shaped county. Fine form for future neighborhood mavens to mimic. +sj+ 02:05, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Added to Geography section. Gentgeen 05:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Single malt ScotchEdit

  • Added to new food and drink category by Pcb21. 00:00, 6 April 2004

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis TertiusEdit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

About a famous short story by Jorge Luis Borges that makes an enormous number of references to non-fictional individuals, many not well known in the English-speaking world. I believe that this article is the first good English-language guide for the perplexed. I didn't write all of it, but at this point it is mostly my work. -- Jmabel 05:08, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Lovely article (hence I'm moving this out of self-noms to uncontested). Jmabel, would you mind having a look at my copyedit? In the spirit of being bold, I corrected what looked to me like obvious errors but given the subject matter I can't be entirely sure (especially inside quotes from the story). --Bth 10:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I am not supporting or opposing this one yet. I think it has potential, but it needs a lot of copyedits. Kingturtle 04:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Following some suggestions by Kingturtle, I've kept strengthening this. I'd appreciate a few more people weighing in, either to endorse as a Feature or to let me know how they'd like to see it improved. -- Jmabel 07:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • This article has gone through some substantial edits. The article is more clear (as clear as such a topic can be). I endorse it now. But it would be helpful for others to give it the once-over. Kingturtle 19:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A lovely article indeed. When I compare it to still-unfeatured articles like Congo Free State, however, it falls short. Could use better wikification, structure. +sj+ 12:05, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly Object Support. I'd like to see a better organizing template (broken into historical background / context of author's other works / plot summary / analysis by others), rather than a combination of (historical bakground + analysis). However, there are precious few serious articles on fiction in WP right now, and this is a notable exception. Looking at other featured articles, I feel they should all set an example for other articles in the same genre -- having an elegant non-trivial format which helps highlight key pieces of information (useful for future authors of new articles of that type), treating some aspect of the subject, or a few of them, with special affection, &c. This article has excellent content, but is not a template model for others yet... there is parenthetical information repeated in this article which might better be left to linked-to articles, and information from other writers' analyses of the work which could be extracted and paraphrased. Despite the lengthy discussion of the book's publication process, there is a link to only one published version of the story. There could be further and better-categorized links to external analyses of such an unusual work. +sj+ 12:26, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • With +sj's change of view, I have moved this to Nominations without objections.
  • Support. Presents quite a bit of valuable context. Smerdis of Tlön 03:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to Literature category by Pcb21 09:13, 6 April 2004

Soap bubbleEdit

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989Edit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

  • A lengthy, NPOV and well-written article on a controversial issue. Ambivalenthysteria 07:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Need to be wikified. Colipon 16:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Otherwise good. Fredrik 17:33, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Can you give me an example of where this needs to happen? I didn't write the article, but if you can point me in the right direction, I'll fix it up anyway. Ambivalenthysteria 06:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it needs to be wikified. there are enough links. --Jiang 09:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • A few sections would also be nice. --mav 06:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Good, but I agree sections would help. Markalexander100 08:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks good now. Markalexander100 08:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The article should be fine now. whkoh [talk][[]] 10:33, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Would there be any objections to moving this back to nominations without objections then? Ambivalenthysteria 12:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Support; simple, lovely example of a good feature. No objections to moving it, as the objections have been addressed. I'll move it in a minute, when I move a few others. +sj+ 01:39, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • support. --Jiang 19:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Some anti-CPC biases slip in, student protestors are romanticized periodically, etc. But still, one would expect the biases to be far more overt on WP, given the subject matter. 172 23:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Added to History by Raul654 on 04:37, 7 April 2004

James Bulger murder caseEdit

Leopold and LoebEdit

ROC presidential election, 2004Edit

  • Added to History by Raul654 00:00, 7 April 2004

Labor marketEdit

Well written example of an economics article. Jrincayc 18:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I would second that, but I dont know if I am allowed to seeing as I contributed to the article. Just one minor thing, both the English and the American spellings of labour/labor are used. I dont know if this is a problem.mydogategodshat 23:17, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Not opposing or supporting yet. Someone needs to edit out the royal we bits. I think it happens about 7 times. Kingturtle 04:55, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I have eliminated all the "we's" I found, and fixed the spelling inconsistancy. mydogategodshat 05:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't like to criticize someone's work, but I find the graphs hard to read. The lines are all too thick and too soft, and the text on several is impossible to read. That said, the content is very informative. Isomorphic 07:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I've redrawn the graphs, they're not as colorful, but the lines are thinner and the text darker. fabiform | talk 03:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot. Much easier to read the graphs now (at least for me.) Isomorphic 04:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear, compelling and reasonably comprehensive. (further discussion of nonclassical views of labor markets is needed, but it's hard to find those anywhere) +sj+ 22:39, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Added to Featured Articles in Economics Section Jrincayc 14:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the American Civil WarEdit

This article was featured but was de-listed due to its page size and due to a questionable previous nomination/approval phase. The size issue has been fixed, but since the change was a very significant one and since a series instead of a single article on a single page is being nominated, and since the original nomination/approval is in question, it needs to go through this process again.

  • This is an excellent, if a bit long (it is divided up into 4 pages), article on a very important and often misunderstood part of U.S. history. It covers the topic very well, is well-illustrated and wikified, and has been copyedited. This article has also been cited by outside sources as a great example of Wikipedia content (172 will have to provide the link). I wholeheartedly support re-adding this article as an example of great Wikipedia content. --mav 21:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Coherent and compelling article/series; makes the reader wish it were longer. Due to recent moves, still needs a final pass of copy-editing; I found one instance of an uncompleted sentence which I hope I completed correctly... (diff) +sj+ 21:47, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
    • Support. --Alex S 22:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Jeff8765 03:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. -- Shakeer 07:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (Copy editing completed).Markalexander100 07:36, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to History. +sj+ 13:11, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

Ford MustangEdit

I'm extremely pleased to have contributed to this listing's growth. Someone even took the time to add metric subscripts to it! Again, thanks for your consideration. 0:28, 8 April 2004 (UTC) Lucky 6.9

  • Object - for now: Paragraphs way too long. Sections also needed - but not too many. It also sounds a bit too glowing and ra-ra to me = POV issues (see NPOV). There is also spurious bolding. Things like Cobra Jet should not be bolded (only self-redirects should be bolded - then only bolded the first time they are mentioned). --mav 00:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the tip, Mav. I've been a fan of the car for years and I admit to being somewhat enthusiastic. I trust you'll find the update to be more NPOV. If we can get this article "detailed out" and worthy of featuring before the Mustang's fortieth anniversary on April 19, so much the better! -- Lucky 6.9 04:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Looks much better. I withdraw my objection. --mav
  • Support. Meticulous and informative. Chris Roy 04:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The changes improved the article greatly, but I'd like to see one more picture: something between the '69 and the '05 - maybe a picture of a model from the 1980s (even though I wasn't terribly fond of that design, it'd kind of bridge the gap in terms of pictures). RADICALBENDER 15:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Another great tip...thanks, Bender. There are now BBS photos of a '78, an '85 and a '99. Anyone have a good photo of the 1971-1973 version? Lucky 6.9 00:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Cool. I think it looks good. I support this as well. RADICALBENDER 02:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I did some copyediting and broke up some paras. I think it should be featured. RickK 01:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • There are still obvious POV issues with this article where subjective opinions are asserted without objective justification (these may be true assertions, but there's nothing to substantiate them in the article, and the choice of words is promotional). A few examples:
    "It was the most successful product launch in automotive history, setting off near-pandemonium at Ford dealers across the continent."
    "Looking like a car that cost hundreds of dollars more ..."
    "An enormous list of options ..."
    "it could be ordered from "mild to wild", ..."
    "The Boss Is Back" as a section header
  • Also, is there no other POV than a promotional one (is there no history of factory recalls, for example)? - Bevo 15:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Per my e-mail response to Bevo, all of the points mentioned are based in fact and can easily be further substantiated. Stories abound of the "near-pandemonium" mentioned in the first paragraph, and the option list was among the most comprehensive of all time. I'd be glad to expand on any of the objections raised, but I respectfully submit that listing factory recalls would be answering a question that no one is asking. I think there's an Internet site that lists recall history on virtually any car ever made, so a link is certainly an option. Regarding the POV objection, very little negative press was written about the early car, but increased through the years leading up to the 1979 model. That's not to say early criticism isn't out there. I've seen it and I'd welcome the opportunity to see more. For example, I can say with certainty that most history books I've read have less than glowing reviews of the Boss 429. Out of the box it was slower and more expensive than the 428 Super Cobra Jet. Thanks again, Bevo, and please know your criticism is most appreciated. Lucky 6.9 22:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it. Support. →Raul654 23:09, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good article. I support - Moby 11:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to the Technology section. Chris Roy 21:01, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Self-nomination. I've done quite a bit of work on this from its previous version and am quite proud of it. Support or oppose, I'm nevertheless happy for any comments anyone might have on the article as it stands. Wally 23:18, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. As with Kitsch, I love the page and it is very informative. But I hope more pictures are added that deal with other sections of the world, since people have been getting whacked all over the place. But otherwise, nice. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:47, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article has been nominated previously, but several objections were raised. I think Wally has done a good job in addressing each point. Securiger 00:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Well written, with good pictures [one of which I added myself] :) →Raul654 02:49, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. These guys are way cooler than ninjas. Smerdis of Tlön 02:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'll agree with LordSuryaofShropshire that it could probably stand another picture or two representing assassins/assassinations in the rest of the world. - jredmond 16:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to the Politics and Government section.

Asperger's syndromeEdit

This is a very well written and informative article. Perl 15:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Fredrik 15:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, I enjoyed reading this, it flowed very naturally. fabiform | talk 23:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Acegikmo1 07:16, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Schnee 09:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, for now. Most of the article seems excellent, but the list of "possible people with Aspergers" is unsourced (is it just by random Wikipedians?) and it's hard to evaluate its basis and reliability. Some people on the list (or their descendants) may furthermore be offended by their thinly-justified inclusion on it. Steven G. Johnson 19:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you would support if we removed the list? I agree with yu about the list being unsourced and I think it should probably be shortened or removed. Perl 20:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I would support if the list were removed, or shortened to those people for whom an explicit citation to a reputable source could be given. Steven G. Johnson
        • I changed the section and added a little context. See if it looks right now. Perl 01:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I've edited the article a little further to make it clear that such "biographical" diagnoses remain controversial, and added a reference. I withdraw my objection, and am now neutral. Steven G. Johnson 03:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dpbsmith 02:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) Best-written article I've seen recently, one of the few that might IMHO actually qualify as "brilliant prose," not just a good encyclopedia article. Maybe not quite up to John McPhee but "not quite as good as John McPhee" is pretty high praise. Dpbsmith 02:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm just curious: Do you mean the writings of John McPhee or the article John McPhee (or am I just missing something)? Acegikmo1
      • Oh, I meant the writings of John McPhee who is in my arrogant opinion one of the best nonfiction writers. In the world. Ever. Never even thought that someone might think that I was referring to the stubby and mediocre Wikipedia article. on him. McPhee is delightful; I can pick up a John McPhee book on some subject that doesn't interest you at all and within one page I get hooked and read it nonstop to the end. The Curve of Binding Energy is really good, BTW... Dpbsmith 13:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised... the prose puts me off, and is one of my main reasons for holding off on supporting featured status. +sj+ 22:13, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Support with one caveat. Is there a way to break up the characteristics section into two sections? I find myself swimming in it a bit, though the writing itself is good. If there's no way to break it up, I support anyway, but I would love it if the section could be partitioned somehow. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 18:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gandalf61 10:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, for its interest and quality of writing. Pfortuny 08:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. Personally, I have a very strong interest in this issue; although I've never been officially diagnosed, I've become convinced that I'm an "Asperger" myself. But even if I didn't have a personal interest in the content, I'd still support. Dale Arnett 15:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. There's a fantastic article waiting to be made out of autism and Asperger's syndrome, but neither one is quite there yet. Arguing against featured art status: inconstant (and incomplete) wikification, colloquial non-encyclopedic language, and lacking historical context (how has the meaning of these notions/terms/syndromes changed over the past 100 years?). The article could be much improved by someone with a high-level view of the entire field of related mental states and conditions (and with a clinical detachment from AS itself). +sj+ 22:05, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
    • Also, more detail is needed before this should be featured; among other things, AS should be distinguished from other types of 'high-functioning' autism, and definitional issues (which older classifications/diagnoses can be classified as AS, now that [for the past 20 years] it exists as a separate classification?).
  • Support. I have been diagnosed with it, and I find that this article, aside from being extremely well-written and organized, describes myself better than I could ever hope to on my own power. Gus 00:33, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)


Created FAC from original nomination here.

Good stuff, this. I'm putting it under self [when self-nominations and others were still separate - —Eloquence] because I've copy edited it a bit, but it's a very well-done piece. jengod 06:35, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Congo Free StateEdit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

Superb work on a topic that strikingly overlooked and difficult to research in scholarship, especially by User:Tannin, who must've expended quite a deal of effort, given the attention to detail and sources. This article provides excellent background for anyone trying to understand the civil war in the Congo since August '98. Mobutu's post-independence "kleptocracy" is the heir to the plunder of the Congo Free State. More recently, before the July 2003 power-sharing agreement, the DRC saw much of the same, with warring parties intentionally prolonging the conflict to plunder diamonds, gold, coltan, and timber. Although refugee agencies often attribute 2.5- 3.3 million deaths - directly or indirectly - to the civil war, reliable news from Congo is still so hard to find. It's to Wiki's credit that such an easy-to-overlook topic wasn't left to languish as a stub. 172 18:07, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Not ready for Feature. Needs more editing, more wikifying...needs to be adjusted for the everyday reader to understand. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I made some changes for the sake of accessibity and presentaion. (Nothing substantial - so this isn't a "self-nomination" by any means) Are the changes enough for you to withdraw the objection? 172 23:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I spent an hour or so wikifying and performing small edits. I also listed some comments and questions on the talk page of the article. We need to get some other opinions and editors involved. I still don't think it is ready. Kingturtle 10:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • No one has worked on this since my Feb 21 comments. Please see my comments and questions on the talk page of the article. Kingturtle 05:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • User:Markalexander100 went through Kingturtle's list of questions and comments and gave the article a final round of copyediting. I'll put this on the main page once Kingturtle's ready to withdraw the objections. 172 11:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • I have no more objections. I have one last series of comments I place at the bottom of the TALK page. But I have no more objections. Kingturtle 05:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This is indeed a superb article. On my short list of "what to show potential WP converts". Support. +sj+ 02:09, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • I just "discovered" this article today through hitting the random page button and I have to say that I think it is a really great article. I came here to nominate it and I find that it's already here. I fully support this becoming a featured article. Mintguy (T)
  • Support. I think all Kingturtle's points have now been addressed. Markalexander100 03:37, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Added by Raul654 on 23:56, 19 April 2004

Greek artEdit

Excellent article, illustrated with a number of relevant images. Ambivalenthysteria 12:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Fredrik 15:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great looking article, but needs to be wikified before it is granted featured article status. Ex1le 21:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I was immediately struck by two things: the title (should it be Ancient Greek art?) and the links and references (there are none, not even to related Wikipedia topics). Oppose for now. Exploding Boy 15:59, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I'm pretty sure User:Adam Carr (who wrote the article) thinks it is still unfinished. Adam Bishop 17:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Promoted by Raul654, 16:18, 11 April 2004
Renamed Art in Ancient Greece



Support: Hinduism is a vast, vast religion which contains many diverse and colorful practices, philosophies and scriptures. For this reason, the newly-overhauled page (having taken into consideration many comments made on its prior nomination) is a completely different article from before. I think it does a great job of condensing a massive faith, with many variant beliefs, into a single page with clear, readable prose. Also, you'll be surprised at how many inter-wiki links related to Hinduism have similar depth and thus make for good surfing. All in all ambitious, informative, fun and NPOV. Questions, comments, criticisms? --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:47, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Breathtakingly detailed. In favor. Wally 23:31, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Quite good. In favor. - Nat Krause 10:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Very well developing article. In favor - Moby 11:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Our maximum length per article is about 30,000 characters, above that length an article should be split up. This article is presently over 70,000 characters long, which is far too large. I suggest moving out and summarizing very long sections. Furthermore, the copyright status of some of the images is a bit wishy-washy. Where it says "used with permission", did you ask for permission to use the images under the FDL? If so, please flag them with {{msg:GFDL}}; if not, we cannot use them. Image:Jagganath Mandir.gif claims "public domain pic." - where is it from? As for the graphics which are contended to be fair use, I find that somewhat doubtful. The Hindu symbols could be drawn by Wikipedia contributors, we don't need fair use there, and it deters other people from creating a free image. Is Image:Sankara.jpg a public domain painting? It looks modern, but has no copyright information. Image:TA43 wallpaper.jpg seems to be very clearly of commercial value and pure entertainment, so it is doubtful whether we can and should claim fair use. Please read and follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Fair use.--Eloquence* 12:14, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Your objections are quite valid. Along with others, the issue of length was discussed, but due to the nature of Hinduism itself, it was rather difficult. To address that, would it be acceptable to split the article into a sort of (1of3), (2of3),(3of3) situation? I will of course try to try individual sections, but to halve this massive blend of different streams is a little difficult, even for a summary article, as one intends to give as complete, while succinct, a picture as possible. That brings me to the pictures... I have removed Jagannath picture (the temple) as it is not public domain. My mistake. The Image:TA43 wallpaper.jpg (Krishna picture) is part of ISKCON art, which is freely distributable as long as use is not commerical and the picture is not altered. The two AUM symbols are both from Hinduism Today and they are in favor of distribution without commercial use. The Sadhu picture I have permission for and the picture of the Brahmin boy, the Rama statue and the 'Hindu Woman' are all from the Birodkar page freely distributable with non-commercial uses. I will remove the Shankara picture as it was uploaded by someone else and I thought it had been cleared. I believe this should cover image use policy. So, 1) length, can we split into 2 or 3 sections of the same article? and 2) have I taken care of your objections? --LordSuryaofShropshire 13:46, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Commercial use is one of the freedoms that the GNU Free Documentation License and, by extension, Wikipedia grants on its content. That's why "no commercial use" images are highly problematic and may be removed at any time. Please tag them with {{msg:noncommercial}} so they can be easily found and removed if we decide to get rid of all these images (some Wikipedians, including Jimbo Wales, think they already shouldn't exist, while others have for the time being succeeded in defending their existence on Wikipedia). As for the splitting up, I strongly dislike "1", "2", "3" type splitting. Why not have, for example, an article Hindu belief systems? That seems to be by far the largest section in the current article. You could write a brief one or two paragraph intro and have a link "Main article: Hindu belief systems".--Eloquence* 14:05, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, since for the moment non-commercial use pictures are allowed, I have stamped them and all the images on the Hinduism page, I believe, comply with needed standards of approval. As for the editing down... 30,000 is the highest recommended, but I hope there can be some leeway on this giant topic... I have reduced the page text to around 40,000 (w/o spaces) 52,000 (w/ spaces) from 70,000. I think with such a large number of topics that's pretty good. How now?
          • Please add the {{msg:noncommercial}} tag to the image pages (click the image and then "edit this page"). The article is still at 52K (and of course spaces need to be counted!). Sorry, but you will have to get it down at least to 40K. If I find some time tomorrow I'll try to help.--Eloquence* 15:18, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
        • Hinduism article (with spaces!) is at 40K 30K (THIRTY K!). The images have been labeled (within their pages and on the Hinduism page). And now? --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:44, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
          • Looks a lot better now. I withdraw my objections. I haven't read it in full yet so I cannot support, but a quick glance suggests it could use one more rough copyedit.--Eloquence* 00:41, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is still above the 30KB limit and there seem to be way too many small sections (esp in the philosophy section). There is very little point in giving each paragraph a title - this would also allow for more summarizing for sections with main articles (I count one so far - one more should take care of the size issue). The lead section also looks too long and should be reduced to three paragraphs - an overview section could then be created for the rest of the material. --mav 00:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I have done a lot of editing based on your suggestions. The size of the page is now 32K 30K (THIRTY K!) (from 70K earlier today). I have also thoroughly cleaned up the topic page and done lots of summarizing. Please check it out and tell me if this does away with your objections. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:46, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Objection withdrawn. --mav
  • Object - the image captions are horrendiously placed. They completely break the manual of style. →Raul654 18:14, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please check the Hinduism article and see if my edits have rectified the caption problems. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:47, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Much better. One more (minor) comment - the top of the article says "Hinduism [is] the oldest of the major world religions... It has its origin in Vedic culture as far back as a conservative 2000 BCE." I believe 2004 is the 5764th year on the Jewish calendar, which would date it back (at least) to 3760 BCE. So I'd like some evidence further backing up that claim. Other than that, the article looks good to me. →Raul654 21:00, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
        • Generally, the consensus among scholars is that Hinduism is the oldest religion. Also, the Jewish calendar is based on the date of creation, not the incipience of its faith, which is marked by the coming of Abraham circa 1900-1600BCE.--LordSuryaofShropshire 21:17, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • Ok, that's sufficent for me then. The formatting was pretty crazy, so I went in and worked on that. It looks a lot better now. I support. →Raul654 00:33, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Just want to publicly mention my thanks to Eloquence, mav and Raul654... I don't think I could have fathomed, 3 days ago, that the page would be slashed around 55%!!! of its original content, that so many holes in image policy would be filled up, and that its overall structure/prose would be so changed for the better. The credit goes to you. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:12, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)


Created FAC from original nomination here.

A fine example of an article that was once little more than a dictionary stub, and has been turned into an interesting and in-depth article. Smerdis of Tlön 01:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support: Very lovely page with lots of interesting information. I was going to object... but instead I'll tentatively support but would hope the people most involved in the page would give it two or three pictures to illustrate. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:22, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Kingturtle 06:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support.--TheEvilLibrarian 11:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Added by Ihcoyc on 13:25, 20 April 2004

Ludwig WittgensteinEdit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

There is an unfortunate dearth of featured Philosophy articles ('tpbradbury': 4 articles as of 11 april, see my comment below), and this is one of the best on the pedia. I'm sure everyone will agree there's no reason it shouldn't be featured. --Conover 15:10, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)~

  • Support. Articles like this give substance to Wiki project.
  • Neutral. It's a good article, but:
    1. It could say much more about Wittgenstein as a person -- he was a very complicated human being. His association with John Maynard Keynes (see tpbradbury 11 apr 2004 comment below) isn't even mentioned; his gradual falling out with Bertrand Russell is only hinted at; there is nothing on how his family came to have a princely name; there is nothing on the intricate negotiations he and his brother Paul carried on to save his sisters in Austria from the Nazis; etc.
    2. It could give a much clearer view of the development of his thought: what threads run through the Tractatus period and the Phil. Investigations period, and (conversely) where they differ.
    3. There should probably be at more than a paragraph on his views on mathematics (maybe a separate article?).
    4. There should be far more on his influence on later thinkers, which is massive.
None of this adds up to withholding support, but I hope no one will consider the article "finished". -- Jmabel 03:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I hear and agree with your concerns. However, the fact remains that there are very, very few philosophy articles that are featured, and this would be a good start. If nothing else, it's only going to improve in the future. -- Conover 04:26, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not competent to judge its philosophical or biographical quality; but it looks like a good candidate after a bit of cleanup. It can use some copy editing, and there's a weird non-paragaph in the middle of the Tractatus section that needs to have something done with it, probably by someone who has read the book. Dandrake 04:44, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. Sure, one can complain about certain definiciencies (especially as relates to impact and cross-connections), but that's even true ab. monographs. Wittgenstein is tricky; this is a really good intro - superior to most "dead tree" short encyclopedia entries on W. I know. Clossius 18:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - needs minor changes (no factual ones that I noticed) but not necessarily before given 'feature' status. Pretty competent article. There is some tightening-up to be done on the way some sentences run but I would say this is almost ""'finished'"" in terms of an encyclopaedia article. *#There are currently 4 featured articles in philosophy section: Freewill, Paradox, Frankfurt School, Law of Demeter. Wittgenstein article is miles ahead of Law of Demeter article and about the same standard of the others, perhaps better than Paradox article.
    1. Have read quite a few summaries of Wittgenstein's life and work and this is one of the best for this length (4400 words). Agree with many comments made by others above especially Jmabel and Conover. Probably reached good amount of content to become a featured article.Ironic that trench warfare is the next article. Specific comments:
    2. Keynes is mentioned as of 11 apr 2004 even if he wasn't before, although more could be written about this.
    3. 'Later work' section is very small. Later work always includes philosophical investigations in my experience. Could extend this section with more titles or integrate it into the rest of the article.
    4. Need to use ' more than " when quoting from tractatus
    5. Will try and make some of these changestpbradbury 18:09, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely support. Very well composed overview of Wittgenstein. - Moby 11:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is miles ahead of Frankfurt School :-). Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear, informative and well-written. Gandalf61 14:43, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Added by Raul654 on 16:58, 15 April 2004


Created fac from original nomination here.

I stumbled on this page expecting to find a small dictionary definition or a disambiguation page. Boy was I wrong! :) Thought-out and well-written, it's a very good example of how a seemingly innocuous article can be expanded greatly. RADICALBENDER 15:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Well written and informative.Exploding Boy 03:14, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I don't think it is the best title for the content. Ambivalenthysteria 12:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. While it covers the history of mail well, it says nothing about actual types of letters and postcards (till i added in a tiny bit). LUDRAMAN | T 14:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • This is why I think the article would be better titled Postal services, or something similar. Ambivalenthysteria 23:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Added in a section on mail (letters, etc.) itself. RADICALBENDER 17:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Nicely done. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:03, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)


Seems very wide-ranging, well-written and comprehensive. jengod 07:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems neutral and informative. Saul Taylor 11:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambivalenthysteria 12:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The second image there is a little dicey... not clearly prostitution at all. +sj+ 05:27, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
  • Support. Kagredon 03:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Moncrief 07:14, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)


Recreated FAC from here:

Fredrik and I have put a lot of work into revamping this article lately, and though we're not quite finished yet, I think it's pretty damn good as it is right now. Any feedback on it would definitely be appreciated. Sarge Baldy 09:38, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Meh. Support probably - its a fairly good article but couldn't it be longer? Ludraman | Talk 10:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Hrm, well, I think this nomination should wait a few days so the remaining work can be done first ;) Fredrik 18:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • As Fredrik explained, this article is not yet ready. Kingturtle 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I have read the edits so far...and the article still needs streamlining and better organization. Kingturtle 18:52, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Wouldn't it be a good idea to wait until the release of Doom 3? jacoplane
          • No, the article has nothing whatsoever to do with doom 3, that has its own page elsewhere. DOOM is about Doom and its immediate sequels. Sarge Baldy 01:10, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Schnee 17:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Quoth 04:17, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Now that is a danged fine article. Detailed information, clear and well organized sections, reads fluidly. Support whole-heartedly. --zandperl 21:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Strikes a nice balance between discussing the game and discussing the effects it had. I think this should be a feature article now, but that we should reserve making it the mainpage feature until the release of (the very eagerly awaited) DOOM3. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely support. Well-written, compelling, comprehensive. +sj+ 00:46, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't know why a couple of people are going on about Doom 3. If you've seen the reports and betas of the new one, it's a completely different game, not to mention that it's over a decade separated from the original. DOOM stands alone, and this ia a great page. I will help section it, since I have fond memories as a little 9 year-old of my brother installing it on my old 486, 5 1/4" floppies and all... <sniff> support. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:24, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. →Raul654 21:35, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Promoted by Raul654 on 21:39, April 16, 2004