Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2004

Medieval literatureEdit

  • Medieval literature - I'm rather proud of my little's still perhaps on the short side, but I think it's a nice summary of a big topic. If you think it's incomplete, well, tell me why, as I would love to see others join me in expanding the article. :) Jwrosenzweig 16:45, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Although I lack much knowledge of the topic, the article is well-written and, considering that it was written largely by a single person, it's thorough. Second. Chris Roy 03:58, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vacuous truthEdit

  • Vacuous truth - an entry speaking of a mathematical subject, that I actually learned something from, and was entertained by readin. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:14, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Clear and entertaining. moink 20:20, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The article is generally fine-to-excellent, but the section dealing with the following sentence needs attention:
      • If Peter wins the lottery tomorrow, then he will buy a new house.
    • The treatment assumes that this "natural language" statement must be treated as a formal statement in conventional two-valued logic. There are other (perhaps more plausible) treatments. Suppose, for example, that Peter did not win the lottery on the specified day, but that Peter was in fact dead at the time the utterance was made. Must we say that, in retrospect, the statement was true at the time the utterance was made simply because Peter did not win the lottery? We might say it was false because there is an implicit (and false) claim that Peter was alive at the time the utterance was made; or we might say that for this kind of "if/then" statement about the future to be true at the time it is proposed, there must be some possibility that the consequent will be true. In brief, let's not encourage confusion between meaning and symbolic logic. Peak 09:20, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mandarin (linguistics)Edit

Mitochondrial EveEdit

  • Mitochondrial Eve. "I not only tremendously enjoyed reading this article, but have since discussed what I learned here with family and friends. Well done Jack" (posted 05:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC) in seconding a self-nomination)
    • Seconded. Very good article. Gentgeen 06:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.Edit

  • Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge the content critically. Certainly reads as a solid, well-written, "encyclopedic" article with good, even coverage of the topic, a good photograph, etc. Dpbsmith 14:39, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indus Valley CivilizationEdit

Invalid featured few weeks ago, see Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilization#Featured_article for details. Defeatured and renominated, since it is up to FAC status now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old nomination
  • Indus Valley Civilization An outstanding example of multiple authors evolving a well-written, polished and professional entry. Wetman 02:53, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Object; my complaint that I made when it appeared on the front page remains unresolved, there's no map. --Golbez 22:43, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Explain how it didn't go through FAC properly last time. Everyking 23:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe what he is saying is that it was a featured article, and it was defeatured (IE, listed on wikipedia:featured article removal candiadates where consensus was to remove it), and that he is renominating it now. →Raul654 02:28, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, yeah, but what caused it to be defeatured? I mean, I can't really talk about it being featured now unless I know why it was defeatured before. Everyking 12:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a whole civilization here. Granted it's a pretty obscure one, but can't we get some more detail? I'm not asking for the article to grow massively, but I'd like to see the article fleshed out enough that we can at least see a few more subarticles branched off. That's not an object per se, though, because that's partially not an objection that can be addressed with this particular article. Everyking 15:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. It doesn't matter why it was defeatured, we simply have to evaluate the present version for feature-worthiness. First of all, references are missing. A map is missing -- is the "larger than Mesopotamia+Egypt" claim justified, if most of the settlements are along the Indus? and, most difficult in this article, the "Sarasvati" conjectures have to be cleanly separated from the archaeological evidence. many wordings are suggestive, i.e. "we would like there to be a connection, but we cannot prove it". This is the stuff cranks thrive on, and we have to be very conscientous about what to include. Some parts sound more than dreams of a Golden Age than matter of fact description of archaeological remains. examples:
    • Its writing system, Indus script, remains undeciphered, and it is not known whether it gave birth to the later Brahmi script. — note: there is a 1000 years gap between the Indus "script" and Brahmi. We could as well say "it is not known whether it gave birth to the Japanese script".
    • The people of Indus were great lovers of the fine arts, and especially dancing, painting, and sculpture.
    • For 700 years, the Indus civilization provided its peoples with prosperity and abundance and its artisans produced goods of surpassing beauty and excellence.
    • geologists used satellite photographs to trace the course of ancient rivers through the Indus Valley, identifying them with the legendary Sarasvati River. (geologists 'identified' a prehisotoric river with a legendary one? reference?)
    • It is puzzling that the most ancient Vedic texts speak of a beautiful river, the Sarasvati. They recall a thriving, utopian lifestyle that emerged along its banks. it is puzzling that there are rivers mentioned in the vedas?? 'utopian lifestyle'? in the eye of the beholder, I should say
    • Perhaps the most important legacy of the Indus civilization, if such a legacy exists, was its apparent non-violence (in contrast to the warlike Indo-Europeans) — strike this blatant piece of pov
  • Even after they are toned down, most of these statements could do with some sort of reference. dab () 15:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object strongly. No references. This is a subject that is almost impossible to be accurate and NPOV without good research. - Taxman 03:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Foundation SeriesEdit

  • Foundation Series - Pretty much covers the entire series, history, the add ons, the impact on pop culture, et al. Article flows very nicely as well. Number 3 on a google search (1 and 2 are --Raul654 17:30, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC) (Self Nomination)
    • Support. Although maybe I'm biased, as I love this series. But I did a few things reading this, and I doubt there's much more to say on the subject. Sarge Baldy 08:44, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Object. spelling and grammar errors (now corrected). Text scores grade 12 on the Flesch-Kincaid scale - too complex. Edmilne 21:19, Dec 26, 2003 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the fixes. IMO, just because it has elaborate sentence structure (hence, a high score on the FK scale) doesn't mean it is not "brilliant prose". --Raul654 22:57, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • And for the record, I ran it through the analyzer here. It came up as 11.1 as-is, and 10.7 when you omit the list of books at the end (all those titles have longs words with lots of syllables; hence a noticably higher score). I don't think it's as complicated as Edilne considers it to be. --Raul654 13:55, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. I honestly cannot see that being well-written and not dumbed-down is a reason for not adding to BP. Bmills 14:24, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Good article, and the writing is not opaque or complex or loaded with sesquipedalian classicisms. Perhaps this discussion ought to go to Village Pump: is an article sub-standard if it requires (according to a mechanical test) a high-school education to read? Dandrake 20:20, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support, and I completely disagree that an entry requiring a certain level of reading ability in any way reduces its value. If your too dumb to read the article, forget about reading the series! Jack 04:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Given that this has been listed here for nearly three weeks, with a vote of 5-1 ("nearly unanimous" is the criteria set forth above), I'm tempted to declare the matter decided and put it into the Briliant prose list. --Raul654 07:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Created FAC from original nomination here.

Added by Filiocht on 12:53, 29 January 2004

Ralph YarboroughEdit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

  • Ralph Yarborough - I wrote all of this article starting from nothing using mostly the Handbook of Texas and Texas Almanac. (Jan. 15 8:34CST).
    • I second this. The article is very well-written, and the prose is bright and imaginative. - Scooter 09:23, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Palm Sunday tornado outbreak of 1965Edit

Created FAC from original nomination here.


Created FAC from original nomination here.

  • Geyser -- Partly self-nomiated by: mav 01:00, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I like this too but sadly can't be an official seconder ... the few photos mav didn't take I did! Pete 13:03, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
    • Looks good. How about some more links and a bibliography?—Eloquence 06:55, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've added additional links and a small bibliography in need of expansion by someone actually familiar with this subject. :-) The rest of the article I found comprehensive, informative, and perspicuous—entirely deserving of being called Brilliant Prose. Second. Chris Roy 08:36, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Added 20 Jan 04

Concept albumEdit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

  • Concept album - very well written, incluing the history. Amazingly long/complete list of albums. --Raul654 17:43, 22 Dec 2003

Julius CaesarEdit

  • Julius Caesar - Definitely looks like brilliant prose to me. - Sarge Baldy 12:06, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. The material is extensive and well-presented. If anything, I believe there should be more links from this page to the supporting material. Scooter 02:05, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Split infinitiveEdit

  • Split infinitive Well written, technically deep, logically presented. Dpbsmith 17:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Second, Gentgeen 12:34, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • And third Tuf-Kat 03:59, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • ...and fourth! It's well done. - Scooter 05:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dreyfus affairEdit

From the original nomination. Article was promoted 12:52, 29 January 2004 by Filiocht.

Representative peerEdit

Created FAC from original nomination here.

Added by Filiocht on 12:53, 29 January 2004