Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2004

(I Can't Get No) SatisfactionEdit

Self-nom. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, and why not?--Crestville 22:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. cool. dab 13:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent, as always. Ambi 14:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see more on the cover versions. More than one sentence paragraphs, you know. I think that, during the famous performance in which Britney Spears stripped down to that flesh-colored bodysuit and sang "Oops!...I Did It Again", she started out by singing her cover of "Satisfaction". I think I'm remembering that correctly, although I guess the music wasn't the foremost thing in my mind. Wasn't that at the MTV Video Music Awards, in 2000, I guess? Add something about that. Everyking 11:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't find any mention of that at all on Google. This and this are the closest I could get, which isn't much. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Christ in Heaven, I assure you it happened, I distinctly recall it. Well, I may be insane, one can never rule it out. The problem, I imagine, is that you searched for "bodysuit". You ought to know to keep search terms as simple as possible so as to be more inclusive. Search for "Satisfaction", "Oops", "Video Music Awards", "strip"/"stripped", "Britney", that sort of thing together. Everyking 12:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I assure you, I did search without the bodysuit keyword (I just linked to te search with bodysuit in it because it yielded more than a few relevant results). And when I did another search... the only thing sounding like the incident you described was this. Considering how hard it's been to find a mention of this incident, I'm beginning to doubt whether the incident's notable enough for the article. That it happened is something confirmed. That it's viewed as noteworthy enough for a mention seems highly dubious, however. Ah, but what's this? Still, I doubt that this is relevant enough for the article. For the Britney Spears article on a sudden image change, maybe. But from what I've seen, few people associate her new image with "Satisfaction"; they associate it with "Oops!...". Johnleemk | Talk 12:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Sure it's important, it was big news then. If you're going to mention the song, you might as well mention that performance. Everyking 12:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I wasn't asked, but I remember the strip down, and I remember a massive amount of press coverage of the strip, but pretty much no one mentions the song she was doing before the strip. I think the news was her faux nudity, and not the performance of the set-up song. Geogre 14:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak support: The "Lyrics and melody" section is imprecise, and the balance of description of musical composition and lyrical content is mismatched. One reason the song is one of the greats is that it marries a great hook with a great lyric, and they're equally important. Catchy tunes get #1 hits, but they don't get greats (e.g. "Funky Town"), and intense lyrics get #1 hits, but they don't get greats (e.g. the very "important" songs like "Eve of Destruction"). As many people bought the song for its anger as for its beat (it has always seemed to me that the anger and the desperation of youth were the real greatness, but I'm a lyrics person). Certainly one of the reasons the song keeps getting covered is the lyric, as each artist attempts to recast "satisfaction" itself into her or his own context (certainly a reason Devo's version is one of the greatest covers is the fact that their alteration of the music was to emphasize the altered context of the frustration). The other gripe is with the "Covers" section. It almost seems suicidal to go into any listing of the covers. It's easier to list the rock bands who haven't covered it than the list all who have, and the article is inviting every reader to come along and add in the one he or she remembers. Finally, the writing is a little rapt for me. However, I do support the nomination. Geogre 14:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak support: I'd love to see the "Lyrics and melody" section stronger, but I can't think what to do, or I'd do it... -- Jmabel | Talk 09:24, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • No satisfaction until the lyrics are in the article. How can you write about a song without the lyrics? Are you serious? prometheus1
    • ...which would make this article a copyright violation, making this objection patently unactionable. Ambi 12:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I came across this while admiring Gold, below. A good summary of a prodigious amount of information. Not perfect, tackles the subject solely from the perspective of a historian, but then other perspectives may be difficult to pull off seriously. I find it the equal of some currently-featured articles. 05:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I think the nominator is User:Sj.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen ( talk)]] 20:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC))

  • Support good article, could probably stand to have someone copy edit it first. And is there any way to get the first image at the top lightened, its awfully dark. Alkivar 06:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • support--Alexandre Van de Sande 17:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow, incredible article! Masterfully organized, does justice to a fascinating subject. Just a few pedantries: 1) I don't understand what "the division of the world into four basic elements was as much a geometric principle as a geological one" means. The geometric link is no help. 2) Something seems to have gone wrong with the paragraph about Isaac Newton and alchemy and astrology. I don't know if the paragraph is the raked-over embers of an edit war, but it looks a bit like it. 3) Are you sure you want page numbers in the parenthetic references (consistently punctuated wrong, btw)? I think the principle should be that all scholarly apparatus is as-needed only, since it weighs down the text, Wikipedia is not a learned journal. In other words, leave out page no's if the place can easily be found using the book's index, include them if it can't. But that may already be the principle, only the authors know. 4) The format of the References section would be good enough for just any article, but I think actual Manual of style recommended format would be best for a Featured article; or, at any rate, there should be full bibliographical information (=including publisher and place). Support.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (now happy)]] 20:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The above are objections with specific rationales that can be addressed, how about it? (Thanks PRIIS for fixing 4.) Sheesh, just because I put it nicely... --[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 19:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • For 2), I removed that whole paragraph. It was one big non-sequitur. I moved the link to the Newton Occult article to the other mention of Newton in the Overview section. 3) I'm afraid to touch the parenthetical refs--maybe only the person who originally contributed the article (who seems to be long gone) could really make judgements on that. Unless someone with more nerve is willing to either yank them out or actually follow up on them--they seem to be there only because the original article began life as a term paper (according to the Talk page). As to 1), your guess is as good as mine! PRIIS 23:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, Wikipedia shouldn't promulgate a sentence that nobody can understand, I've removed it. I don't have the nerve to touch the page numbers either. I'll fix the parenthetic ref punctuation sometime. Thanks!--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 03:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain Good work, no doubt about it. But I think that period of renaissance, Edward Kelley and such is much too brief. I will try to recall, verify and add some information, until then I will abstain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - good work. Andre (talk) 23:58, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice work. Filiocht 10:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe the top picture could be enlarged, or cropped? It currently is a bit obscure, and I only saw what was on the picture when I clicked on it. Jeronimo 20:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. easily. (enlarged image). dab 20:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 23:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Disclosure: I did some work on the references. I also tried to lighten the image, but I suspect the effect was too garish and it got switched back. I also did some formatting of the talk page a long time ago. PRIIS 04:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fun to read. ReallyNiceGuy 18:40 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I found it awhile ago after reading up on Fullmetal Alchemist of all things and really enjoyed it. Well-written, very fun. Reene (リニ) 13:16, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Presuppositional apologeticsEdit

This was nominated two months ago by me -- it was eventually voluntarily removed from FAC so that I and the article's principal author could work on more clearly defining apologetics, more fairly presenting the criticisms of this particular approach, and fixing some issues people had with unfamiliar vocabulary. I believe we've addressed this, so this is a self-nomination. The reading level is still reasonably high, but I think acceptably so. The only potential objection I am anticipating is the lack of a picture, but I can't envision a picture that would add to the article (except perhaps of a theologian who helped develop it, but we haven't found one yet). Jwrosenzweig 02:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Object. 1.) Those resources that were actually used as references for additional material or to fact check material in the article need to be explicitly listed as such and not lumped in with those that were not. The references section is the accepted way to do that. 2.) Only two schools of PA are discussed, even though the article specifically states there are others. What about them? Are they so insignificant that they warrant nothing more than saying they exist? If so, that is a POV that needs to be cited to a source. - Taxman 19:28, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've left a note for the article's principal author on the article's talk page, since I was not involved in the creation of the article -- I don't know which books were used as references, and I don't know if there really are more versions of PA, as the article asserts (or how influential they are). If, as I have a hunch is correct, the article was written with the benefit of having read all of the books mentioned (although they were not cited specifically in the text), should they all be "references"? I'm unclear on that point. The second one, I'll get to work addressing. Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • P.S. I've looked into it a little more. The article stated "There are at least two systems of apologetics..." known as presuppositional -- looked awfully weak to me. I can find no evidence of a third branch of PA. I imagine the words "at least" were inserted because any theologian could alter a few fine points of a school of thought and claim it as "presuppositional" but his/her particular variety of it. I decided they looked like weasel words and took them out -- until we see any evidence of a third school of thought, I don't think it's worth implying that one exists. Perhaps this addresses your second point, Taxman? If you think I went about it wrong, tell me -- I can do more in-depth searching if you suspect I was wrong to remove the wording, and that other schools of PA exist. Jwrosenzweig
        • If all the major references in the field say that those two are the two major schools of the subject, then that is fine. Then cite one of them to a statement such as "The two major schools of PA are .... (Doe 1976)". But yes, I think it needs a good search to see if there are other important shools unless you can find that something akin to the above example is well accepted in the field. Otherwise it is POV to fail to cover a notable branch of a subject. - Taxman 13:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • I still haven't found said citation, but I hope to soon. I have, however, added a reference section for some recent additions of mine -- I know it doesn't cover the entire article, but perhaps it partially resolves the objection, at least? I'm curious to hear your response. Jwrosenzweig 22:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • That's pretty good for me. So all the sources you've seen, no other ones mention any other major schools of PA? What makes you say those are the major schools when Bahnsen and Frame also contributed? The answer to that will probably answer my above question. By the way the new history section telling us when this school of thought came out is an excellent addition. Great work. Is saying in the intro it is a 20th century school of thought problematic to you? I think that is helpful to tell the reader straight away what era the school of thought is in/from. As for my point 1 above, at least put the sources you have used personally in properly cited form in a 'References' section, websites can be included. - Taxman 00:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
              • So far, every mention of PA either talks about it as though it had no origin (people have so little consideration for us wiki researchers), or else it traces PA to either Clark or Van Til (and most mentions of Clark note that Van Til predates him). Nothing says it quite explicitly enough, though, for me to quote a site as defining those two schools as the only two. I would call them the two major schools, as Bahnsen, Frame, and Robbins (though differing in minor points from their teachers) essentially present themselves and their perspectives as being unified with that of their teacher. Their intense focus on defending the ideas of their predecessor indicates (in my opinion) that Van Til and Clark provide the dominant two views of presuppositional apologetics. I'm fine with the mention in the intro, and will add it in my next pass. And a references section will be duly added. :-) Jwrosenzweig 02:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • Taxman, I've added the references I consulted and altered the intro. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Mild objections: First, I find plenty of evidence of three types of apologetics. My F. A. Cross ed. of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that apologetics has traditionally fallen to three endeavors, "(1) to show that it is more reasonable to have a religion than not; (2) to show that christianity can give a more rational account of itself than any other religion; (3) to show that it is more reasonable to profess orthodox Christianity than any other form." However, my objections are two fold. One is easy to fix, the other not. i) The reference to Fideism in a dismissive tone, as if it were a childish gesture, was wrong. Fideism is not an intellectually or philosophically empty concept, and it's arguable, in fact, that existentialist Christian apologetics, which is no slouch in the brains department, is ultimately fideism with its emphasis on mysticism. ii) The harder subject is the general notability of this type of apologetics. The article says at the outset that this is a Protestant development, but it's clear in the article that it can only be a Protestant one, and, at that, a fundamentalist one. How prevalent is this type of endeavor? How much is it running the field now? How stiff is the opposition? I would imagine that the old churches would be a bit out of the loop with this, as it is a pretty hostile type of apologetic (and arguably not apologetic at all, since it works from within a closed system and demands that all listeners do the same). I can't really see a severe minority development (which I gather is recent) in apologetics as a Featured Article if it doesn't at least allow breathing room for the rest of the churches. Geogre 03:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • George, we're talking about specific forms of this specific type of apologetics, not types of apologetics in general. - Taxman 13:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with Taxman on the initial point. On Fideism, Geogre, I'll definitely look at it and see what I can do -- it shouldn't be referred to dismissively. The final objection, however, doesn't seem actionable to me -- unless I misunderstand you, your objection is that this field of apologetics appeals to only certain denominations. I have no control over which denominations accept or reject this practice. I don't know what you mean by "old churches" -- I'm confused, in fact, by the entire objection....perhaps it's your objection to this kind of apologetics, but I don't see it as an objection to this as an FA. I'm not arguing it should be featured based on what it's about -- I can't envision this article ever making the Main Page. But it's my opinion that it's essentially done and well written, and I thought that was fundamentally what an FA was supposed to be. Jwrosenzweig 14:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • P.S. I removed the Fideism comment -- I couldn't see a way to include the comment in that context without either leaving it somewhat dismissive or else going to lengths to explain a more complex definition of Fideism. As the mention was an aside intended to further illustrate a point already made, I decided to cut it. Hopefully that resolves your objection? Jwrosenzweig
          • It may solve one objection, it gives rise to another. To those who know about both fideism and presuppositionalism, the two seem to be very similar if not identical. Fideism is, at least to me, the honest answer given by a believer who understands that arguments for the existence of God are all flawed. Presuppositionalism seems to be a system built on a fideist base. At least, this is what Reymond's New Systematic Theology seems to claim. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Hmmm, well, if Fideism needs to be reintegrated as you suggest (thanks for the note, btw), it certainly needs to appear in a different context than it did initially (the context Geogre objected to). Once again, I'll go back to the drawing board and see what I can come up with. Ihcoyc, if you can include the comment from Reymond on PA's talk page (or else add it to the article) I'd really appreciate that -- don't own a copy myself, but it would be great to add the perspective to the article. Jwrosenzweig 00:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll try to be more precise. Presuppositional apologetics is a narrow field. That's fine, and certainly no reason to object. However, I feel like it is not presented in the general context sufficiently. The old churches are the various Orthodox Christian churches and the Anglican churches -- i.e. those prior to Luther. In fact, however, it would appear that this field is even more specialized, requiring a Zwinglian or Calvinist background. My objection is that some placement of this development is necessary, rather than merely desirable. When did it arise (I gather that it's new)? Does it have active opposition? Is it widespread now and dominant among Protestant apologetics, or is it merely a hardline expression of the fundamentalist movement? At the very, very outset a mild statement appears indicating that this is predominantly Protestant, but I get the impression that it is much more than that. Without a location in the general field, especially in terms of novelty and support, I remain a reluctant objector. I do think it's a well written article. Indeed, I would have thought it unnecessary to define Apologetics, but I think that any movement needs to be located in the general context. A few sentences would be all that is necessary. I appreciate letting up on the poor Fideists. It looked like they were being a punchline in that sentence, and I know the authors know more than to have meant it that way. Geogre 18:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let me give you an example. From the "Varieties of" subhead: "There are two systems of apologetics that commonly are called presuppositional. The first -- and by far the most widely followed -- was developed by <the X church or at least X nation> Cornelius Van Til <when?> and his students, especially <denomination theologian> John Frame and <ibid> Greg Bahnsen." That would give the reader a sense of when this school emerged. Later on, an "Opposition to" or "Doubts about" or "Place in general apologetics" subhead would give the reader an idea of whether or not this type of apologetics is triumphant, emregent, or persistent. Geogre 21:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Ah, sorry I misunderstood! Makes perfect sense -- I'll fall to work right away. Jwrosenzweig 22:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Geogre, I've written a section called "History of presuppositional apologetics" (shifting some text up in the article and adding quite a bit more) to help place the movement in time and to suggest its general area of influence. Please tell me how it looks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Full support: Excellent! This gives me a good way of locating this development and an idea of how well it has thrived. A naive reader looking at the article will realize that this is not fringe but will also recognize that it is located in the Calvinist tradition. I'm delighted to give support to an excellent theological article. Geogre 03:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article, though the wording in places is a bit...pretentious isn't the word I'm looking for, but along those lines. In any case, this is a minor quibble. Ambi 23:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I love it when I find something that describes something I didn't previously have a word for, especially when it is described so well.--ZayZayEM 03:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

King James Version of the BibleEdit

This article failed last time, mainly because of objections that it underestimated the KJV's influence on modern English. I believe those have been fixed. I did some work on this article, but at the most, I've contributed only a couple of paragraphs worth of prose to it. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support now. Thanks to all concerned for acting on my objections so completely. Filiocht 13:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC) Object again. What is still missing from this article is the fact that the KJV set the standard for how literate English prose should be written, a standard that held good more or less until the advent of modernism. It also strongly influenced the writing of poetry, impacting on poetic diction and the range of images available to poets. Specifically, some discussion of the impact of the KJV on writers as diverse as John Bunyan, John Milton, Herman Melville, John Dryden and William Wordsworth would be a minimum requirement. This is, to me, infinitely more important than a discussion of how the readability level of the KJV fits into a foreign educational system's class grading structure. Filiocht 14:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • How is the article now? Johnleemk | Talk 18:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • FWIW, references to Milton and Bunyan may be wide of the mark; both men were Geneva Bible readers, and in the original all of Bunyan's quotations in Pilgrim's Progress are Geneva, not KJV. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • yeah, Milton, as a contemporary, will rather have had similar influences than drawn on the KJV. dab
      • I'm interested in seeing if Filiocht has alternative sources about the Bible of choice for Bunyan and Milton. I think it's likely the authors he cites are based on a commonly-quoted paragraph from the Merit Student's Encyclopedia. [1] Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I'd never heard of the Merit Student's Encyclopedia before. Milton's rhythms are widely recognised as owing a lot to the KJV and the Bunyan reference is from EB. The others are from my own reading, and I could add any number of others. The fact is that every writer of English prose after 1611 was influenced to some degree by the translation, and the impact was immediate. Because it was addressed to the widest audience possible it provided authors with a model for writing prose that moved away from the existing model of scholars addressing scholars to a new paradigm; the author addressing the common reader. This, in turn, became one of the aspects of 'conventional' writing that the modernists were reacting against, though even James Joyce nods in the direction of the KJV. I suspect that part of the problem is that the editors involved in creating this article are coming at it from a religious perspective while I, having no interest in that view, see the KJV as a cultural artefact. As I said above, this objection was raised last time round and simply not addressed. Filiocht 08:56, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC) now addressed Filiocht 13:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
          • hey Filiocht, this may be unfair in reply to a FAC vote, but you would seem the perfect editor to insert your knowledge on this into the article. dab
            • I agree, but I don't think that's necessary as I've done my best to parrot his statements (and that of some other references I've found) in the article. :-p Johnleemk | Talk 13:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral Support: I agree with Filiocht; however, I think that the points he adresses can be shortly summarized with a link to a Main article (e.g. Literary impact of the KJV). Other things that I stubled accross:
  • the King James Version uses words such as "ye", "thee", "thou", "thy" and "thine", and uses phrases such as "Fear thou not/Fear ye not" (instead of "Do not be afraid"). "words/phrases such as" is a rather clumsy way of putting it. the articles focus cannot be to treat the grammar of Early Modern English. I suggest you just say that it uses the old 2nd person singular pronoun (instead of "words such as") and link to Thou and History of the English_language.
  • the quote: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.": are the pronouns referring to God really in lowercase in the original??
ok, sorry. Image:KJV Psalm 23 1 2.jpg. dab
  • the article is very long for a FA (not too long, however); other Main articles could be created to export stuff too, also taking some of the burden off this article, making it easier to reach FA standard consistently.
However, I think that the article is very fair compared with today's "FA" (Harappan civilization), and will gladly change my vote to support if these points are addressed. dab 15:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • How is the article now? I think the article is just right as it is; perhaps the names of the translators could be exported elsewhere, but other than that, I think there's a "just nice" amount of material right now. And yes, the quote is accurate; see it for yourself on Bible Gateway. Johnleemk | Talk 18:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"makes liberal use of old second person singular pronouns"? I would say it just uses a 2nd sg pronoun whenever the original text has one.
I still think you should accommodate Filiocht, and I'm not sure squeezing the authors into the intro is the way to go. A good example would also be the Book of Mormon which slavishly copies the (at the time of its composition archaic) KJV style ;o)
but these are trifles in my book. It's good enough for me to change my vote to support. After all "FA" != perfect. dab 19:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 23:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. PRIIS 14:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article; didn't notice any problems. Spangineer 21:02, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Even I, a bloodthirsty atheist, got quite interested. Answered all my questions. Dbiv 01:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Erich von MansteinEdit

Partial self-nomination, von Manstein is one of the most important military leaders of World War II and of the 20th century. GeneralPatton 05:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object.Concur. As a military buff (and you know I am because you've seen the articles I edit), I realize von Manstein's importance...but he is not going to mean much to most Wikipedians. -Joseph (Talk) 06:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
    • What's your objection? →Raul654 22:10, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, that's not the point with features articles, the point is that they represent the best work of wiki, regardless of how many people know about their subject. For instance, look at the Japanesei toilet article, obscure topic, but a good entry. It is about quality not popularity. Also, this reasoning is against wiki policy, for it states that "All objections must give a specfic rationale that can be addressed", as is not the case here. GeneralPatton 07:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Quibble: Is there really only one reference? Much better! Thank you! Zerbey 02:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Reference section has been expanded, citing the best books available. GeneralPatton 04:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Have those references actually been used to expand and/or fact check the material currently in the article? If not, it is intellectually dishonest to list them as references. - Taxman 14:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • That I’ve used them, then the answer is yes, I could have listed more than a dozen other works that are not as helpful. Also, I believe the reference section should make it easier for someone who's interested to find out more on the subject matter. GeneralPatton 16:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Excellent. If you actually used these others then I think they would make a good addition. While making it easier to find more about the subject is noble, I don't feel it should override the importance of citing all sources used in the article, or of using and citing those you have available. - Taxman 21:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--enceladus 03:37, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object Support. (1) "was a General, and later a Field Marshal" is a strange way to put it (he was also an ensign, a lieutenant, a captain etc). Perhaps "was a military officer", or plain "was a Field Marshal" would do. (2) The lead section should say a bit more about him: he's famous for more than just arguing with Hitler. (3) Wikipedia has many article on the two world wars. Please link to them when appropriate. For example, you write that he fought in the "attack on Verdun", but wouldn't it be better to link to our article on the battle of Verdun? There are other missing links, notably Third Battle of Kharkov. (4) The big pictures are rather overwhelming: perhaps 300px would be better. (5) "This was considered his first mark of genius" Considered by whom? (6) References should follow the format recommended at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Gdr 14:07, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
    • 1 and 2 have been fixed so far, im working on others. Thanks for your imput. GeneralPatton 15:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've now linked both the Battles of Verdun and Kharkov as well as some other articles. Working on the References. I ought to stress that your link is the "proposed" not the "accepted" citation style guide, thus I don’t think the articles are obliged to follow that exact style. GeneralPatton 15:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Removed 5 as its redundant, the text speaks for itself. GeneralPatton 15:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • And the photos really don't look this good when they're smaller, a lot of fine detail is lost, particularly because of their horizontal format. And they're really not a major bandwidth burden, since together they're around 120kb. GeneralPatton 15:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning toward object, but I am open to being shown I am incorrect. Seems a bit whitewashed. He was convicted of war crimes, but the intro fails to mention this seemingly very important fact. He was also a member of the Nazi party was he not? I know we have to be careful about guilt by association, but not mentioning it at all also seems POV. Otherwise looks good, well written and researched. - Taxman 21:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • He was never a member of the Nazi party, that's one of the reasons why he had no trouble in the West Germany, unlike some other of the Reich’s Field Marshals. For the first few years of the formation of Bundeswehr, he was seen as the unofficial chef of staff, and even later his birthday parties were regularly attended by official delegations of Bundeswehr and NATO bigwigs, such as Hans Speidel who was NATO SACEUR; The Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 1957 to 1963 and Adolf Heusinger who was NATO CMC; The Chairman of the Military Committee from 1961-1964. This wasn't the case with the party card carrying pro-nazi Feld Marshals such as Milch, Schörner, von Küchler, List... who were disregarded and forgotten after the war. GeneralPatton 02:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The intro now mentions the trial. GeneralPatton 14:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The above needs a mention in the article. Gdr 10:59, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
        • Intro now also mentions his trial and advisory career for the new German government. Lupo 08:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Neutral. Article has improved considerably, but I think the points not yet struck out below are still areas of improvement. This article is a good start, but still needs lots of work. I'm worried about the neutrality, and the language needs may need work. Already in the intro: "mastermind behind the ingenious plan for the German invasion of France"—"ingenious" is a judgemental term that should go. "Eventually even Hitler had enough of him"—can't we formulate that better? (Changed it myself.) Manstein increasingly had serious differences with Hitler over questions of strategy, and tried repeatedly to lobby for the institution of an "Oberbefehlshaber Ost" that would have planned the overall strategy. This brought him in direct rivalry with Hitler. (Incidentally, I can find only a minor mention of his ideas on strategy except Fall Gelb in the article.) (Added a little myself, but the WWII section could do with a little bit more.) "Operation Northern Lights": "...where Manstein's inferior forces managed to outmaneuver superior Soviet forces..." without any mention of the fact that the goal of this operation was to take Leningrad by cutting it off from its supplies and that this operation did not succeed is too heavily biased for my taste. The WWII section is too much of a list of battles. It lacks coverage of Manstein's strategic ideas, his political views. In his autobiography, his thesis is basically that if the Generals had been in charge of strategy, the war on the eastern front could have been won. That needs mentioning, (Is mentioned now) together with some renowned historians' views of that credo. (BTW, Manstein expressed this opinion already already during the war, cf. "Oberbefehlshaber Ost" above.) His refusal to become involved in complotts within the Wehrmacht to dismiss Hitler ("Preussische Feldmarschälle meutern nicht.") deserves more coverage, too. (Done now.) In general, I think before this article can be featured, the critical biography at [2] needs to be taken into account: facts reported there need to be checked for accuracy and incorporated into the article. (Mostly done.) BTW, I added this link to the article, and it was removed pronto on the grounds that it was in German. (It's back there...) Lupo 16:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, and another point: the images used in the article do not have sources. Lupo 16:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Most images still don't have sources. Even WWII images need sources. Lupo 09:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You seem to forget to mention that I’ve also removed the link to the Achtung Panzer bio, that was highly positive in its portrayal of von Manstein. The form of this biography is pretty much to report the facts, leaving excessive criticism and or excessive praise out of it and letting the reader judge for himself. And about "ingenious", so according to you the invasion of France was not a success? And it's not my insertion, its something B. H. Liddell Hart wrote. GeneralPatton 17:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • A criticism by a valid source is an important part of th article. If you cite it properly and you are relatively balanced about the criticisms then it is not POV. What is POV is to leave out valid, important, information. You can attack Lupo for conspiracy[3], but the facts that he raises need to be discussed in the article. - Taxman 17:45, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
        • Err, I'm not attacking Lupo for conspiracy. I’m just saying he's making this look like I'm David Irving, which is ironic since last week when I nominated my Irving article, I was accused of being anti-Irving biased and ADL’s lapdog. So I guess I must be doing something right. Also, That article by Michael Schröders doesn’t reveal anything shocking or new, and is pretty much about how von Manstein’s memoirs and trial defense were self-serving and skewed in his favor, but that’s how all memoirs and defense strategies tend to be. GeneralPatton 19:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The article also doesn't trump down on "Operation Northern Lights" just as it doesn't trump up on the Crimean Campaign. It's an effort to make a balanced, fact based military biography, without either taking sides or being too judgmental. GeneralPatton 17:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not a question of "trumping up/down" something. It's a question of giving the reader some background. And I do think that by including some of the facts mentioned in Schröders' article we can arrive at a much more differentiated portrayal of the man. It is rather one-dimensional right now. Schröders' article certainly isn't shocking—but why should it be? That's completely besides the point. It's a scholarly article, with lots of properly referenced citations. The point is that Schröders shows another side of von Manstein, which is currently completely lacking from the article. Lupo 20:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • And that is? Where exactly have I failed? Give me a concrete list of problems, point by point, and I'll work on it. GeneralPatton 20:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm trying to give constructive criticism on that article. I have given some concrete points in my original rationale for my objection, and I have explained what I think would need to be included. That, however, needs research. Maybe a round of peer review might help? Finally I'd like to point out the Forum on Erich von Manstein, a scholarly discussion forum of historians with lots of additional information (unfortunately in German again) and pointers to additional sources, hosted by the "News Service for Historians". Lupo 14:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object There is almost no info on year 1939 and his participation in the Polish September Campaign. This should be expanded before this is a complete article worthy of being featured. In what battles did he participate before and after Siege of Warsaw (1939) (and why doesn't this article mention him at all ATM)? What units where encircled and destroyed afterwards?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • He was Gerd von Rundstedt’s chief of staff, that means a headquarters job, not a frontline job. I’ll expand it within 24 hours. GeneralPatton 07:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It's been expanded now, do you want more? GeneralPatton 14:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Abstain Better. Just stress what you wrote here (it is not easy to understand it from the article), and perhaps you could elaborate on how well did his plan work? After this is done I will likely support this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mozilla FirefoxEdit

I just fixed up the writing for this a little, and I now think it would be a good featured article. It would be nice if we could feature it on the main page sometime soon, also. Andre (talk) 21:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. For NPOVs sake it should mention that Firefox too has been found to have some serious security bugs (albeit in beta). (added some myself) Also Microsoft's thoughts on the browser should be reflected (I don't think they've commented a lot on it, but the Australian manager said something to the effect that they did not consider it a threat to IE shortly after its release). The SeaMonkey codename is used unnecessarily in a few places. Possibly its relation to the Camino project should be expanded slightly (right now it says only that Camino is not XUL based. Camino developers feel that XUL doesn't allow them to give the proper look-and-feel for the Mac platform.) Quite a few people have referred to Firefox (in a positive sense) as a "Trojan horse" of Open Source. This point of view should be mentioned. David Remahl 22:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The article does not go into detail on any of the features of Firefox. Compare to the featured article on Emacs, which has lots of detail on the interface, customization, internals, etc., all of which this article seems to be lacking. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:51, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Changed my vote to Support in light of the recent changes to the article. I think the "Delicious delicacies" section is still too prominent, but whatever. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:35, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Currently a large chunk of the article is taken up with the version table and market adoption. Very little is on the subject of features etc. --enceladus 01:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've tried addressing these concerns. How's it doing? Andre (talk) 02:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • As stated above, the Emacs article is a good example of a software article. At the moment the features is just a list. Maybe some product comparisons with Opera and IE.--Enceladus 02:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Also include what Mozilla App Suite features have been dropped / offloaded to extensions. — David Remahl 02:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. The features section needs some serious expansion first. It's getting there, though. Zerbey 16:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't really expand the features section to the degree that Emacs has - Emacs is a far more complex program than Firefox. Andre (talk) 22:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Object. As someone who was intimately involved in Mozillazine until recently, I've drastically expanded the features. There are a few holes, notably in the references (and the lack of a proper mention of Mozillazine), so I cannot support this article yet, but it's definitely getting there. I've also added a few caveats in Firefox's features — a quick run through Bugzilla should yield several more notable ones we can include. Johnleemk | Talk 12:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Decent article, the table's great, but 1) Not quite NPOV. I know that Firefox is the bees knees, but the article seems a little too sympathetic. Surely the browser must have weaknesses and critics? Aren't there any Opera / Konqueror fans who can find fault? For example, IE gets hammered in the lead section; M$'s response appears tucked away at the end of the article; the "Features" section seems to be a list followed by a paragraph of how Firefox is better than other browsers. 2) More screenshots would be useful 3) "it has been referred to as a gateway drug or a Trojan horse for the adoption of open source software. — OK, by who? And is it a common enough assessment to warrant placing in the first paragraph? — Matt 11:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) — Matt 14:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I appear to have found at least one reference to Firefox being a 'gateway drug' of open source software:, the student newspaper of New York University. Personally I don't think it should be included in the lead section but maybe it should be rewritten to something like "Mozilla Firefox is often a computer users first experience with open source software"--Enceladus 20:36, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not to nag, but, is this article far along enough yet for all you objectors? Andre (talk) 19:16, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The noteworthy issues section needs NPOVing and possible renaming. Norman Rogers 22:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What's POV about it, and what's wrong with the name? Andre (talk) 05:08, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • I must concur with Andre; what's wrong with it? Does it provide too brief a view of Firefox's weaknesses, or is it too anti-Firefox-ish for your tastes? As a Firefox fan, I can say that more than few of those things mentioned do piss me off, and I can assure you that people do frequently complain about them on the Mozillazine forums. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I now find said section NPOV enough to support. Norman Rogers 01:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Give an objective overview of Firefox, e.g. history, known issues, etc minghong ( talk) 07:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Best Browser and also a very good article. --ThomasK 11:37, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support This article has really improved over the last few days. I certainly think it is a good article, and is quite NPOV to me, why over-report on Firefox vulnerabilities? If there aren't many, no need to dedicate huge portions of the article to it. Khlo 22:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs work on structure; some information is presented in seemingly arbitrary order. That's the only real problem I can think of, though. Fredrik | talk 23:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Several people (as far as I can tell) have been working on modifying the structure. I think it's better now. Might need some polishing ..? Merged it with Delicious Delicacies, too. :-) Don't know if it was the right decision or not, but it was a decision, anyway.
    • My objection has been addressed. Support. Fredrik | talk 19:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support This article is quantitative and neutral as well as an excellent introduction to the software. LadyAphelion| 1:54, 22 Nov 2004 (EST)
  • Object It's riddled with advocacy. If the article were moved to, say, Why Firefox is a much better browser than Internet Explorer then I'd support it for featured staus. It needs some careful attention to tone, to balance, and to selection of things to include/exclude. Tannin 07:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Added later) Much improved now, but still not an article of any particular quality. Competent, detailed, but not outstanding. Tannin 11:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Thorough, neutral, and much improved. αγδεε(τ) 10:40, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a nice article, and Wikipedia should be proud to spread information about high-quality alternatives to dominant commercial products. --VerdLanco 18:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Has improved substantially in the past couple of days. CheekyMonkey 20:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks great, has enough information. --Toomin 07:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This article has improved a lot over the last couple of months and I feel it's now ready for the prime time. --RichCorb 20:15, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is well-written, well-organized, and informative. It is a great model for all Wikipedia articles. --C. Duben 00:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic article. Has length problems though - it'd be nice to see it broken down in summary style. Ambi 01:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Can't ignore the fact that it is one of the most popular pieces of free software of our time and the article therefore deserves a place on the front page. --Chrisblore 18:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I'll admit I found this article because it was linked to from, but as a Wikipedian I do think this article is good. However, beware of sock puppets who may vote for this article. Alex Krupp 00:53, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Flag of the Republic of ChinaEdit

Good article. Very informative. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:01, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • References, please. Jeronimo 07:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • addressed. --Jiang 20:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I feel that the prose in this article is not up to snuff. The lead section, particularly, is not terribly clear. The material is interesting, but I don't think this quite meets the criteria of "brilliant prose" quite yet. --Eudyptes 23:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • has been addressed --Jiang 16:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. (I've just tweaked the text a little.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • you sure? i don't see an edit by you. --Jiang 03:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Damn - must not have saved. Done again. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the changes. I withdraw my objection and am now a neutral (I have a slight uneasiness which stops me from becoming a support, but I don't think I can specify it, so will withdraw my objection and let others decide if it is FA standard or not). jguk 00:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)Object As Eudyptes says, the lead section is not clear: I think it can only be understood by someone having some familiarity with the history or current political situation of Taiwan. The last clause of the lead section is particularly vague: don't tell me to remember something I don't (necessarily) know. In fact, looking at the article as a whole, it assumes knowledge of Taiwan/ROC/Kuomintang/History of China throughout. It also uses jargon without explanation: eg under 'History', the jargon word 'canton' is used without explanation. The article should be able to stand alone (albeit with cross-references). Some of the longer sentences could also do with shortening. The first sentence of the second paragraph under 'History' is particularly convoluted. Finally, the last sentence of the article seems to have been added as an afterthought: it is not integrated into the text.jguk
    • I really don't see how any of this can be made much clearer without reproducing the whole mess already present in the linked articles. We've linked both political status of Taiwan and Flag terminology (for canton) in the article. Explaining the whole damned and complex situation would take up the whole article and cannot be done. This is the beauty of wikipedia. Confused readers should be sent to the links so I don't see your point. I suppose a few minor clarifications can be made, though. I expect "canton" to be in the vocabulary of an educated reader. If we used "upper corner of the flag", it would look dumbed down, in my opinion and more fit for the Simple English wikipedia. Do you mean the last sentence or the last clause being vague? I've dealt with the 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph in history and expanded on the last sentence. --Jiang 08:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've rewrote the lead and put parenthesis after canton. Any other jargon? --Jiang 08:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm afraid. I don't think the article makes sense without a brief description of ROC being (or not quite being) Taiwan as part of the lead section. Kuomintang? Pan-blue and pan-green? Three bits of unintelligible jargon in the lead section? (I shouldn't have to two different article to understand one sentence in the lead section.) Indeed, the whole lead section implies a knowledge of the Taiwan/PRC situation that is beyond me (and I thought I was reasonably knowledgeable about international politics). The last bit of the lead section (beginning with "if one remembers") even makes clear that you have to have background knowledge in order to be able to understand the article! I'm sorry, but this is NOT a standalone article. It does not yet explain its jargon, and I still strongly oppose it becoming a featured article in its current form. I hope, however, that it can be re-edited succinctly so that I may change my vote at a later date. jguk 22:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I made a couple minor changes. I understand how "pan-blue" and "pan-green" can be unfamiliar and have removed it from the lead, but the fact that the Kuomintang was/is some political organization should be basic knowledge, just like I shouldn't expect you to be confused if I mention the Communist Party of China or the British Liberal Party. It was a major player in world history and is given sufficient coverage even in the very poor American high school curriculum (10th and 11th Grades). Will calling it "Nationalist Party of China" be more self-explanitory? History books usually use "Kuomintang." The "remembering" part (I've changed it) isn't the best phrasing but refers to the text earlier in the lead which descibes the flag as being used in mainland China and the mention of immediatly after- "a Republic that only acquired Taiwan in 1945 and moved its government there in 1949" -is meant to explain the "ROC being (or not quite being) Taiwan". I urge you to rewrite it so you (and people with similar background) can understand it because I find it difficult to tell how obvious this has to be to make it understandable. From the lead we can deduce 1) the flag is used in Taiwan and represents the ROC 2) the PRC regards the ROC as a defunct entity and thus opposes any symbols of a defunct entity and 3) there are pro-unification and pro-independence groups in Taiwan who dont agree on the issue because the flag was not designed in Taiwan and first flew there only in 1945. This is the conflict in a nutshell...what knowledge needs to be implied? Please provide quotations to make clarifying easier. --Jiang 00:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've edited to clarify that the KMT are the Nationalist Party of China. The lead looks pretty clear to me now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I know very little about Taiwan and China (err... they don't like each other) - but the lead section was informative enough for me. Pan blue and pan green being the only confusing terms, but explained by wikilinks--ZayZayEM 14:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (I worked considerably on the article). I've made an attempt to address the objections. Anything left? --Jiang 16:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work :) Zerbey 18:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support now, but two remarks: 1) I would still like to see an offline reference (or when not used, see also). 2) What are the exact colours used (many countries have this specified in a law)? Or are the colours just "red and blue"? Jeronimo 18:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • the flag law itself doesn't really go into much detail beyond red and blue. --Jiang
  • Support. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 20:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Xed 09:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I walked upon this little gem - absolutely excellent in content and style. I have since discovered it is very largely the effort of User:Hadal as part of Wikipedia:Danny's contest. -- [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 01:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I hope to someday develop all of our gem articles to such a state. We'll see if I have enough self-discipline to make that happen. ;) -- Hadal 06:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Very complete study. Giano 16:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Can't think of anything wrong with this article. Jeronimo 20:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor object: Image:Bisbee2.jpg doesn't have source and copyright information. — David Remahl 08:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've replaced it with Image:Chacoan turquoise with argillite.jpg; another NPS shot, but it's larger and shows the typical colour range of American material fairly well. -- Hadal 06:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Fantastic. Support. Ambi 08:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Exhuastive and informative. Exactly what one needs in an FA. Geogre 16:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • support--Alexandre Van de Sande 17:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A top-notch article (as far as I can tell, not being a minerologist!). The "Formation" section is just one paragraph -- perhaps it could be merged into another section? And I agree that it would be good to have some copyright info for Image:Bisbee2.jpg. — Matt 19:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Bisbee2.jpg has been replaced (I don't think the uploader is active any longer), and I've expanded "Formation"; is it still too slim to be a section of its own? -- Hadal 06:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks; it's a good length now. — Matt 06:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. Zerbey 23:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. I'll probably fiddle with the Formation section some more - expand a bit, right now I'm still thinking about that hypogene data, hmm... I did some turquoise mining in Arizona back 25+ years ago. {B-)} -Vsmith 05:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Max WeberEdit

Partial self-nom. I have worked on Weber's article since I arrived on Wiki this April, incorporated advice from 2 peer review rounds and I think that it is ready for a nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Two of the three suggestions I made on peer review have not been resolved: multiple one and two sentence paragraphs throughout, and the use of the term economy is confusing. It is used and linked to (through the word economist) in the intro and linked to later. This page is a disambiguation. What sense of the word is being used here? There is no field that is currently referred to only as economy. At least not in any usage I am aware of. - Taxman 19:52, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fixed economy (to economics). As far as remaining 1/2 sentence paragrahs, I did what I could, feel free to work on the few that are left, but personally I really don't find anything bad with them. Note that recent FA Linus Pauling has several of such short paragraphs as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Besides the fact that it violates basic guidelines of good prose style in an obvious way, it also often highlights ideas that need expanding in order to be useful. For ex: "Weber analysed the interaction between the Bedouins, the cities, the herdsmen and the peasants. The conflicts between them and the rise and fall of United Monarchy." Is not a complete idea. What did he find?, etc. I fixed as many as I could, but the discussion of the stratification issue in the economics section is not well structured as a whole. I think it would be better served by a well written paragraph, than two sentences split by a list. The rest of the one or two sentence paragraphs just need expanding. - Taxman 23:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • A very promising article on an extremely important subject. The author has done great work, but I can't support yet, as there are big formatting and style issues. I agree with Taxman about expansion, noticing at the same time that the article is at this moment 33 kb, one kb over the recommended article maximum. I have copyedited and formatted a ways down, especially the captions, and will be back for more, but am not knowledgeable enough to do any expansion or informed critique. Piotrus, one detail: I assume you know which child is Max in the photo, since you uploaded it yourself, please put that info into the caption. (From the text, I can only tell he's not the youngest.)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 21:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC).
The picture is from the gallery (external links in the article, assumed public domain) - since they don't tell which one was Max, I have no idea as well :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Having gone through another few sections to copyedit, I have to say, unfortunately, that the choice of words to wikilink is very lacking in reader usefulness. I hesitate to mess with it myself, but it needs a bigtime overhaul by someone who a) knows about Weber and b) has read some policy pages about the principles of linking.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 23:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on problems with wikilinks? I would try to fix them if I knew what was wrong, exactly. I did add majority of them myself and I tried to make them relevant to his work in sociology. Tnx for input and help, everybody. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I've put a wikilink discussion with examples on Talk:Max Weber.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 15:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow. I just read the article for the first time after the rewrite. Support. 172 07:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support: This is a fascinating and very interesting article about one of Germany's Greats. Probably one of the most comprehensive studies on the internet. Superbly illustrated and a complete credit to Piotrus Giano 10:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Much tnx, but I cannot take all the credit. Many other people helped and are helping with this project (after all, this is Wiki) - just look at the history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support with contingency: A quick dusting for verb tenses is necessary. There are unsettling shifts from past to present that need to be made consistent. Excellent work, and one of the really difficult jobs (like the Restoration comedy) of doing the impossible: being concise on a subject so monumental and gnarled as to escape most. Writing about figures such as Max Weber in an online encyclopedia is like trying to shove the horizon into a pint glass. Congratulations to the principal editors for saving it from the dual dangers of partisan cheerleaders and academic fussiness. Geogre 17:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Sorry I can't undertake to remove your contingency, Geogre, the reaction to my initial dusting and comments has been a bit disappointing. I don't want to trip up the article by objections, but can only vote neutral at this point.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen ( talk)]] 20:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Could use a bit more work before being on the main page.GeneralPatton 17:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

House of LordsEdit

-- Emsworth 00:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Should have a picture of the Chamber. Dbiv 11:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object; where are the references? Support. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I think the "external links" (including the 1911 EB(!)) must be references and have amended accordintly). -- ALoan (Talk)
  • Support. Excellent writing. Zerbey 17:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--Enceladus 20:14, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, strongly. Great work. GeneralPatton 20:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now: The references are pretty light and antique. Additionally, though, there is a severe telescoping of history. For example, we get "The power of the two Houses grew slowly, but was restrained by the numerous civil wars that plagued the country during the mediæval era." And then we hurry on to the 19th century. If one is going to go into extraordinary detail about every politician that attempted to limit Lords's power in the 19th century, then one ought not brush away 400 years of development at a stroke. If nothing else, it seems to me that the planetary motion of power in Lords in the "medieval" period needs to be summarized more than this. (I.e. with Edward II, the barons usurped the throne. With the War of the Roses, it was a split entirely in true civil war. Because Lords represented people who had claims on the throne (even the Lords Spiritual often did), and since they had their own armies and "impregnable" fortresses, their power's wax and wane had a lot to do with the power of the throne itself, and certainly not a teeter-totter with Commons.) I think either some discussion of that fuzzy spot needs to be introduced or some of the detail of 19th century political crises needs more summary treatment. Also, the practice of selling titles is antique. George III gets blamed, but that, I suspect, is due to the historians and not the facts, for contemporaries blamed James I, Charles I, and George II for the same things.
    Geogre 21:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I have attempted to address these, especially the reference and history-related objections. -- Emsworth 01:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support with one more cleaning and examination of the references. Great answering of the objection on the history. It is much, much more even-handed now. The references are still a little...odd. Blackstone is, for example, authoritative, but not really an overview source. All the same, with a little cleaning and bolstering of references, just a little, fully support. Geogre 03:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Undecided: For the following reasons:
    1. With reference to selling titles: In the early 20th century so many brewers, and similar types, donated to political party funds and consequently obtained titles, the peerage was referred to by the British Royal Family and aristocracy of Europe as the 'beerage'. Should some mention be made of this quite recent history?
    2. I may be wrong here, but does the European Court in Strasbourg not have the final say over the House of Lords in British judicial matters now ? Giano 21:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The tern "beerage," I think, may not be of too much historical significance, compared to the other issues discussed in the history section. The Court in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights, only hears complaints from the Council of Europe, not British judicial matters.
      • I think it should be made clear in the article that since Britain's entry to the EEC, the House of Lord is no longer the last form of redress, this is now the European Court. Giano 10:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • That's slightly misleading. Individuals can't appeal to the European Court of Justice (though courts may ask it for rulings). And the European Court of Human Rights is not a court of appeal as normally understood. Certainly the relationship between these courts could do with an decent article, but I'm not sure House of Lords is the right place. Gdr 11:55, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
          • There is a separate article on judicial functions of the House of Lords. The HL remains the final court of appeal in the UK, but it may be worth mentioning that, as such, the HL is obliged to make references of "preliminary questions" to the European Court of Justice (the court of the European Union, in Luxembourg) in cases where interpretation of EC law is on point (unlike lower courts, which are merely empowered to refer questions): however, the HL makes the final decision once the ECJ has opined. There is no appeal from the HL to the ECJ. As Gdr says, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg interprets the European Convention on Human Rights and is completely separate (it was created under the aegis of the Council of Europe, not the EC/EEC/EU): you don't appeal from the HL to the ECHR, although you need to have exhausted your UK domestic remedies before your start in Strasbourg. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The sentence "The House of Lords remained more powerful than the House of Commons, but the Lower House did continue to grow in influence, reaching its zenith during the reigns of the Stuart monarchs in the early seventeenth century" seems quite misleading to me. Surely the Commons reached its zenith in the early interregnum (or perhaps now), not in the reign of the Stuarts? Gdr 11:55, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
    • Is this referring to the zenith of the Lords? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Just for whatever it's worth, while the sentence could get a rewrite, I can see that Commons reached its height at the Long Parliament, but, at that point, there was no Parliament, since Lords was gone. Perhaps "zenith in relation to Lords?" Pretty much the next sentence points out that Lords was dismissed by Commons at the outset of the Interregnum. (I.e. during the Interregnum, people don't talk about Commons anymore. They just say "Parliament." Again, just FWIW.) Geogre 16:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Addressed, I hope. -- Emsworth 20:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 01:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palladian architectureEdit

This article is beautiful to look at and a great pleasure to read, I'd love to see it on the Main page. Not a self-nom, far from it, although I did a little superficial copyediting.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 20:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, though these two images need copyright tags: Woburn Abbey.JPG, Andrea palladio fourth book image.jpg --Enceladus 20:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
    fixed Woburn Abbey was photographed & uploaded by a User, now tagged; and second, a scan of 300 year old print is by virtue of age PD Giano 20:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely good article. Filiocht 08:24, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Have given it a light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Small objections. All fixed, but I need some time to read the whole article again before offering full support. Some dodgy writing. 1.) A few one sentence paragraphs that are not enough of a developed idea to stand alone. Specifically the ones starting "Colen Campbell..." and "This theme..." (What theme) should be either expanded or merged with other paragraphs. 2.) some grand claims could stand to be more factual, such as the part about Duke of Bedford that it was "inevitable that the Palladian style would be chosen". What made it inevitable and is that really a fact? Obvious or observable things are ok to state, but the rest need to be backed up and stated factually. 3.) Where Palladian architecture was influential would be helpful to state in the intro. Is this a European thing, Asian, Austraian, etc. Some idea of that in the intro really helps the unaware reader.- Taxman 00:13, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
    I have made a few minor text changes which I think are relevant to the above comments by Taxman Giano 09:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but is it possible to add some external links? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:05, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
    External links now added Giano 13:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support GeneralPatton 17:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's great to see articles on architectural movements get full presentation. No swipe at popular culture intended, but the more often we can balance the young audience with the university audience, the better. Geogre 18:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Thanks for the vote Geogre! I though I had written it in a zany upbeat, loadsa pictures, punky kind of way to appeal to the young; now you say I'm just another a sad old editor. My next effort was going to be Nicholas Hawksmoor's mausoleum, I'll have a rethink on that one. Giano 19:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) (on a zimmer frame)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 01:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

William N. PageEdit

This is a self-nomination. I have been working on research on Col. Page for several years. This remarkable man was cofounder of the Virginian Railway. While Col Page's partner, millionaire industrialist Henry Huttleston Rogers, has received most of the published credit for building the VGN over the years, many of us have come to realize that Col. Page's role was a crucial portion of their partnership. It is a pleasure to record add this man's story (and that of the building of the Virginian Railway) to Wikipedia.

The information used in the article has been reviewed for accuracy and improvements by members of Virginian Railway (VGN) Enthusiasts yahoo group, which has over 400 members and includes authors and historians. I got a lot of help on content, but I am still learning how to write for Wikipedia, and appreciate suggestions and/or edits by others, and will try to respond to objections. Vaoverland

  • Object for now, although I would add that the article is generally impressive and I would like to see it featured. Some obvious problems: inadequate lead section; no references section; only the first word and proper nouns in headings should be capitalized. Markalexander100 03:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lead section has been enhanced, references section added, and improper capitalizations in headings corrected User:Vaoverland
  • Support. This really does look impressive and it's well written. The objections above seem to have been addressed, the references section is truly impressive now! One comment, I'm unfamiliar with the history, but there seems to be a lot of adjectives used in headings and text, are these generally NPOV?
  • Support - very impressive - ZayZayEM 08:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding neutral point of view, I may need help or suggestions in that area if y'all think it is biased. I know that Wikipedia articles are used by teachers as a basis for school projects. When composing, I visualize school children of middle school or high school age, and I try to keep it factual and interesting to read. It is an exciting and true story, and I would like the reader to be able to relate to some of the emotions the people involved experienced, if that is appropraite in the encyclopedia setting. However, I may have overloaded it with adjectives in my enthusiasm. I'm open to help or suggestions to make it a better article for Wikipedia. That is more important to me than the need to change anything from the way I have done it. In other words, please HELP if you can make it better, or guide me in doing so. Thanks. user: vaoverland

  • Support.Close, but I think it has too many duplicate links, IE Henry H. Rogers is linked 19 times (even after I removed a few while correcting spelling errors[4] [it's not as different as it looks--apparently removing blank lines sometimes confuses Wikipedia's diff feature]), and up to 3 times in a single paragraph. Seems like once per section, at most, would be better. Niteowlneils 22:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Niteowlneils 15:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since they are not being voted on, this is NOT an "oppose" issue, but ideally some of the articles it links to, and the way they are linked could be tidier. I cleaned up Virginian Railway a bit, but, for example, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway has a 'missing image' message, and many links are to redirect pages (eg City, ST, instead of City, State), and at least some are to disambiguation pages (EG New River). I'll try to work on some of these issues myself, but given my short attention span, I'm not likely to do them all. I've looked at them all and tweaked the ones I had issues with, except I didn't look at any city/county/state page as they are very rarely problematic. I noticed you've worked more on some, as well. Niteowlneils 04:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That said, I think Wikipedia is MUCH better served by people like you that contribute a smaller number of very high quality articles, rather than the recent trend towards contributing dozens, or even hundreds, of 6-10 word articles. Niteowlneils 23:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have gone back through the article and removed many of the duplicate links, especially those to Henry H. Rogers. I have added a little more information, as my research on Col. Page is ongoing, aided by members of the Virginian Railway Enthusiasts Yahoo group. At the same time, I have been trying to make improvements to some of the linked items, such as Jamestown Exposition, Sewell's Point, Battle of Hampton Roads, and the other railroads. I am not familar with some of the wiki editing tools, so I go through the articles word by word. A downside of that approach is that sometimes you can lose the big picture while working with individual details. Also, I have searched far and wide for a photo of Page, without success to date. Thanks for all the help, suggestions, and encouragement in making this and the other articles more accurate and easier to read and work with. [user:vaoverland].

He seems to have been married[5](didn't look close enuf), and may have written a book, which I'm still trying to track down.(guess not, an unfortunately common name) BTW, you can sign your entries on Talk and 'backend' pages by typing ~~~ and add a time stamp using ~~~~ instead. Niteowlneils 04:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also haven't been able to determine any information about William Page's marital status or whether he had any children. I have also found information about an author of the same name, but with different dates of birth/death. Thanks for tweaking the photos; they look much better. I have been working this evening on cleaning up the articles on Hampton Roads and the Battle of Hampton Roads, and eliminating duplicative information. I have also fixed the misisng logo on C&O and added a table to the Virginian Railway article. I am also working on major overhauls of the Virginian Railway and Henry H. Rogers articles. Vaoverland 05:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have revised the article to address some additional questions/concerns shared on the Talk page for the article. I have also gone back through it to add some additional personal information and a physical description of Col. Page, even though I still cannot locate a photo of him. I also have removed some dates about his early work with the C&O, which, although documented from a govt. source, just do not make logical sense to me. I would rather sidestep the issue than present what may turn out to be incorrect information. Vaoverland 11:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This[6] seems to indicate he had a female relative named Mary, but its not clear if it's sister, wife, or daughter. Seems like worth contacting to see if they can clarify, and if any pics/paintings of him are included in the documents. Also, if you search for his full name in quotes, you get two books--might be worth trying to find them in a library, and/or contacting the authors to see if they can help with either issue. Great job merging the battle info into the battle article, BTW. Niteowlneils 15:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great find on the additional description information of the WNP papers at UNC Chapel Hill! I have found other indications that Page had "relatives" in Staunton, VA (Augusta County). And thanks for the comments about the work on the Battle of Hampton Roads, a topic for which web searches turn up far more information! I have noticed a discrepancy about the length of the March 9 battle, 4 hours in one version of events, and over 9 hours in another. The longer period is more logically correct, but like the dates Page started work on the C&O, to be safe I have side-stepped the issue for now. BTW, for the dates I originally used to be correct, he would have been through with UVA and gone to work on the C&O at rather young age of 17 or so. It is possible that the birthdate used in wrong instead, as he was supposedly only 10 years younger than Rogers who born in 1841 (according to H. Reid). I will post this new information about Col. Page to VGN yahoo group and see if that helps anyone there with more info. Vaoverland 16:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, the collection of WNP papers donated to Duke University in 1952 found their way to UNC Chapel Hill. The description and even the item number matches, although the reference to the collection at Duke provides a little but more information, including the donor's name. Vaoverland 17:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Mark1 00:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There have been some improvements made during the past week, including more personal information, and I located and added a photo of the ship William N. Page. I have also run an additional spell check using the ieSpell program which was recommended by other Wikipedia users, and it caught several errors that my WP program had missed. Members of the VGN Yahoo group have been trying to help located a photo of Page. Thanks to all for the improvements to article as well as the help on the research to round things out. Vaoverland 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would highly recommend the ieSpell program. It is especially helpful with my Adult ADD disability (please see my talk page if you want to know more). I have been in email contact with folks from Lynchburg and Rustburg (Campbell County, VA) who had more information about Col. Page's family. The additional information won't fit into the article, which I am trying to edit to reduce the size, but it turns out that I have actually been in the house Page grew up in and know the current family occuppying it. Page's brother is believed to have been a US Ambassador, possibly to France or Italy, and I have names of other relatives as well. This Wikipedia projects has proved rewarding to me in a number of ways I couldn't envision when I started working on it. Some additional information uncovered ion this process will be used in other articles I am also working on. Thanks to all who have contributed to this work-in-progress. Vaoverland 07:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A little more. More e-mail from the lady in Rustburg, who inquired while she was at church today. It turns out that the Page in the Rustburg house may have been a different one. We cannot even confirm that Rustburg was the place in Campbell County where this particular Page grew up, so I have edited the article to remove one statement of questionable veracity (to wit: "grew up in Rustburg"). It really isn't important to the story, anyway, BTW, Thomas Nelson Page, a US ambassador to Italy, and most likely a relative at some level, but exact information has not been confirmed. I have tried to edit down some of the article, as it is a bit larger than desired for a WP article. Vaoverland 18:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I want to say that I appreciate all the support, criticism, and new information which has resulted from this article being a featured article candidate. I realize that the subject was not a famous person, and that neither he, or the railroads he helped build may be interesting enough to have broad appeal in this setting. Nevertheless, I'm very pleased with the results and the fine-tuning efforts a number of users have put into it. One Wikipedian (?) went down to the local library and actually dug up some new leads, which in turn, have opened other doors in my Yahoo rail group with over 400 members (including some published authors) to even more sources of information. The folks in my group are just now becoming aware of the wonders of Wikipedia. Bottom line: for the article and me as its' primary contributor, the fac process has been great, win or not! Thanks, folks. Vaoverland 14:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. A very fine article on something I knew absolutely nothing about. Filiocht 14:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Through the Yahoo group, we have located a photo of Page, but it looks unlikely that we will be able to get the needed permission to use it. We are still working on it, though. Vaoverland 18:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economy of the Republic of IrelandEdit

Self-nomination. I've expanded this article significantly over the last few weeks. It covers all sectors of the Irish economy, taxation, wealth distribution, the relevent statistics, economic ties etc. CGorman 20:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - robust article and gives insight into Ireland, an alternative history and modern Ireland - also recommend that article should (perhaps) incorporate larger historic section and definitely use less abbreviations (can be quite abstract) and more paragraphing. Djegan 21:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral for the moment - the "Economic ties"/USA section needs a considerable update as it still refers to the Clinton administration in the current and future tenses (someone taking bets for 2008?!). Most of the figures in that section refer to 1998 and 1999, something more recent would be a good idea. There's also quite a lot of US spellings there, which isn't appropriate as we should be using Hiberno-English. -- Arwel 00:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) P.S. - I forgot, there's also a tendency to refer to the whole island as "the country", which isn't exactly NPOV. Looks OK now. Support. -- Arwel 23:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The US economic ties section has been updated to reflect current circumstances. CGorman 21:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support as long as Economic ties is updated thoughZayZayEM 08:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • See above. CGorman 21:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support on same condition. Filiocht 08:55, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • See above. CGorman 21:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Will support after sources are formatted in MLA style. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 17:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh, last I checked, the manual of style says that any referencing style is acceptable. →Raul654 17:59, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed. but they should at least have the publisher, author, and year for every book reference listed. Also, the 'See also' and 'External links' are included under the 'Reference' section. They should not be unless they were used as actual references for this article. If other wikipedia articles were used as references, my feeling is that the references for those articles should be listed instead of listing the wikipedia article as a reference. But maybe that is just me. Finally the external links are not formatted correctly as references as noted in Wikipedia:Cite sources. I completed the suggestion in my foregoing comment - Taxman 19:06, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good to me. Especially the name fix. Object, I seem to be a one man mission on this, but please fix the one sentence paragraphs :). This article lists the growth differently than in Celtic Tiger, which is right? Great pictures, otherwise looks good and I would support with those fixes. - Taxman 19:06, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have merged or lenghted some of the shorter paragraphs were appropiate. As for the growth figures - the Economy of Ireland article mentions 10%, but clearly states that this is over the five year period 1995-2000, the Celtic Tiger article mentions 5%-6%, this is for the longer period - of 1990-2004. Have I satisfied your complaint? CGorman 21:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Certainly not bad, but I have some issues: 1) The article is called "Economy of Ireland", but appears to be only about the Republic of Ireland. This should be corrected (either the title should change or the contents should reflect it is also about Northern Ireland). 2) The history has almost nothing on the early history. Everyting up to 1848 is covered in a single sentence, and 3/4 of the section is about the 20th century or later. This trend is noticeable troughout the entire article; the present and recent past are getting most of the attention. I understand this is the period for which most information is available, but a better overview is really needed for an encyclopedia. In addition, this makes the article read rather "dated" at times: "In 1999, trade between Ireland and the United States was worth around $18.5 billion, a 24% increase over 1998." looks like the last information on this is already 5 years old.3) Some additional figures for the history section (or elsewhere) to compare would also be nice. I can think of graphs or tables with the GPD or inflation (or other indicators) every so many years (10, 20). 4) "Recent economic circumstances" should be merged with the history. 2000-2004 is as much part of history as all years before. 5) I don't think there is a reason to keep all of the information that is left over from the CIA book. Some of this information is really not very useful (such as the historic exchange rates in US$), others are duplicates of the information in the table. The rest could probably be integrated with that table as well (I like the table). Jeronimo 19:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've made a considerable stab at your wish list... hopefully I've satisfied you! 1) Excellent suggestion, the page has been moved to Economy of the Republic of Ireland - information for Northern Ireland is in the UK article (or should be!). 2) The history section has been expanded to include the early economic history of Ireland and old 1998/1997 figures in the article have been replaced with the most recent available - you cited the US section in particular - i've added a link after the figures to allow them to be easily and accuratly updated in the future. 3) I cannot seem to find any historical GDP figures - besides I think the articles informative enough without needing such a graph 4) Recent economic circumstances is now part of the history section - which has itself been devided up into periods. 5) On this I would disagree with you - the historic exchange figures are usful in telling how stable the economy has been in the past, the other figures such as gold reserve, electricity production etc., all are relevent to the countries economy, as for the table, im glad you like it (i've done the same to the USA and UK articles in the hope that it will become a standard) but I fear that adding all CIA figures would make it too long/confusing - and anyways I think for example natural gas reserves are better suited to the resources section than the table. CGorman 22:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This looks pretty OK now. I'm not totally in agreement regarding issues 3) and 5), but they are not sufficent to keep objecting: support. Jeronimo 10:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • question why has Ireland got the fastest growing economy in Europe? answer: because its capital's always Dublin. Anyway, no vote. Dunc| 21:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • ???? I don't get you - joke or sarcastic comment? CGorman 22:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • If you have to explain a joke. It's a pun of the words doubling and Dublin, and a play on the meaning of the word capital in a country's capital and capital (economics). Honestly... Dunc| 23:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • How could i've missed that! I was having quite a bad day yesterday - not in the mood for jokes and all the objections were bugging me... CGorman 19:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have some concerns about the time dependent nature of this article. Should an article like this be dated? Do we expect it be updated continuously? Will it still make sense 10 years from now? Paul August 23:09, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes this article contains a lot of data that is time changeable and in need of regular updating - but so too does Olympic Games. I have provided plenty of sources to allow figures to be easily updated - the majority of which come from the excellent CIA world factbook. Anyways how can you write an article about the economy of a country without talking about recent growth, economic size, labour force etc.? The nature of the article requires these figures - besides as wikipedia continues to grow, there will always be someone around to update things. CGorman 22:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you havan't already, you might want to take a look at: Avoid statements that will date quickly. Paul August 23:09, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Here's the introductory economic paragraph from the CIA factbook:
Ireland is a small, modern, trade-dependent economy with growth averaging a robust 8% in 1995-2002. The global slowdown, especially in the information technology sector, pressed growth down to 2.1% in 2003. Agriculture, once the most important sector, is now dwarfed by industry and services. Industry accounts for 46% of GDP and about 80% of exports and employs 28% of the labor force. Although exports remain the primary engine for Ireland's growth, the economy has also benefited from a rise in consumer spending, construction, and business investment. Per capita GDP is 10% above that of the four big European economies. Over the past decade, the Irish Government has implemented a series of national economic programs designed to curb inflation, reduce government spending, increase labor force skills, and promote foreign investment. Ireland joined in launching the euro currency system in January 1999 along with 10 other EU nations.
This looks like a revised version of our intro (or rather our intro looks like a previous version of CIA's entry), should our intro be changed to reflect this more recent info? By the way, I assume that the CIA factbook being a US government document is not copyright protected, but are there other issues (plagiarism?) with using its text verbatim? Paul August 13:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm wondering why there is no real mention of the impacts on the economy from the EU membership in the history part. Surely it must have had a greater importance than whats indicated, as it had for Spain and Portugal in 86. Of course, I may be wrong. Nice article anyway. Moravice
    • There is mention of the EU's impact. See the section on ties to Europe. CGorman 19:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object.The article doesn't even mention the term European Union (now added to see also) - it had major impact on economy of Ireland. This needs some serious peer review if such a major things are missing. For smaller things, many terms should be ilinked, starting from lead (can you believe the term 'economy' was not ilinked at all? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, do you want a mention other than the subsection European Union in the Economic ties section? Filiocht 12:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Im disgusted at your blindness! There's an entire section on the European Union! Please read the whole article before you make such strong judgements! The comment above you from Moravice even indicates this! Im stunned at your lazy attitude to judgeing this article! CGorman 22:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Somehow I must have missed it. It may have been edited out or vandalised when I was reading it, you know, so do yourself a favour and take it easy. Still, the EU section seems rather small for me, but I have no objections related to it anymore. I still think this article is incomplete, though. Unless I am blind again, I can't find any references to GATT or World Trade Organization, and I think Ireland is a member (was in case of GATT)? Things like World Bank or International Monetary Fund may be relevant as well. For now, I'll abstain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support, although with a few concerns: I think there could be more on the burgeoning high technology manufacture and electronics sector, possibly in its own section. Some of the pictures are a bit bizarre, and the Irish economy pie-chart could do with being redone in a more interesting and colourful way. But I think it merits Featured Article status. Dbiv 01:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • FYI: Starting, Saturday, I will be on vacation for two weeks, (islands … sun … snorkeling … no computers … ahhhh) so if I don't respond to someone's possible query, you now know why ;-) And just so, there's no misunderstanding I have no objections to this article being a FA. Paul August 03:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Lottie DodEdit

Self-nomination. Jeronimo 15:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • SupportZayZayEM 01:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: An external web link would be a good addition. Geogre 02:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I know, but I haven't been able to find much more than the meagre bio currently listed under references. I'll keep on searching. Jeronimo 11:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Possibly on a "Women athletes of the century" kind of thing (ESPN did one of those)? I am not really a see-also person, but a Wimbleton history or women in sports see-also or external link would at least be something, even if not specific to Dod. Geogre 15:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I added an external and an internal "see also" link. Jeronimo 11:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, too short. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:28, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • That is not a valid objection in itself, unless you can qualify it. Being short is not a bad thing, being incomplete is. Are there any issues/subtopics you can mention that are not (sufficiently) dealt with by the article? If not, I'll regard this objection as unactionable. Jeronimo 07:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems very complete as it is. Filiocht 14:27, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--enceladus 01:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Restoration comedyEdit

Self-nom, all my own work, in a literary period with mostly 1911 EB coverage. (Although things are changing—check out Geogre's great A Tale of a Tub on the Main page today!) I'm kind of pleased with this article, but without any input from other people I've probably become blind to its glaring defects. Nobody has changed a single pixel during the whole time I've been expanding it from stubhood. The Talk page is just me muttering to myself, shuffling about in a dressing-gown, becoming agoraphobic. I'd love to get some comments.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 14:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, this is what wiki is all about, keep on the good work. GeneralPatton 14:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: 2 of the pictures are completely black on my screen. Can you fix them? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 16:36, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Black... ? Gulp. No, I don't think I can. I'm pretty new to images altogether and they look fine in my browser (Mozilla 1.6 for mac). Please help, somebody. David? ALoan?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 16:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • They look fine to me (current versions of Safari, Firefox, IE on a Mac) Paul August 17:38, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Superb article. I have made three tiny edits. It's a magnificent overview of the subject and superior to the background I got in grad school on the subject. Geogre 17:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Contains everything a good Wikipedia article should contain - excellent work! Zerbey 18:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: An excellent article from this editor who is always well informed, astute, and providing an expert and 21st century view essential to keep these important cultural subjects alive. Giano 21:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose until those black images are fixed, I'm having that same problem. Everyking 22:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Fixed now, support. Everyking 00:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That's not really an actionable objection unless you're a developer, which I submit is an unreasonably high bar for WP:FAC - the problem is that Internet Explorer can't render the thumbnails of PNG images fed to it by MediaWiki - David Gerard 23:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Giano informs me that the trouble on his screen is with the first and the fifth image, I'm assuming that's the same for everybody. What distinguishes the first and fifth from the others is that they aren't thumbs, they're frames. They're pretty small images, so I wanted to show them full size. So, not being a developer, should I work around the problem by turning those frames into, uh, full-size thumbs? I ask again that somebody help with this, though. Since all the images already look good on my screen, it's hard for me to know whether anything I do fixes the problem or not.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 23:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I've looked at the images and it seems that MediaWiki and IE might not be all to blame this time, even though IE's PNG support is abysmal. It seems that there is some corruption, particularly in the gamma chunk of the PNGs. It should be solveable, and I'm talking to Bishonen on my talk page. — David Remahl 23:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • The images problem should be solved now, please verify (don't forget to clear your cache first). — David Remahl 23:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I have looked at it with Firefox and IE 6.0 under Win XP Home, and both showed the images, though IE did threaten to time out on a dial up connection (shrug). Geogre 04:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Some friendly advice guys, Jettison IE ;-) Paul August 03:34, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent. Paul August 03:34, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Filiocht 08:29, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although query whether the article ought to discuss later plays that are often - perhaps loosely - called "restoration comedy" based on their style, such as the works of Sheridan, including The School for Scandal and The Rivals. Also, is it worth linking this Spanish (!) project to catalogue the restoration comedies? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[moved extended discussion to Talk:restoration comedy]

  • Support. Wonderful. PRIIS 17:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Saturn VEdit

Self-nomination. In my not so humble opinion it is an excellent article and the Saturn V is one of the most important technological achievements of the 20th Century --enceladus 05:32, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Object Support ,I don't see the point of mission control quotes in the launch sequence section. Otherwise good work, but could be expanded, especially development and technology sections.GeneralPatton 06:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Some of those quotes are world-famous. Many are even included in popular songs! -Joseph (Talk) 06:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
      • There are three paragraphs on the development and two on the technology, while there's a dozen on the quotes. That's bloat used to create some kind of a "dramatic" effect, not particularly encyclopedic also. I’d like to see more on the development history and technology, two far more interesting topics, and topics that really give you an insight on why were the Saturn boosters so special, instead of the Armageddon style over-dramatized launch sequence.GeneralPatton 08:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Joseph (Talk) 06:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
    • What does your "concur" mean? With whom or what are you agreeing? Paul August 17:49, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • My concurrance was at the base level. Therefore I am concurring with the original request. -Joseph (Talk) 03:07, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
  • Support. Could use some expansion, eg 1) Lead section needs to be expanded, 2) Very little about the history and design of the Saturn V, 3) The Technology section isn't long enough - it's almost a list (eek!), 4) More could be written about the Skylab launch (barely a fleeting mention). It is getting there though. Zerbey 17:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: The quote section is painfully long. I agree that the transcript is historical, but its presence veers the article away from its subject, Saturn V, and onto Apollo 11. The article in general seems to half desire to be "The Moon Shot Rocket" rather than the Saturn V. The bits on the rocket itself are technical, but fine, but the human interest angle of the moonshot overwhelm them. Also, it would be worth, perhaps, mentioning some of the struggle over the adoption of the rocket and the competition among designers, though I wouldn't put a premium on that. Geogre 19:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support now. One request would be a distinction between the text and web references in the form of "references" and "external links." Geogre 16:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • After reading the comments here, I've changed the 'quote section' into a more encyclopedic look at the launch sequence. I feel it is still important to include this in the article, as its about a rocket, whose whole purpose was to launch. Its a bit like having an article about the internal combustion engine and not showing how its works. The quotes may have been a bit excessive. I'll also expand the history section and look at why Skylab only get a small paragraph at the end. --enceladus 21:32, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: very comprehensive article, well written and well illustrated. Welll done Enceladus. Gandalf61 11:22, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Illustrating the article isn't that hard considering that NASA seems to have taken photos of everything!--enceladus 19:56, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Only minor quibble was no mention of cost. PRIIS 19:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Some of the images have no URLs for the sources. It would be good if we had precise source infos, even for NASA images. Lupo 08:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Done--Enceladus 08:36, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Support. Well written and pretty comprehensive, as far as I can tell. One minor point: the text switches to present tense for two sentences in the "S-IVB sequence" section. Could you fix that? Lupo 09:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Augusta, Lady GregoryEdit

Mostly self nom. This was a stub a while back and I've been working away at expanding it. Some other users (notably Geogre) have corrected many of my errors. Would make a nice FA Abbey Theatre set with W.B. Yeats and J.M. Synge in the centenary year of the founding of the theatre. And potential for another woman on FA. Filiocht 13:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support: Excellent and comprehensive short biography. I had never heard of her, would now like to know more. Giano 14:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: I did some copy editing. Geogre 14:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To potential reviewers to whom the name isn't ringing any bells, this is Lady Gregory, Yeats's angel and Mighty Big Wheel in the Irish literary renaissance. (Don't mean to insult anyone by implying that they don't know the name, but I know I'd certainly ask "Who's her when she's home" upon hearing it.) Geogre 05:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: should the article not be called Lady Gregory, as the more common name? Markalexander100 03:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • We don't seem to use titles related to knighthood in article titles, for some reason. Thus, Thomas Browne rather than Sir Thomas Browne; Agatha Christie rather than Dame Agatha Christie; and Isabella Augusta Gregory rather than Lady Gregory. -- Emsworth 14:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • No, Lady Gregory should be a redirect, as it is. See the link to rationale and specifics at your more common name reference: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles."
      • My understanding exactly. Anyone care to vote now that that's sorted? Filiocht 09:00, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • Not quite sorted: that page gives this as a specific example: Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the nineteenth century British prime minister Lord John Russell was always known by that form of name, never simply John Russell. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Russell. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory. Markalexander100 01:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Simply "Lady Gregory" is definitely an insufficient title. Augusta, Lady Gregory is more appropriate. -- Emsworth 02:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • I like this solution and am about to adopt it. Filiocht 08:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Regarding the name of the article: I would prefer Lady Gregory here as well (just take a look at "What links here" to see how many of the links are to Lady Gregory). Still, there are two conflicting "rules" here (best known name vs. using titles in names), so either one is really OK. Jeronimo 19:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support except two small things. The intro para's don't seem long enough or distinct enough to need to be separate, but simply linking them looks awkward because of the duplicated her, her. Could you expand that, or at least vary the second "her" in Her motto...? Also, the list of works seems like it would be better in a separate article. Especially for every work that is not going ot have prose written about it. - Taxman 20:23, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Is the intro better now? I would resist removing the list of works, which I always feel is vital info in an author biog. Moving it to a distinct article introduces a redundant click for the interested reader, IMHO. Filiocht 08:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well the real issue was that it was just two sentences that has no need to be a distinct paragraph. Unless you think it needs expanding to stay two paragraphs, merge them together so they flow nicely. I know nothing about the subject, so I didn't want to mischaracterize anything by doing it myself. Come to think of it, the article covers very little about her works at all. Were they important or was she just important for her involvement in the revival? - Taxman 15:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
        • Most of her books, apart from the diaries and some of her myth retellings, are out of print or available only in expensive academis editions, and her plays are never performed nowadays. But as a 'figure', she has an importance way beyond her quality as a writer. I'll expand the lead a bit more later. Filiocht 15:11, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
          • Well that may help, but my point was that if she is not really known for her works, all of the ones that don't deserve individual mention really should be moved to a separate article. It doesn't take much if anything away from this article to link to a separate list. - Taxman 17:05, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
            • Just for whatever it's worth, it has always been my impression that her works were important but aren't important. Her translations, in particular, were the first and were important in popularizing the materials. At the same time, other Irish scholars (and scholars of Irish) immediately got their hackles raised, and they struck back. Barely a generation after her work, other translations were available and preferrable, but she had a big effect. She got satirized so bitterly by Flann O'Brien (a serious Gaelic scholar) because she made naive mistakes. Her Anglo-Irish feelings also brought some hostility, I gather. Geogre 05:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • My own view, for what it's worth, is that any author biog should include as full a listing as possible of published works. It serves, amongst other things, as a snapshot of their development over time. Filiocht 12:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: PRIIS 22:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Venus (planet)Edit

Good intro; lots of good info and images. --Doradus 16:15, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Filiocht 15:23, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC) Object for now. The external links that served as references need to go to a references section, along with any print refs that were used. Also, could the Recent flybys and Future missions subsections be merged? They're both very short. Filiocht 16:22, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok, I renamed "External Links" to "References". Why merge Recent flybys and Future missions besides their length? --Doradus 15:04, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Fine by me. Filiocht 15:23, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support JoJan 19:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 21:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Geogre 15:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The history section is nice, and the 'Venus in fiction', while small, contains the most basic facts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 07:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Lots of dates are not wikified so they don't display according to my preferences. Are there no paper references that should be included? (I also I have a niggling feeling that it is not comprehensive enough, but can't quite put my finger on what is missing: some of the sections and paragraphs are certainly rather short. I'll support if I can't think of something to add when my objections are addressed.)-- ALoan (Talk) 00:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support - on second thoughts, I think this is good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support (99% of dates now wikified) -- Martin TB 17:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cultural references (I changed the heading from Venus in fiction) is rather incomplete. I assume that Venus, the brightest "star" in the sky, has been a topic in many cultures and mythologies, yet this section talks only about English / Western culture. — David Remahl 21:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Venus (mythology) deals with the many of the mythological/religious aspects - that renamed section really does deals with Venus in works of fiction rather than its wider culture influence. However, much as I hate to bring it up, I can't see where astrology and alchemy and so on are dealt with - they don't seem to be referred to in either article, and arguably relate more to the planet than mythology. - ALoan (Talk) 10:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Someone re-renamed the section "Venus in fiction". My intention with renaming it, was that it should be _exanded_ to cover more. It still focuses solely on western novels. Fiction is too narrow, I believe. For example, it does not cover Venus from Gustav Holst's The Planets (classical music). Furthermore, it would be POV to call mythology "fiction" (even though I think it is appropriate). The NPOV policy entails including not only the _currrent_ points of views, but important viewpoints from history. My objection thus stands. — David Remahl 16:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I have put it back. --Doradus 17:37, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

National parks of England and WalesEdit

This was the UK collaboration of the week last week, and has been on Peer review for a few days with generally very positive responses and a few comments that have been dealt with. Largely a self-nomination, although User:Naturenet and others also contributed large chunks, and some parts (list and map) were there already. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. As disclosure, I was one who made remarks on Peer review. Filiocht 14:58, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • (Not a vote yet) Question 1: Wouldn't it make sense to merge this article with the articles National Parks of Scotland, National Parks of the United Kingdom (and also National parks of Northern Ireland, although there aren't any parks there)? It seems like these would make a nice combination in NPs of the UK, but I may be mistaken. Question 2: How can broken class cause fire? ("Broken glass is a danger to people and a possible cause of fire") Jeronimo 20:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Good idea, but the article is already pretty long, and the division of National Parks into (England and Wales), (Scotland), and (N Ireland) is not accidental: each of those three areas has different legislation and different history to their parks, not to mention different parks. I believe there are significant differences between these three and I wouldn't support a merge. There is no need for a full UK page - it can just be a pointer to the others. The answer to your glass query can be found here: [7]. Naturenet 22:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • AFAIK the glass can magnify the sun's rays (and consequently heat) onto dry tinder-like ground and cause fire. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Indeed - I have added a note to that effect. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • National parks of the United Kingdom is a summary article, a kind of hub which subsumes and links to National parks of England and Wales, National parks of Scotland, and National parks of Northern Ireland in a very orderly and highly organized manner, according to the principle recommended on Wikipedia:Article size. If these articles were all merged together into one, it would be a very long one. They are surely all set to grow further from inside, too. National parks of England and Wales is about 20 kb now, a very nice size and with no more than an appropriate margin for internal growth before it starts to knock up against the 32 kb limit. Jeronimo, if you think these broken-up UK national parks articles, which seem to me exemplary of their kind, need to be merged, perhaps you'd be interested in contributing to the current article length discussion on the Talk page? In that discussion, the user who has objected to John Vanbrugh (listed some ways below) as being "way too long" is highly recommending that this very same summary + links method should be used to break that up, and (I think, not quite sure), to break up any and all pages over 32 kb, according to Wikipedia policy. I didn't know that opinions on what constitutes acceptable page size or Wikipedia policy on page size varied this much, and my head is starting to hurt at the idea of the possible wanton violence in store for well-functioning pages, if they are all to be either broken up or merged. (Btw I should declare a personal interest, as one of the authors of John Vanbrugh).--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 00:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Support. The answers to my questions were clear, thanks. Jeronimo 19:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Joe D (t) 22:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article on a somewhat unusual topic. Ambi 05:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "Support, great article, but I have one point. The photos are excellent, as well as high resolution, do the thumbnails have to be so small? Would it be a major problem for dial-up users if they were bigger (personally, I'd like to see them much bigger)? They, and the whole layout, would look a lot better. They're really beautiful photos. --[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 00:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC). Sorry, I'm pretty new to this page, I didn't realize it was better to first voice concerns and then (maybe) vote Support. To get a reply, I'm changing my vote to "Object because of the smallness of the 2nd+3rd thumbnail, a postage-stamp Scafell Pike isn't the compelling landscape it should be. The page isn't profusely illustrated anyway. Would bigger thumbs make it slow to load?"--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 00:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Like that is it? :) I've enlarged a little them - sufficient? I don't want them too large, otherwise they cease to illustrate the text and start to dominate it - on one PC that I use, they are already getting on for half of the text column width. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, big enough, already. Lovely though thi images are they crowd out my screen as it is. I trust that's now acceptable as any bigger may cause me to object! Naturenet 13:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Solid, Hadrian's wall doesn't look like a length of electric cord lying in the grass any more! Support: great article, interesting, very well written, beautifully illustrated.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 18:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - very nice article. -- Arwel 19:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 08:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Jayjg 21:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ✏ Sverdrup 22:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support James F. (talk) 13:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economy of AfricaEdit

An outgrowth of recent efforts to unbias our fair 'pedia, and a sexy effort by SimonP and ChrisG. This is a particular milestone since there are no other continents with "Economy of" articles to use as a guideline (see Economy of Europe and Economy of Australia if you must). --+sj+ 23:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, I know the nomination was clobbered [8], but this was just recently nominated and there are objections that have not been addressed at all. Specifically the sentence in the intro "Improving Africa's economy as it emerges from the aftereffects of colonialism and it struggles with democracy, welfare and quality of life is one of the most important issues facing the modern world." Even though many may agree with that, it is an unnacceptable POV for a featured article. It needs to be re written so it is more factual. - Taxman 23:49, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well I NPOV'd that, hopefully someone can fix it so it flows better. - Taxman 19:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat 23:51, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • support. Pnd 11:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah - I thought this was nominated recently, but I couldn't see it in the achive of promoted articles or of rejected ones... This was overwritten by another section (that old chestnut again). What it said was:

[that was me, by the way -- ALoan (Talk) 00:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)]

A thorough, well-written, all-around excellent article on an interesting and important topic. —No-One Jones (m) 00:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Strong support. Fredrik | talk 08:46, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolute support. Best article of the year. Ambi 08:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht 09:05, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Xed 09:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Simon has already implemented my suggested changes. ✏ Sverdrup 10:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Important and excellent. ChrisG 11:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The information is good, but the article is sorely in need of an editor. I may lend a hand if I have time. Someone correctly pointed out on the talk page that African_gdp_growth.png is almost illegible to anyone with red–green colour blindness. The burgundy and the dark olive green in particular will look almost the same to about 8% of males. I suggest changing either the reds or the greens to blues. Incidentally, the first map on the page, the one done entirely in greens, is very easy to read, irrespective of colour blindness. Shorne 12:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    What kind of editing do you think it needs? —No-One Jones (m) 12:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Just now I edited the introductory paragraph. Check the revision history for my changes. I can also point out the bizarre sentence "Africa's economy is more reliant on agriculture than that of any other continent with a majority of Africans still working the soil", which, for want of a comma, means something rather different from what was intended. I'll support this nomination once the English is cleaned up. Shorne 12:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I've done a fair bit of copyediting and linkage. How does it look now? —No-One Jones (m) 13:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I've done some more editing myself. More could be done, but I'll withdraw the objection. I have another one, however, about one of the maps. See above. Shorne 19:28, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow... Definite support, this is an excellent piece of work! Zerbey 14:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Great material. I see at least two issues: 1.) The sentence in the intro "Improving Africa's economy as it emerges from a period of colonialism and struggles with democracy, welfare and quality of life is one of the most important issues facing the modern world.", while many may agree with, is an unnacceptable POV for a wikipedia article. It either needs to be cited to a source that said it, or turned into a factual statement, not a value judgement. 2.) The Geography section needs some work. The second paragraph has redundant sentences in it. I would have fixed that except for the problem is not only geographic it is political. It is the fact that the interior countries are landlocked that cause the problem, not the geography alone. The end of the third paragraph is a POV mess. That is one explanation, but is not neccessarily correct. Wikipedia can't state things like that as fact without citation. That is all the farther I got, but I assume similar issues happen later in the article. So unfortunately object for now. - Taxman 15:47, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Simon A. 20:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is mostly my article, and seeing as I made it my entry in Danny's contest I am quite pleased with it. Many thanks to everyone who has since edited and improved it. I am aware the article is not perfect. I am concerned that it gives short shrift to many subjects, but I think this is unavoidable with such a massive subject matter. I would also prefer more numbers and statistics, but accurate numbers are very difficult to find. I would also like to have the colour blind be able to read the maps, but I do not know much about how best this can be done. - SimonP 03:25, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for lack of certain informations. The history section has several problems, no information before tenth century and a very limited informations on slavery. "This region became quite prosperous as Swahili traders exported ivory and slaves to a trade that spanned the entire Indian Ocean region." is the only sentence to mention slavery at all and this make it look like only Swahili was involved or that it had only a small effect in Africa. The agriculture section lacks informations on cattles which is very important in the central Africa. The Disease section has informations on AIDS and malaria but not on any other disease that have been controlled like small pox. Half of the Language issues section is about education and there is no independent section on it. I cannot figure out why the picture "Tamale in linguistically diverse Ghana" is a meaningful one. The only linguistic thing about the picture is a "TOYOTA" on the back of a truck. Something like a picture of a ballot with multiple languages on it, like the one you see in an Indian election, would be better. Revth 03:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would love to implement the above suggestions, but the article is already longer that is officially allowed. At this point adding anything substantial would entail cutting elsewhere, so I personally think more detailed information is better suited to subpages like economic history of Africa, or agriculture in Africa. - SimonP 09:02, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • Then what the article needs is to be written more in Wikipedia:Summary style. The article should cover all of the most important facets of the subject, but not in too much detail, and the sections that are too long need to be summarized to make room for other topics that need coverage. The detailed coverage then gets moved to the subarticle or the main article on the topic. - Taxman 23:40, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • If someone had written these additional articles then summary style would make sense. But they haven't been written and so this is a unfair suggestion, what makes this article excellent is it successfully describes the key issues in one article. :ChrisG 18:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • No, no, you're missing the concept. In summary style this article wouldn't depend on the main articles on each subtopic, just what is summarized in this article. That is the only way to cover everything properly, with every single important topic covered and none so long that you have to leave out important stuff to fit in the size limit. Anything too long needs to be moved out and summarized, but primarily to improve this article, not specifically to improve the subarticle. - Taxman 02:58, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
        • No I'm not missing the concept. From my perspective, the article is covers the subject matter in a comprehensive manner. In dealing with the important facets it obviously cannot cover every detail. If you use this article in its present state to create a main article with child articles, you will replace one great article with four or five average ones. :ChrisG 10:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Revth. This is a good article, but to be a good featured, it needs sub-articles. With no mention of Axumite Kingdom (just to name one historical empire), the history section is definetly incomplete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • But that would involve placing far too much detail into this article. It's unfair to object to this one because another article (Economic history of Africa doesn't yet exist. Ambi 04:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Some topics need long articles to be good, or division into subarticles. Economy of a continent is a very ambitious project. While the work done on the article so far is amazing and would be many times enough for some other featured articles (like the recently featured infinite monkey theorem, it is not yet enough for Economy of Africa. And ATM this article is already 40k long, it needs to be split into smaller sections anyway. I recommend Warsaw Uprising as an example on how a long article was split into subarticles. I will expand the history section a little with my knowledge, but the section about early history (before Europeans) needs serious work and my objections still stand. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • I expanded the history but it is still far from complete. Considering this is an article about economy I think that is enough, for now. Therefore I withdraw my objectons and for the moment I will abstain here and look at further developments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • But the "main article" for the section is blank. This implies there's more information, and is at the very least, misleading. 15:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Removed link to non-existent article :ChrisG 18:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Sentences about slavery was added, so now a minor object. Revth 02:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. I think Revth's concerns can be addressed in seperate articles, ie: History of the Economy of Africa, or something like that, etc. func(talk) 21:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support unequivocally. Lisiate 23:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Have you guys really read the whole article? I have seen no attempt made at addressing some of the above objections. - Taxman 15:55, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Are you going to set a test? Just because you (or indeed anyone else) have objections does not mean that I should have objections. I think it can be featured as it stands. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't know what that phrase means, just wondering how you could support if you had read it all. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how much it differs from my own. So I was simply asking. - Taxman 19:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Have read the whole article (after it won Danny's contesT), and I believe it can be featured as is. Minor improvements would include a bit more NPOV as mentioned by taxman, but that can be argued about -- Chris 73 Talk 14:13, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, still. I've had a go at fixing some of the POV, but I saw too many more that I can't fix soon. There are many unattributed statements that are so authoritatively worded that they are a POV problem. There is still some flawed and unattributed economic analysis in the geopolitical section. Many one sentence paragraghs throughout. I'm not saying its not great material, but it has some ways to go before being featured quality. Since I am in the minority objecting, I will see what I can do further to solve these issues. - Taxman 19:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

There are 3 outstanding objections to this article - that the map could be illegible to someone with red-green blindness; that there aren't enough sub-articles, and that there are too many unattributed statements. The first objection is, well, pretty trivial (how many people does it apply to?); the second objection is invalid because it not intrinsic to this article. Really, only Taxman's objection strikes me as weighty. →Raul654 21:34, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • I think the first has been addressed by adding a special link to a monochrome map. The second is extrinsic. Should the third override the otherwise wide support? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John DeeEdit

Not a self nom, although I made a small edit just now. Well made page on an interesting person. Go read. Filiocht 08:35, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Very interesting subject well written, most people know the name but few facts, so this fills a valuable void. One minor quibble (which doesn't affect my support) could one or two of the many "Dee" mentions be changed to "He" or "His", as it is a little repetitious In "Final Years" alone - there are six "Dees" in 5 lines.Giano 09:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have attempted to address this observation. Filiocht 09:17, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. He's a taff and a mathematician. Why have I never heard of him? -- GWO 09:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:44, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, interesting and well-written article with all the trimmings.--Bishonen 11:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I want to support, but is it comprehensive enough? I am not a Dee scholar, but I looked here (which is not referenced - I'm not sure how far I can trust it, since it claims that Dee coined the word Britannia and founded the Rosicrucian Order) which claims that Dee sold the Voynich Manuscript to Rudolph II (I'm sure I have heard this claimed elsewhere, so not so potty). There also seem to be more (and more believeable) details of his life here, here and here that could be included, and these websites are not given as External Links either. I won't refer to the more "esoteric" websites... I'm not objecting, but just asking whether further information should be added. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suppose it would always be possible to expand any Wikipedia biography almost indefinitely, but some selection has to be made or we'd end up with 800 page books. My own view is that there is enough there now, but I'd like the view of the major contributor and anyopne else who is interested. Filiocht 13:58, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed - that is why I was not objecting. The article is good, but should it be better? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do appreciate the attention that's being given this article. This is the level of detail I imagined Dee's significance would merit, but if there's a general feeling that more detail is needed I can certainly expand the article. I did consciously try to give more space to Dee's non-scrying life than a lot of sources do. Dee seems to have been claimed by every esoteric and occult group around, so there's lots of biographical misinformation out there. The connection with the Voynich manuscript rests on some very flimsy assumptions, but that's the context that most people have heard of Dee in, so I'll add a mention of it now. (When the system stops being so agonizingly slow!) PRIIS 15:34, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just added information on the Voynich Ms and an external link on the same topic. PRIIS 18:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks - have you had a chance to look at the other references, which all looked pretty "normal" and useful, with some information that I couldn't immediately see in out article. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, this one from St. Andrew's is good. This one not so much--anything with Necronomicon in it, you are encouraged to dismiss with a snort. This third one is in between but still pretty romanticized. I'll add the first to the external links. PRIIS 20:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - as said before, my points above were not objections, just questioning whether the articles was comprehensive. On the basis that they appear to be dealt with, I'll support. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Dee has been a favorite figure for every tinfoil hat group since 1700. He has been more maligned and used than Jacques de Molay. Every Satanist would-be, every "secret history," every "revelations of secret power" group in the world sooner or later claims something about Dee. As for his link to the Rosicrucians, it's possible, though he's hardly the originator. The Rosicrucian "cult" in England has two very, very brief lives. One is around the time of Dee, the other in the 1680's, but they never did do much or mean much. All "secret history" is unverifiable. I would suggest that the article make it a little clearer that Dee is a popular figure for outlandish speculation. Geogre 18:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, agreed, but then should the article not then summarise and refute or debunk some of these claims? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've added a refutation to these sorts of claims in the "Reputation" section. I'd say it's more "blanket" than "point-by-point." PRIIS 22:15, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wise. The only gripe I had was that you probably needed a bit more of a pointing hand and a blinking arrow to say loudly, "He wasn't a Satanist!" Point by point is impossible, because every schemer has his own point, and we ought not be in the business of validating them by repeating their fantasies. As a side note, I believe Dee features as one of the alleged links in the fake scheme in Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. Geogre 03:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BTW, excellent new paragraph about hermeticism and Pythagorean philosophy in the 16th c. world. If any outsider reads it with reason and an open mind, he or she will get a good understanding of why the nuts like him, and why it's nuts to like him that way. Geogre 04:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Thorough and readable. Smerdis of Tlön 02:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I earlier informed the author of what a good job he'd done, but failed to add my vote here. So now I have. PedanticallySpeaking 19:58, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if American English spellings are changed to the more appropriate (for this article) Commonwealth English. -- Emsworth 18:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I find "artifacts", "traveled", "centimeter" and "fictionalizes/fictionalized" as AmE. I can change them, but is it really an issue? If it is, are there any more I'm missing? PRIIS 08:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I made those changes. If there are any more, please make them or let me know. PRIIS 19:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • "More appropriate" because the subject is "Commonwealth"? Sorry, but I think that's nonsense. It is indeed not an issue, the only Am/Br spelling issue is to be consistent within the same article. I'm sorry you made the changes, PRiis. You've already got enough support to manage fine without the P. G. Wodehouse vote.--[[User:Bishonen|Bish (Bosh)]] 13:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • According to the Manual of Style, "Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country." Thus, in this case, British English should be used. -- 13:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Not sure about the rest of it, but the "bangers and mash" point below makes a lot of sense. Just because he's English doesn't make him "specifically" English. Comment withdrawn. -- 14:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • "To a particular English-speaking country." Ok, so you're suggesting that John Dee is on the level of "bangers and mash?" He lived before the break-away of the United States and is part of the common heritage of contemporary England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, the U.S., Bahamas, Australia, and New Zealand. He is not a particularly English figure. This is aside from the fact that orthographic arguments are silly (all of Webster's reforms were proposed in England before him, and the reaction against "American spellings" had a lot to do with then-extant hostility between the nations) and that American spellings are no farther from Jacobean than contemporary British spellings are. (Sorry for jumping in, as I swore I wouldn't, but this subject is a sore spot for me, and I don't want this to affect voting on the excellent article.) Geogre 14:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --ZayZayEM 05:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Jayjg 21:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is 'commonwealth English' suitable for John Dee, does this mean that all the Kings from 'Will the Conk' to ' Henry the Something' have to be translated into Norman-French or whatever the English natives spoke in those parts at the time. Spelling is immaterial so long as it's correct and consistent to one country or the other. In England correct English is referred to as 'Queen's English' as Commonwealth English could cover a multitude of pronunciations and spellings. Finally 'Commonwealth' was not in general usage in England until 1649, sometime after the demise of John Dee. Such a trivial objection should not impede John Dee becoming a featured article.Giano 15:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • As I understand it, the policy is that specifically American articles should be in American English, specifically British/Commonwealth etc. articles should be in British/International English, and other articles should be consistently one or the other, depending on how they were started (which is an encouragement to British authors to start writing articles in British English to avoid de facto cultural hegemony :) although, ideally, articles should be written to avoid the distinction - see Pilgrim Fathers and Battle of Yorktown which seem to sail a middle course, avoiding Americanisms and Britishisms entirely. But if a middle course is not chosen, shouldn't articles on a British topic (which John Dee surely is, notwithstanding that he is part of the cultural heritage of the world) be in British English rather than American English, and vice versa, as the policy states? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I certainly don't think so. I read that as "particularly national," not as "just sort of part of that nation." I.e. an article on tyre would maintain British spellings, as that's a British spelling. An article on "the tube" would, as well. An article on "State legislatures" in the US would need to be Americanized. If the institution/thing is characteristically and particularly associated with a single nation, it should have usage belonging to that nation. On the other hand, common heritage (literature, whether American or British), historical figures (whether of India or Indiana) could be either, so long as they are consistent. I write articles generally about 18th c. British subjects, with other literature and theology tossed in, and I'm not fond of the idea that my articles are all in need of a rewrite because I avoid twee and exaggeratedly anachronistic spellings. N.b. that I in fact attempted British English in the Jonathan Wild article, only to have someone entirely misunderstand "gaol" and rewrite it to a completely different word. I shan't get into a Manual of Style argument here, but I would absolutely not demand a rewrite of every article written by a Brit on a person or work that happened to be American in its first origin (we could demand that no television articles have any Anglicisms in them, I suppose, and the same for all computer topics). That way lies madness and the kind of cane-shaking rancor that does no one any good. Geogre 18:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • (TV was invented by a Scot). Mark1 09:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • And the computer was invented by the British, too. Proteus (Talk) 12:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mes Enfants! Genug! Get real! Grow up! So long as the student understands stop flattering your egos with this pseudo-prattle. 20:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Soda can stoveEdit

Spare and sweet. Colorful 3-D rendering leaves nothing to the imagination. Top link in the references shows you exactly how to make one. +sj+ 00:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Minor objction. How did it came to be called "Pepsi can stove"? Why wasn't it called simply "soda can stove"? Revth 02:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The requested article link was "Pepsi can stove", i didn't think about a better name but maybe should have. FWIW Google shows 1130 hits for "Pepsi can stove" (with quotes) and 594 for "soda can stove". Duk 03:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Yup, I checked myself and "Pepsi can stove" is the popular name and couldn't find out why that name stuck. It's most likely that no one knows.
    • I believe it is credited as a Pepsi can stove because cans from Pepsi products tend to work best. --Mrath 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Revth 15:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Would still like to see some more depth in some areas, but I am not sure the information is out there to find. Martyman 21:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Objection1) There is no mention of the commercially available stoves that are almost identical in design such as the Trangia. 2) Was the Pepsi stove a copy of the commercial designs, and when was it invented/adapted. Martyman 03:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Good article, but far too short to be featured. Ambi 10:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree with the objection (i) No subject is unfit for featured status. If the article's short because there's not much of interest to be said, then so bit it. It can still be a good short article. (ii) Reason is not in itself actionable. jguk 13:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't say the subject was unfit for featured status. It is. The article, however, is just simply not detailed enough to be a featured article. If this were accepted as present, it would be by far the shortest featured article we have. With that in mind, I believe it's an entirely fair objection, and one that should be actionable. Ambi 13:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Say what it's missing. That's actionable. Just saying it's short, isn't.jguk 13:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • I don't know. Cultural references? Other designs? Potential uses? Surely more can be said than simply how to make one and how to then use it. I'm not an expert on the topic. But if this were to be featured, it would set a really terrible precedent, because up until now, nothing this short has been featured - and any old ones that were this short have since been weeded out. Ambi 14:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • As a further example, the history section is terrible, and Securiger gives further examples of ways this could be expanded below. As there are ways of expanding this, there is then no excuse for having such a short article. Ambi 11:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
              • The article has improved significantly, and though it's still a little on the short side, I think that's quite forgivable, considering the topic. Changing to support. Ambi 07:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Nice concise well-written article. jguk 13:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Fascinating, well written article frittered away a whole afternoon for me! - although it is much imporved by the new history section. BTW, some of the external links indicate that there are numerous other designs around. Ideally the article would mention the number of designs, compare top models, and perhaps trace when it became popular for hikers to experiment with them. But that's a heck of a lot of work and I wouldn't withhold my vote waiting for it. Securiger 05:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Wow.--Josiah 06:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object, incomplete. Even the links there provide a fair amount of material that is not covered in the article. Specifically (but not limited to) burn time of fuel, ie how much less efficient is it? More details on the construction. I didn't really get an idea of how it worked until I read the external links. Variations on the construction. Is JB weld the only option for building the stove? One of the links refers to foil tape. I could go on, but I only looked at a couple of the external links and found all this. - Taxman 14:31, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Recent edits have improved the completeness though I see a bit more that needs to be covered. Also, after the additions the organization of material is a bit awkward. Especially the construction section. Aluminum should not be used, but is the best choice? More could be said about both of those and about the windscreen, why needed, etc. Also some clarification is needed on the variations. What are the "internal" lines in the drawings there for? I think it would be clearer without them, I have no idea what they are trying to show. Is the side burner version more efficient since it blocks the fuel vapor from coming out anywhere but the burner holes? - No problem on that one if there is no data to tell either way, but in general the info on each variation could be epanded. Especially interesting is the more powerful sealed version. - Taxman 01:53, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Objections: The history section is too short to be a section, we should expand it. There are no references. The images could use better captions. The variations section should should be expanded and turned into flowing prose. ✏ Sverdrup 23:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • One very, very small objection: I think this should come with some sort of safety warning/disclaimer. -Litefantastic 21:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
good idea, is there a tag for this? I couldn't find one. If not, how is one made?Duk 21:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The following comes close: CAUTION: USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK! I'll paste it onto the article, thus resolving my own objection. -Litefantastic 12:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
An explicit link to Wikipedia:Disclaimer or Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer too? My only concern would be, does this impliedly mean that unarticles without an express disclaimer are somehow "safer". -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In the sense that the person unertaking actions based on stuff he-she learned from reading things here is totally resposible for whatever happens. All things considered, we really ought to pay more attention to safety. -Litefantastic 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I removed the warning first without seeing this obection. Yet after reading this here, I still believe it should be removed -- the purpose of having all articles link to the general disclaimer is so that individual articles do not need them -- that's why we took them all out months ago. →Raul654 20:08, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
As you see fit. -Litefantastic 15:38, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Page has been updated with many of the suggestions here. Clear and concise. Duk 05:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - this is much better than it was! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme (1916)Edit

Absolutely effing brilliant. What else can I say? Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. Support. (1) Some of the casualty figures (especially those in the infobox and the "Casualties" section, and the figures for the Germans) need to provide a breakdown into killed, wounded, POW, missing (or at least an estimate). (2) The claim about the first day on the Somme being the bloodiest day in British history is doubtful (estimates for the battle of Towton suggest 20,000–28,000 dead); maybe the claim could be qualified. (3) There ought to be a mention of the cultural response to the Somme. Siegfried Sassoon, Ivor Gurney, Robert Graves and other war poets were at the battle and left powerful accounts. Was there a corresponding German response? Gdr 21:09, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC) P.S. Otherwise, great article!
    • Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger is the best known personal German account of the battle. Geoff/Gsl 21:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Re: "bloodiest day", I've qualifyed it as the "bloodiest day in the history of the British Army" which is how it is usually described. I obviously got a bit carried away in the translation... Geoff/Gsl 23:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support but I wonder if the total number of men who fought the battle could be listed. Revth 14:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but the British army casualty breakdown misses some 1300 soldiers. Jeronimo 15:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The exact British & French casualty figures are from Edmonds official history (widely quoted in other books) but I don't have the breakdown he used. I know the Australian and New Zealand tolls and the approx. Canadian. The South African is a guess given that they lost 2000 at Delville Wood. What's left I assume to be British/Irish. A more reliable casualty list would be good but I've exhausted my resources. Geoff/Gsl 23:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, maybe you can just add "others" (probably some Indians were involved as well?) to make the table add up. Jeronimo 07:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd like to see something on the cultural impact, too. As well as the writers listed above, David Jones' great Modernist poem In Parenthesis gives a participant's view of the battle for Mametz Wood (he was wounded there). Filiocht 15:47, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. On the basis of only one unnecessarily unclear paragraph that I have noted on the TalkPage. I would be glad to switch my vote. This is a great page. Great! Brilliant! ---Rednblu | Talk 22:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. I see from the TalkPage how that little problem would be solved. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert WalpoleEdit

-- Emsworth 19:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object: Atterbury's trial and exile had nothing to do with the South Sea Bubble. It was tied in with the Report of the White Staff that had indicted St. John and Harley. That has to be addressed as factually incorrect. I have other suggestions, but those are on the Talk page of the article. Since all the folks I study are enemies of Walpole, I cannot help but have absorbed their points of view. The matters on the talk page don't have to be addressed, but the Atterbury implication that the Bubble was going to be exploited by Jacobites does. The Jacobites were just as unprepared for the bubble as the dissenters. Geogre 01:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The Atterbury objection has been addressed, as have some of the others which I happen to agree with. -- Emsworth 02:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection withdrawn, though I still regard him as a dirty rat. Geogre 14:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Of course, that does not disqualify his article... -- Emsworth 17:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 23:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- there were some odd spellings, like "reëlection", and apparently one guy was a "statement" (not a "statesman")... but those can be forgiven -_-. ugen64 23:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 10:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dirty rat? England has never had a Prime Minister who so closely resembled a big basket full of lovley kittens. Take THAT scum.--Crestville 20:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Old Swiss ConfederacyEdit

Wow. Extensive, detailed content; great use of some beautiful images/maps from de: and fr:; highly wikified content; excellent use of a timeline -- could use better references and footnoting, but otherwise a model article. +sj+ 23:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • (Vote is below) Great material, but the intro basically requires someone already knowing a lot of background material. Also there are several one sentence paragraphs throughout. Those need to be expanded, merged, or removed. Finally, the references and citation wouldn't just be nice, they are needed. The literature links don't even seem to be claimed to have been used as references. At least a couple English references are needed I would think. - Taxman 23:56, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've merged the one-sentence paragraphs in the "Consolidation" section. Lupo 08:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Still more to go. Its a kinda minor point, but a very simple and obvious breaking of good prose rules with no upside to it. - Taxman 13:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
          • I find three: at the beginning of the "Consolidation" and of the "Swiss mercenaries" sections, and the one with the Swiss saying. The first two are actually mini-summaries of the sections; I wanted to have them visually separated from the more elaborate text that follows. I also wanted to separate the saying from the rest of the discussion of the Burgundy Wars. Oh, there is one more: the 2nd paragraph in "The Dreizehn Orte", but that one (a) is long enough (three lines, and I use a rather small font and a large window), and (b) deals with events not directly related to what is described in the adjacent paragraphs and thus may, in my opinion, remain a paragraph of its own. I don't find any others... I made a concious decision to have these four instances of single-sentence paragraphs, but if it bothers you, go ahead and change them. Lupo 13:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Well if they are distinct enough to stand alone, they should be expanded a bit. Especially the first sentence in 'Consolidation' could add one or two more sentences that serves as an introduction to what that section is talking about. Two of the others I could not see how they were unrelated to what they were next too, so I merged them. The others do seem to have enough clauses and information to stand alone. - Taxman 16:27, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • As to the intro: (1) It is a brief summary of the rest of the article. As such, it glosses over many, many details, and much of the background: it's an abstract. (2) The article is part of a series. Some of the earlier events are covered in Early history of Switzerland (which still needs expansion...). What background info were you missing? Lupo 08:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section for what the lead section should do. Being part of a series is not an excuse for me having to read the other articles in the series or having to click each linked article to know what this one is about. All necessary material to understand the topic should be included inline. For example "...part of the Eidgenossenschaft, whatever that is". And what is a canton? Also, the intro doesn't need to tell that it is part of an article series, that is nonstandard, but it does need to tell what the Old Swiss Confederacy is. What was significant about it, what made it a definable period in Swiss history? What were its primary characteristics? - Taxman 14:44, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
          • I beg to differ. Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section clearly says that "the lead should briefly summarize the article", which is what this article's lead section does. I have now added very brief descriptions for "Eidgenossenschaft", "canton", and "reichsfrei" (if someone knows an English term for the latter, all the better), but I don't think much more should be done. And yes, I do think that it doesn't hurt to state in the intro that this article is part of a series. It makes the reader aware that earlier and later events are covered elsewhere. I have improved the intro a little by explicitly stating that the distinguishing characteristic of that period was the continued struggle for independence against the Habsburgs. Lupo 19:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • Well it may summarize the article, but that is not what I was referring to. Sorry but it’s just not a very good or very well written lead section. It still contains a number of terms that are not explained. It takes a reading of the entire lead section, parts of the rest of the article and a number of linked articles to really get what is going on. - Taxman 14:57, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
              • That objection is not actionable for me. I did the best I could (try summarizing more than 200 years in a few sentences!). If you think it could still be improved, then please go ahead and show me how you'd do it. And of course you have to read the whole lead, and the article, to really get what's going on. I don't see how it could be otherwise... Lupo 15:46, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • Well that's not the definition of actionable. Actionable means possible to be acted on. It certainly is because there are lots of articles with great lead sections that come through here. And yes if you don't mind my reworking it, I will see if I can't give it a clear definition and start with the most important information and move down. A great lead section certainly can give a good idea of what is going on with the topic without having to read anything else. - Taxman 14:15, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
                  • See below (my reply to the comment of Chris 73). Lupo 08:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                    • Yes, exactly what I was looking for. Sorry if I wasn't helpfully clear about what it needed. - 13:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, the lack of refs is a real bother. I left a note on the talk page...
      • I've added two references in English and left a comment on Talk:Old Swiss Confederacy. Lupo 07:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Ok, those are fine for me. But the books in the literature section that were used as actual reference should probably be noted as such under a 'references' section, and the others left under a further reading section. - Taxman 14:44, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
          • Why not. Done. Lupo 19:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, it's an impressive article. The English and spelling needed work in places, but I think I fixed most of the problems; I was a little hesitant to work on a few areas, though, where I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning. Everyking 20:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If there were areas where the meaning wasn't clear enough, we should try to improve those areas. What were they? Lupo 07:46, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. What an excellent piece (we can only wish User:Lupo a long life with a lot of WP time on his hands ;o) — minor things: the "Gut, Mut, Blut" bit may require translation. "Primeval cantons" sounds a bit... atavistic; maybe "founding cantons" or "original cantons"? dab 09:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • For the saying, there is an HTML comment in the text asking for a translation. (And now also on the talk pageLupo 11:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I somehow cannot come up with a good one. For the "primeval cantons": where did you find that? I know I have written that phrase somewhere, somewhen, but I can't find it in the text. I like your suggestions and would like to change it—maybe it was in some other article? Lupo 10:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Found it; it's on the map's legend. Will change it now to "Founding cantons". Lupo 10:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Big support, one of the best things i ever read on wiki, pity Lupo didnt get the gold medal ;) [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 10:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • For those who weren't aware of this: Muriel is referring to Danny's contest, where this article was one of the runner-ups. Lupo 11:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Any more this good, Lupo? Filiocht 11:15, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC) Filiocht 11:15, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tough subject, but well presented. Two possible points of improvement would be: (A) more images from that time (should be easy, copyright expired). (B) The lead section: The first paragraph This article is part of the series on the history of Switzerland... is somewhat odd, it talks more about the article than about the actual events. However, i do not see a big objection as Taxman does. Great work, Lupo! -- Chris 73 Talk 12:03, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thank you—now that was a helpful comment. I have now rewritten the intro such that it no longer talks about the article. Maybe that's what Taxman tried to tell me? If so, I think his objection has been addressed. (I had asked him to jump in and do the changes he wanted to see, but apparently he didn't have the time...) Lupo 08:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Hi, yes, much better. Sorry I didn't get to it, but you've done much better than I could have for a subject I don't know. - Taxman 13:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Also added onetwo more images. Actually, finding good images of events in the late Middle Ages isn't exactly easy... Lupo 09:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Intro reads much better now. Also, to illustate the Gotthardpass, you could use I added the bridge image from de:Teufelsstein, the first of which was built in the 13th century according to de:Geschichte der Schweiz -- Chris 73 Talk 10:31, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • No, sorry, both bridges shown on that image are much later. The original 13th century bridge no longer exists, it was destroyed in a flood in 1888. The upper one is the third Teufelsbrücke, built in 1958; the smaller one is the second Teufelsbrücke and was built at the beginning of the 19th century. There is a painting from 1833 showing the first Teufelsbrücke and behind it the second bridge in construction. Lupo 10:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely. James F. (talk) 10:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but please fix and expand the one sentence paragraph in 'consolidation'. - Taxman 13:56, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • It does bother you, doesn't it? I've just removed it. Lupo 21:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marginated TortoiseEdit

This is a translation of a German article, apparantly written by an expert. I found it to be very interesting and informative with clear prose. I have not worked on this article in any way. Eudyptes 00:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Basically support, though it could use a copyedit as there are some clumsy wordings, probably relics of the translation. Tuf-Kat 02:57, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have given the article a moderate copy-editing. I hope this helps. Eudyptes 03:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'm the translator, so may not count. Mpolo 18:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Good article, perhaps somewhat over-illustrated, but I have two (minor) objections: 1) I find it hard to believe that you only used a single reference from 1789. Even if you did, it would be good to add at least more recent word as a "further reading". 2) The units in the article (m, degrees Celsius etc.) should be linked. Jeronimo 21:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I translated from the German Wikipedia, as I said above, so for me, that was the actual "reference". I think that the Weblink is the primary reference for the article (but it's blocked by my proxy at work, so I can't check it to get more info). The units were linked until User:Neutrality unlinked them... Do we have a standard here? Mpolo 06:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) -- I left a note for the article's author, but in the process saw that he is actually the author of one of the standard books on the subject. I will add this to the references section. Mpolo 07:09, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • The original German author, Richard Mayer, appears to be the person who identified and named the subspecies Testudo marginata sarda. I doubt he needed many references. However, if you check is user page it looks like he has also written a book on European tortoises, which might be good for further reading if you are good with German. -- Solipsist 07:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I believe the standard is to wikilink the first mention of each unit. I can't see it in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but I'm sure I've seen it somewhere else... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • I linked the units (first use only) and added some "Further Reading" in English, along with two web pages in English and Richard Mayer's book. Hopefully this addresses the objections. Mpolo 12:25, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
            • User:Neutrality reverted the unit links again, citing that they "look ugly" in the text. [for numbers, weights, and measures] would seem to support not wikilinking, or only wikilinking the "orders of magnitude" page (which I haven't seen done very often, personally). As this has now become a policy debate, might I suggest that you retract the objection on unit linking, we discuss the policy over at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers), and I promise to update the article to whatever is decided afterwards? Mpolo 07:26, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • I remember somebody else asked me to link units of measurement for a nomination here of my own, and I thought is was policy, and one I would agree with, since this encyclopedia is read by Americans who may not know metric units (and the other way round). As this is apparently not policy, I'll not object over it. Jeronimo 11:21, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Extremely good article with minor clumsiness in wordings -- Sundar 07:05, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 04:01, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - hardly earth-shattering, but interesting nonetheless. As well as some minor rewording to avoid clumsiness, it could do with some translations checking (there are comments in the source text), but these are just polishing. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John VanbrughEdit

This was nominated recently and withdrawn at the request of the authors so they could finish polishing it. I think they are done, and the result is an absolute tour de force. I have done some minor copyediting, but calling it a self-nomination would be to take credit that I do not deserve. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I concur. I'm in a similar boat. I urge voters to try to see if anything on the Web compares to this! --Wetman 17:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Sets the bar higher than print. It's not just good; it's the best concise account of the man I've ever seen. (I did do some copy editing on the article when it was younger.) Geogre 18:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, well researched and excellent writing. Zerbey 23:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object At 45kb it's way, way too long. Wikipedia articles should aim to be under 32kb. Perhaps move some detail to subsidiary articles (see cricket for an example of a featured article where this is done). jguk 14:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Please see the talk page for whether the "32k limit" is mandatory or indicative. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The aim of this article has been to provide a full and comprehensive account of John Vanbrugh, to separate architecture and literature would be akin to writing an account of Dr. Jekyll without mentioning Mr. Hyde. Vanbrugh's architectural works have been confined to just 3 buildings, all three have to be summarised in order to explain clearly how Vanbrugh developed baroque; the drama section is hardly verbose, one can't just miss out a play because Wikipedia likes short pages. It would also be impossible to summarise his life without setting it against the historical and cultural background of his era. John Vanbrugh led a full life, hence he requires a full article. Wikipedia is an educational encyclopedia, not a book of potted biographies.Giano 14:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it can't be organised like, say, Isaac Newton (in depth). jguk 07:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The content and layout and style of Isaac Newton is hotly discussed on its talk page. It is much longer than John Vanbrugh; and much of it not original but from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which was exactly what John Vanbrugh was, before Bishonen and I re-wrote it. That text dump type of thing is exactly what Wikipedia should be getting away from Giano 07:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I spent yesterday doing up a summarized section on the plays, and sub-articles to go with it, on the pattern of Cricket, but I haven't posted it at John Vanbrugh yet, because it seemed to destroy the integrity of the piece, no matter how much I tinkered with it. I decided in the end that a hierarchic or spider structure like that suits some subjects (Cricket) and not others (Vanbrugh), and we'd better just remove the article from FAC consideration, rather than put it on such a procrustean (?) bed (if I'm thinking of the right story there? Guy lops off hands and feet of guests, or stretches them, to make them fit the bed?). The Isaac Newton example is quite different, in fact I wish I'd hearad of it before. It sounds like a simple way of having the article remain linear (very much our preferred structure for it), and if I've understood it right, you merely have to "turn the page" (=click on "continue") halfway through it. Constructing the handmade TOC needed on the first page looks a bit of a nightmare, but heck, we can learn, or get help. We'll definitely look into this as soon as possible. Unfortunately both Giano and I are very busy today, but we'll be back. Thank you, jguk! Incidentally, the article clocks in at 40 or 41 right now, I saved a few kb by "transcluding" the timeline.--Bishonen 08:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For completeness, I should note that the other way of breaking down an article is as demonstrated in September 11, 2001 attacks or History of the English penny. A stand alone article with a box on the right hand side that links into subsidiary articles.jguk 12:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are you really saying that this article is too comprehensive? What would you like to see separated out and why? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to but in above Josiah, and GWO, with whom I agree completely, and thanks Aloan for your help, butI am becoming really confused here, why has a complete and comprehensive page got to be broken up, is Wikipedia running out of space, if so how will having two or three separate pages solve the problem. Or are we writing here for children with a low attention span. Incidentally this is not Wikepedia's longest page, even before surgery. Either this project exists to provide as much free information as possible, in the easiest and most convenient way possible, or it does not - Which? Giano 18:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support--Josiah 06:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been watching this article develop since its last listing and I think it is everything a good article should be. Filiocht 08:29, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- "this article is too long" is so dumb an objection as to be beneath comment. Your dog wants his MTV. -- GWO 15:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- This article is exemplary. I don't see how splitting it up would be useful to a reader. PRIIS 01:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- I don't buy the "too long" argument here. I'm having a rendering problem on Mozilla, but I intend to fix it, so won't object on that basis... Mpolo 20:47, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Nowhere near "too long", that some of our number suffer from an inability to concentrate should not shoe-horn the rest of us into badly-split articles. James F. (talk) 10:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support, on the condition that the images in the Blenheim Palace section be arranged in a more orderly fashion. -- Emsworth 20:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I have changed the position - is this better? Or would you like to tell me where they should be? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • This is fine, but is the third image in the section (of the south portico of Blenheim) really necessary? -- Emsworth 21:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is very necessary as it is the only pediment of its type and era in the world, and demonstrates the changes to conventions that Vanbrugh was inaugurating, may not seem much now, but at the time it was a very new architectural feature. Have made small changes to text and caption to justify the reason for inclusuion of the South Portico. Giano 08:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • support a few kb doesn't matter. Dunc| 17:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - remarkable article. JoJan 19:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, the article is not too long. — David Remahl 13:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Hard Day's Night (song)Edit

Self-nom. This was one of the runner-ups in Danny's contest. Johnleemk | Talk 14:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. --mike40033 05:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I'd like to see the [square brackets] changed to (standard ones). Filiocht 09:51, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, as always. Ambi 07:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mpolo 20:21, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - aye, get it up there.--Crestville 18:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Prime Minister of the United KingdomEdit

-- Emsworth 22:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Zerbey 01:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the article ought to say something about the controversy of 1974. (Labour won a plurality of seats but Heath did not resign immediately; see United Kingdom general elections) Gdr 03:05, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
    • Addressed. -- Emsworth 22:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead section too long. Page is 39kb so List of PMs should probably be split off. PoliticsUK should be made a footer and a relevant image be moved to the top.--Jiang 03:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • A while back, PoliticsUK was in fact made a footer; but there were objections (from me, inter alia) and it was returned. Both this issue and the length of the lead section have been a topic of discussion on the talk page, Jiang; please give us some more detailed advice there! Doops 04:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm just trying to enforce some standards here. This article has to follow established standards and conventions to become featured. There is no argument against spitting off the list. As for the lead section, fluff like Tony Blair's full name and the "sucesses of his Labour Party in the 2001 election" are not relevant since this is an article on the institution. If it's not introductory, it does not belong. --Jiang 04:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • I've removed the "fluff" (I'm not sure that's really the best word for it, but whatever) about the 2001 election. But we've trimmed the intro considerably over the last few days and I wonder what's left to cut. (As far as the list of prime ministers and Tony's full name/titles are concerned, I happen to agree with you, Jiang.) Doops 04:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I split off list of PMs to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. HTH, Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Inconsistent wikification of names. Georges I and III are wikified, but II is missing. Fifelfoo 07:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) Support. Fifelfoo 23:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Addressed. -- Emsworth 19:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Filiocht 11:42, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)Object for now: the lead section is far too long. Filiocht 08:34, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Addressed. -- Emsworth 22:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. However there is some duplication (the Prec and Priv section has much that has already been said) that could be addressed -- William M. Connolley 08:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC).
    • The section in question, I think, does not duplicate when it comes to precedence—it applies not only to precedence in England and Wales, but also to precedence to Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are not covered in the rest of the article. -- Emsworth 22:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 09:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) Object for now - lead section is too long, but the information can be incorporated or repetition reduced; no reference to Prime Minister's Questions; nothing about Spencer Perceval, the only PM to be assassinated; nothing about First Ministers in Scotland and Wales; seemingly no link to prime minister. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • All addressed. -- Emsworth 19:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I have addressed the lead section objections (which I incidentally do not agree with, but will comply with anyway). Some of the information which is to be found elsewhere has been removed from the lead, including that about current controversies (sorry, Doops). -- Emsworth 19:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It still has a very full three-paragraph lead: although it was all good stuff, the previous lead of four long paragraphs was just excessive (according to lead section, the lead is meant to be a brief summary with at most 3 paragraphs). But much better now. Excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Previously nominated in April 2004 [9] where there was very little response. Seems quite a good article to me. violet/riga (t) 22:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Object, but only slightly. 1) Needs references, 2) I noticed a few minor errors which I'll endeavor to fix tomorrow (it's 1am right now :-)). Zerbey 16:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Not sure if the author(s) of the article used them but the only possible references are mentioned in the Tie-ins and External links sections. Perhaps these could be rearranged and called references, but is it right to do that when they may not actually have been used? violet/riga (t) 09:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - this is excellent. I've had a tidy as well. My only caveat is length - currently 39k after I moved the list of characters to a separate article. Perhaps the episode lists should be moved to a separate article, or main articles written for each series and summarised here? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • A good point and a good idea. Doing that, however, would probably render the main article not feature-worthy. violet/riga (t) 15:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not so sure (I've had a further tweak) - all I am suggesting is either (i) List of Blackadder episodes, to contain just the episode lists, or (ii) The Black Adder, Blackadder II, etc., as main articles, with decent summaries in Blackadder. The former may be sufficient. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Article is now 40k - I'm thinking your idea would be a good one and place an object until we can reorganise it. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Er - you nominated it: can you object? Are you planning to address the problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously this is the result of someone's cunning plan. Baldrick, is this your doing?!? --Modemac 14:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's fuckin' ace. (also I've done loads on it - ha ha ha)--Crestville 19:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Tally-ho pip-pip and Bernard's your uncle. -- In English we say, "Support". That being said, I wouldn't mind an extra picture if that is available. I don't think the length is a real issue, BTW. Jeronimo 21:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Fine - I have supported anyway :) Are there many featured articles over 32k? Is the 32k limit only a rule of thumb, or is it still a real problem for some readers with some browsers? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Please see the talk page for whether the "32k limit" is mandatory or indicative. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, this is an excellent article on one of the greatest TV comedies of all time. My only gripe would be that the spoiler warning should really be before going into detail of what happens in each episode of the series, not half way down the article. As hard as it is to believe, there are people who haven't already watched them dozens of times! Shane King 09:36, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Just spotting a failing - no mention of cunning plans outside of episode descriptions. I think that's an important enough aspect of the series to be mentioned in the overview. violet/riga (t) 20:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The word cunning occurs four times in the overview, including "I've got a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel." Is this not sufficient, or does the phrase cunning plan have to be there too? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Though the word appears (three times in one quote and once in reference to Blackadder himself) I think the overview needs mention of Baldrick's attempts (and occasional successes!) to save the day with his cunning plans, it being an important part of many episodes over the series. violet/riga (t) 22:16, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Mark 07:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Leyte GulfEdit

Partial self nom - I've done a little work here (I wrote the battlebox and scanned some pics for it) but user:Gdr has written almost all of the prose himself. →Raul654 06:17, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Minor object. This is a good article, but I would like to see some small issues resolved. 1) The battle-box mentions the Battle of Leyte as the "battle before", while "Aftermath" writes that "the way was opened for the reconquest of Leyte by the land forces under the command of MacArthur, in the battle of Leyte". This seems contradictory, even though the Battle of Leyte article mentions 20 Oct 1944 as the begin date. 2) 50% of the aftermath section deals with critique on Halsey, rather than with the actual aftermath of the battle. I think a dicussion of the commander's handling is great, but this only discusses the non-dispatching of the TF, and not the battle in general, or the Japanese actions. 3) One of the references is "The Battle of Leyte Gulf: 23–26 October 1944", while the article has 24 and 25 October as the dates. This is not necessarily a problem, but it strikes me as odd. Jeronimo 11:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • (1) "Battle before" is strictly chronological. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles. Since the first landings of the battle of Leyte were on 1944-10-20 it comes before the battle of Leyte Gulf even though most of the fighting was afterwards. If this is a problem, it would be a good idea to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles. I changed the wording of the "Aftermath" section to address this point. (2) I'm not sure what to do about this, other than to put the Halsey material in a subsection. Any suggestions? (3) I changed the dates in the battlebox. Gdr 14:36, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing my objection, although I'm not sure if 2) is resolved to my satisfaction. It's good enough for featured status either way. As for 1), I'll raise this point at the WikiProject site. I found the "previous/next battle" entry also problematic for another FAC, Battle of Jutland. Jeronimo 20:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor objection. In "Battle of Surigao Strait", the arrival of Nishimura's force without the support from other forces is credited to the poor communication or the complex coordination. This is only partially true. It is also due to the radio silence enforced on actual striking forces. Except for Ozawa's decoy force, all other groupd operated under the complete radio silence. Also, the discription of "two battleships coverted to carriers (Hyuga and Ise)" needs somewhat more tweaking. It is misleading in a sense as both were still much closer to a battleship than a carrier after the conversion. Revth 12:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Good points. Now fixed, I hope. Gdr 14:36, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
    • Thanks and support. Revth 15:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I will leave others more knowledgeable than I to criticise the factual content, but a good article. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: I learned a great deal. Geogre 21:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Filiocht 11:58, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Eifel aqueductEdit

This is a translation (by me) of a German featured article (though the lead was rewritten to fit with EN standards, and some English books and websites on the subject were added to the references section). A week on Peer Review produced only the comment on the references, which has been addressed, hopefully. Mpolo 19:24, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. I liked it on peer review and I like it more now that the English further reading has been added. - Taxman 19:39, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat 20:03, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor object, I'm afraid. The article is excellent, but I think the map needs to be translated into English. After all, this is the English Wikipedia (my German is fine, though). Jeronimo 20:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I basically agree that the map should be translated, but my graphic editing skills are so meager, I ruin it every time I try. I'd be happy to provide someone with the translations, if they are able to do it... Mpolo 06:59, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • I've emailed the creator and requested that he sends me the source documents. With your help, I'll be able to translate it (if he is willing to license the source documents to me under the cc-by-sa or GFDL). — David Remahl 07:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Great! Support now. Jeronimo 08:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 21:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gdr 22:16, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The new translated map looks great! Revth 02:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting article Martyman 03:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The things you learn. ZayZayEM 03:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Self nomination. I have been working on this article for quite some time now and would like for it to be a featured article. Plenty of information, numerous pictures, under 32kb. I'm sure any objections can be easily resolved. Asim Led 00:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, this is much improved. Great work. Though one thing, in the history section what is "Drina banovina"? That needs to be explained. Also I should disclose that I have done a number of minor edits on this page in the past. - Taxman 03:56, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks for your help in shaping the article. Regarding Drinska banovina, ive turned it into a link, created a stub, and added a brief explanation. Asim Led 04:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 04:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A lot of work has gone into this article and Asim's baby :) looks like it would make an FA. Some native English speakers could probably proofread it, and the number of sections could possibly be reduced further, but overall it's worth considering. --Joy [shallot] 10:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Just spotted a minor typo... -- Arwel 10:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolute support. This is the benchmark for an article on a city. Ambi 10:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Minor object. I think this article needs a map of where Sarajevo is located (perhaps the CIA map from the BH article, perhaps a better one). Also, the references (I changed the title from sources) used have only information about a small part of the topic, so more sources must have been used. I would also very much like to see at least one book mentioned, if only as "further reading". Jeronimo 11:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • A map of the greater Sarajevo area within Bosnia has been added to the "Geography and Climate" section. More sources have also been added. Asim Led 17:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Support. Jeronimo 11:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support: Giano 13:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 22:31, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC) Object until sources are added. Great article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 14:26, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sourcas have just been added. Asim Led 17:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but the Culture section could benefit from a critical pruning. A lot of odd stuff is mashed in there, like a New Jersey jam band and lip service to local rock bands. After the dignified, empirical, and comprehensive previous sections, this one looks much more like a holding pen for whatever anyone has thought up. That's not an objection, but it is a sincere disappointment after all that had come before. Geogre 17:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I've created a "Main Article" for the culture section and placed the previous version there. Then I trimmed it down so its as long as the sections before. I hope you find it better now.Asim Led 20:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed, it's much cleaner now, and the quality of that section no longer seems mismatched to the rest. Geogre 04:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • The first photo (the city at night) is copyrighted and does not include permission for third party use - is that compatable with the wikipedia license? Joe D (t) 22:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • All such images have now been replaced. Asim Led 03:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, probably the best article on any City that we have. GeneralPatton 22:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The first image of Sarajevo at night may not be used by third-parties; that is even worse than non-commercial use only images. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • All such images have now been replaced. Asim Led 18:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I still have my doubts about one particular image of a flag/seal, though. Neutral for now. Johnleemk | Talk 05:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • That image too has now been replaced. All images on the Sarajevo page are now created/taken by me and GFDL. - Asim Led
  • Support. Brilliant article. Zerbey 23:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan WildEdit

Self nomination, and I promise not to argue with anyone who objects. While the approved A Tale of a Tub was the most comprehensive article I've written on Wikipedia, I always thought Jonathan Wild was the one that provided the best read and the most interesting text. Geogre 20:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support: riveting!--Bishonen 23:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting read. Zerbey 04:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - minor quibble - does "his testimony was in connection with his criminal conspiracy" - presuambly this refers to Hitchens personally knowing 2000 professional thieves in London? If so, this is not entirely clear (to me at least - still being dense today). Object for now - this is an excellent read and I want to support; unfortunately, however, I have a few nit-picky points: (i) Section 2 says "Hitchens, the city's top policeman, would himself end at the gallows, and his testimony was in connection with his criminal conspiracy" (emphasis added) - perhaps I am being dense today, but what does the emphasised bit here mean?; (ii) there is some repetition in sections 2 and 3 ("Wild had an ingenious method. He ran a gang of thieves...", "Jonathan Wild's unique scheme was to operate a gang..."; (iii) the text is very light on wikilinks - playwrights, 1720s, corruption, apprentice, Mohocks, and many others could all be usefully wikilinked (of course, some may think the minimal linking an advantage...); (iv) section 4 ends "(see the reproduction of the gallows ticket, left)" - first, left-alignment is (in my experience) usually deprecated for layout, second, in my browser it is mainly above not left: I think the reference is unhelpful; (v) Wiki-style is to avoid headings starting "The" and Unnecessary Capitals In Headings; (vi) the references are outstandingly good, but I am surprised there are no "external links" or "see also"s. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Response: I will make the changes. Indeed, this morning I noticed the repetition in the text and resolved to change it. In pieces, then: i) I didn't want to go too far in this and digress onto Hitchens too much, but Howson reveals that Hitchens took bribes from thieves and was indicted (and hung) for essentially being corrupt, so the "criminal conspiracy" was somewhat literal: he was conspiring with his thieves; ii) Agreed, absolutely and will be corrected; iii) Will correct, and I even thought about researching and writing about the Mohocks, who made a stink at the time but are a relative footnote; iv) I wanted to vary the layout somewhat to prevent a sort of gallery running on one margin, but I will correct the textual reference; is left-alignment sufficient for objection, or would it be ok with just a correct reference? I'm not in love with left align and only wanted to vary a bit; v) Did know know, will change, as I was under the reverse impression; vi) See also is possible, though I tend to think that the wikilinks function that way and personally don't do them. As for external links, it's remarkable because, in fact, Wild is just flat out under-represented in his own right. It's surprising. Every 18th c. scholar knows about him, but Gerald Howson remains the only biographer who doesn't fictionalize. He's a really difficult figure for research, being a criminal and probably the beneficiary of a cover-up by Walpole (Howson talks about court records that are complete except for Wild's statement, etc.). The problem is that Howson is pretty much it, so all external links are either going to be about Defoe or Fielding or derived from Howson or Defoe. I can probably find an e-text of Defoe's life of Wild. I'll see what I can do. (The best see-also is Jack Sheppard, probably.) Geogre 16:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Changes made. I hope the objections have been answered. Geogre 17:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll check. The "see also" is not really for things that are already linked (rule of thumb is that other articles should only have wikilink per page) but really for tangentially relevant things that are not specifically mentioned (say [tries to think of a good example ... erm ...] Gallows humour). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Second reply: To tell the truth, I honestly don't know more about Hitchens that I put up there. Howson has only the bare fact that Hitchens was indicted for taking bribes and that he was hung. He wasn't hung for knowing the thieves, but for letting them out of jail for pay. Hitchens was trying to say, in his defence, that it was impossible to hold all the thieves: there were too many. You had to let some out to get some in, and greasing palms was common. In fact, Howson makes a great case for that being true, although he also talks about one method they had for relieving overcrowding: death. Lots of prisoners died of starvation and disease while in jail. It's a very frightening read. (See also! Just thought of one! See also The Mint.) Geogre 18:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An interesting read, too. Jeronimo 21:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gdr 11:25, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 04:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Really interesting., I have never seen anything about him before. Geogre should extend this by a few thousand words and publish it as a book. he would make a fortune Giano 10:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Knew nothing about this person but now I feel I know all I need. And I enjoyed reading it. Filiocht 08:23, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


Self nom. Picked this article up as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Our article on this key figure in 20th century English-language poetry was not much more than a stub when I started working on it, but now it is one of the better articles on women writers that we have, IMHO. Filiocht 11:45, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support: Looks pretty good. I did a little copy editing. I have my own views (feminists and specifically lesbian feminists have distorted HD to meet their own template to make her a "good queer" and a "good feminist"), but it's a representative survey of views and a comprehensive view of the poet. My only suggestion (not objection) is that Imagism be reiterated to some degree here. It's vital to the reader to know what Imagism was, since HD invented it more than Pound did and stayed true to it longer than he did. Inasmuch as she alone among the major poets kept slugging in that vein, it's reasonable to assume that an educated reader doesn't know it well. Also, I rather suspect the Imagism Detractors. It either shouldn't be there, or it should be played out more fully. There were plenty of folks who thought it was nonsense and quite a few (Edmund Wilson and Yvor Winters) who thought the entire raiding from the East of the Pound-group was misguided and useless ("a barbarian in a museum"). The superficial criticism that the poems are too short is almost a parody, and its appearance in The Egoist makes me wonder. Geogre 13:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The criticism quoted was specifically of H.D.'s early poems, not of imagism itself. While I agree that the reader may want more background on Imagism, I think the material is best left in the article on the movement. Now the thing is to improve that article! Filiocht 14:08, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Zerbey 04:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Bravo. Brilliant, as always. Ambi 08:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mpolo 14:54, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article.--Bishonen 17:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Minor point: could you add one or two adjectives to the word Imagist in the lead section? That would establish context and make the lead section more accessible to laymen. Not everybody knows the Imagists. BTW, interesting to note that H.D. had an affair with D.H. (Lawrence). Jeronimo 21:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. Her thing with D.H. may have been platonic, but yes, it's a neat symmetry. Filiocht 09:45, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 04:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Celtic TigerEdit

Partial self-nomination, i've spent quite a while doing up this article with the help of a few others, I think it now meets FA status, it details the main causes, the resurgence of the tiger, the 2001 downturn, challenges ahead and much more. CGorman 10:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, disclosing the fact that I made a couple of small edits. Filiocht 10:23, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. Seabhcan 10:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Well researched. Zerbey 15:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Good, just one or two little quibbles:
    • The lead section says it refers to Ireland during that time, but didn't it refer to the economic growth?
      • Althought Celtic Tiger is mostly used to describe Irelands economic growth, the Celtic Tiger can also refer to Ireland in a more general manner in just the same way as people call Ireland The Emerald Isle. CGorman 17:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The graphs could be improved on - they're slightly unclear. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 16:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I would disagree - they are quiet clear, if someone really finds them difficult to see, then they can always click on them to see the orignial sized graph - but I maintain that there very clear. CGorman 17:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Tuf-Kat 17:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - some minor comments, not worth objecting over: (i) CamelCase headings need addressing (in fact, should the article be celtic tiger?); (ii) I think the graphs and images are a bit blocky - do they need anti-aliasing?; (iii) the headline tiger image is a bit monochrome to be "green striped" - could someone colour it? -- ALoan 18:52, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - detailed, original material, also good referencing - good mix of images and links to other relevant things. Djegan 20:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to support because this is great stuff, but the focus on so much material in an article under this term seems a little missaplied. For example, much of the article like the entire 'Challenges and threats ahead' section is not really about the term 'Celtic Tiger', but instead general material that should be in the much poorer article Economy of Ireland. I fixed the capitalization in the headings. I think the graphs are fine. The links to this article are buried in the places that I would go to look for information on the economy of Ireland, which seems to support the idea of this term being off a bit or even a bit misleading to what the article content is. - Taxman 20:51, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well the challenges and threats ahead are in reference to the continued resurgance of the Celtic Tiger 2, so I would feel that such material is necessary for this article. The term Celtic Tiger really is used as a description of the Irish Economy from the late 90's onwards, so in reality this article is about that economic period - not just a brief description of the term Celtic Tiger. CGorman 18:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm somewhat swayed by that argument, if you want to have this be the focus article on the Irish economy during the time period. But that then brings the question of is the Celtic Tiger II, really a widely agreed upon phenomenon, or widely used phrase. If not, then much of that and the material I referenced above is out of place and is what makes this article awkward on what subject it does and should cover. Also "The challenge is to spread the new wealth nationwide to remote areas such as Connemara and Donegal." is a value judgement, that needs to be attributed to someone or some group specifically or removed/more factually stated. - Taxman 03:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes it is agreed that the Tiger has returned (see RTE report July 04' as an example), so since this article deals with the Celtic Tiger period of Irish Economic history - then the content of the article is applicable to this topic. Also I have attributed the point "The challenge is to spread the new wealth nationwide to remote areas such as Connemara and Donegal." to an IDA report (click on the link beside the comment in the article and read the last section of the report). Have I addressed your concerns fully yet? CGorman 17:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be much better for this kind of stuff to be at Economy of Ireland. "Celtic Tiger" is just a nickname. Gdr 21:03, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
    • As pointed out above, this article deals with the economy of Ireland during a period lasting from the late 90's till today, so all economic information for that period should be relevent. As also pointed out, it is unfair to criticise this article for the poverty of another. I plan on working on the Economy of Ireland article next - I plan to include a reasonable history section with see alsos to articles such as Celtic Tiger (which covers 1997-2004), the Lemass Era (which covers the mid 60's), perhaps an article on De Valera protectionism (which covers the first few years of Irish independance) and maybe an article the Charlie Haughey's corrupt era (the 1980's) CGorman 17:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm inclined to agree. We wouldn't have an article on the asian economies at 'asian tiger', and so by comparison I don't think this belongs here either. →Raul654 01:42, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • We do have an article on the East Asian Tigers. Both subjects are academic research topics. I think it is unfair to criticise this article for the poverty of another, though obviously some of this material could pump up the economy article. The Economy of Ireland needs to take a longer time frame and cover different economic sectors. This article is a more detailed child article concerned with modern economic history, i.e. since the 1990's and is concerned with causes and derterminants of Ireland's economic miracle. ChrisG 18:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected. →Raul654 23:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Oppose, until the POV on "causes" is eliminated. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:21, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have backed up the claims made by various reports and articles. I have rewritten and backed up the section at the end of causes relating to Charlie McCreevy, Mary Hearney and Bertie Ahern - which I felt was the main reason you objectd - I admit, it was biased and unsupported. I hope I have rectified your concerns. CGorman 20:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. ChrisG 18:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support ZayZayEM 03:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support zoney talk 12:36, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)