Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2006

History of Northwest Territories capital cities

This is a self nomination.

This is my second attempt to gain this article featured status, the last attempt was at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Northwest Territories capitals in October 2005

The last nomination failed due to lack of plurality in support, there were no objections brought forward, but one comment suggested it might be better as a featured article then a list. I have revamped and renamed the page since, and put it through a Peer Review here. Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Northwest Territories capitals/archive1 I have taken every comment posted into consideration and expanded the article based on suggestion.

I belive this article from my own point of view is unique to Wikipedia. In that no one source paints an entire comprehensive picture and history of the geographical changes of Northwest Territories government. It was a challenge to filter and merge disjointed information.

I belive this article to be feature worthy or close to it, and I look forward to hearing your Comments --Cloveious 05:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Few quick comments: The section on the "Carrothers Commission" seems out of place and should probably be merged into the section on "Yellowknife, Northwest Territories (1967 - present)". I'd remove the table of Carrothers Commission Candidates and simply list then with the text. The section on "Direct democracy for the new territory of Nunavut" seems clunky and has a tacked-on feeling. List of Northwest Territories highways is an odd choice to include as a See also. --NormanEinstein 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the interesting feed back let me see if I can address and fix some of your concerns, and give those sections a less clunky feel, for the record the See also section has not been updated in a long time, I added other Northwest Territories related lists on a somewhat geographical and political basis.--Cloveious 22:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I belive I have addressed these concerns I have amended to and re-ordered the section on Yellowknife, Carrothers Commission and Nunavut. I belive it flows better now. The table is gone, and I have listed the communities within the text. I belive the Commission is to important to blend in, to Yellowknife alone, so I hope you will find the results of the amendments most agreeable. As well I have changed the See also a little. --Cloveious 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Interesting stuff, but the images need sources (even if they are obviously old). Jkelly 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the source to the one image missing source and I updated the Public Domain tags on a few of them since they became obsolete. --Cloveious 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:FormerNWTcapitals.png still lacks information on where the map came from. Jkelly 18:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi I added more information on the map template. --Cloveious 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Solid, well-referenced encyclopedic article. A line about the circumstances of the sale of NWT before launching into the Red River Rebellion wouldn't be amiss. Jkelly 00:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, good idea I will certainly do that. --Cloveious 00:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support looks good. Ardenn 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Not well enough written. Most sentences need polishing. Tony 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony might you be a little more specific? --Cloveious 15:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have briefly gone over the introduction and Fort Garry Manitoba clause by clause and made some amendments. I don't have time to go over the rest of the article until this evening. --Cloveious 16:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am about halfway done the article in terms of polishing it up, I will finish tommrow afternoon. --Cloveious 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK, take the opening paras:

The history of Northwest Territories capitals is unique compared to any other Canadian province or territory. Northwest Territories, Canada, has had seven capital cities since being purchased by Canada from the Hudson's Bay Company in 1869. The territory has changed the seat of government for numerous reasons, due to civil conflict, development of infrastructure, and revised territorial boundaries.

The result of this change has created a complex history and a long road to responsible government. The path of evolution for the territory has provided a challenge for the Territories government to effectively provide services and representation for the population. A number of communities in Northwest Territories have also unsuccessfully tried to become the capital over the years. The territory has had the unique occurrence of the seat of government being outside of the territorial boundaries twice in its history.

"compared to"—use "with" for contrasts, "to" for similarities (opening sentence).

make it "all other Canadian provinces and territories".

the reasons for the uniqueness needs to be explicit—"because it has had seven ..." (is that the reason it's unique? Unclear.)

Why repeat "Canada" so soon after (after "Northwest Territories")?

"since its purchase" would be better.

"The Territory"

"its seat of government"

"for numerous reasons, due to civil conflict," probably better just as "because of civil conflict, ..."

"The result of this change has created a complex history and a long road to responsible government." This is gobbledygook. The result has created a history? or a long road? What change?

"The path of evolution"—something's redundant there.

"effectively"—remove as redundant.

"also"—redundant (worse, in fact—gives wrong impression)

communities try to become the capital? No, they try to have a town or city become the capital.

"over the years"—probably redundant.

"has had the unique occurrence of the seat of government being outside of the territorial boundaries"—this is not a good wording.

On closer inspection, I'm afraid I have to revise my initial comment to 'very poorly written'. It's a great topic, but you need an editor to go through it intensively. Tony 04:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost there + comment to Tony. "Very poorly written" is unfair and given the straightforwardness of some of your concerns, it would have been as quick to edit it yourself as provide the above list. I think this probably a good case of an editor working largely alone and not having enough critical distance on his/her own writing. In any case, I have given this a copy-edit so perhaps Tony might re-evaluate. It probably needs another going over but I think its better.

I'm not quite ready to support myself though because it's a touch underweight. Fort Smith was administrative capital for 55 years--surely we can say more about it. Where was the administration housed and so on. Also, I think the nominator should go over this and weed out instances of mentioning things as matter of fact before they have been described. I removed a couple of these (ie., dabbing Battleford in its first mention rather than just its second). I'll post more if it comes to me. Marskell 15:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to provide population and total area figures for the territory at various critical points? When Sask. and Alberta split and later when Nunavut was formed, for example. Marskell 18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and is the nominator sure its best not use the definite article for (the) Northwest Territories? The gov site uses the "the". Marskell 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Marskell—huh? Tony 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Huh" re what? Marskell 18:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Better late than never support. I've come across this article a number of times in the last few months, and have always thought is was well written and a fine article. Surprisingly, I never noticed its nomination for FA status. I'd certainly support this being elevated to featured status, even though it looks like this proposal is getting a bit dusty. Agent 86 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha

This is a self-nominated article in which I have provided a majority of the input. The article has been peer reviewed and all comments addressed. I believe the article should be considered as a featured article because it meets the FA criteria and because I think historical aspects of the named organization would be of interest to the many readers of wikipedia. Please provide any constructive feedback/ideas on how the article can be improved to make it a featured artile. Ccson 14:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak oppose. The formatting makes for some rather long sections, like the consolidation and expansion section, which I find to be unpalatable. Is there any way that some of this can be broken up a bit? Otherwise, it looks good. --Danaman5 15:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Support. This new formatting looks good. You have my support. However, two things to consider: you might want to move the quote at the end of pledging and the beginning of membership so that they are both fully within their respective sections, and the small picture gallery under heritage may be unnecessary, as the pictures themselves do not really relate to the fraternity.--Danaman5 17:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are in the right sections, but the quote that begins "Let there be no complaints about brutality..." runs down a bit into the pledging section below it. My point was that I believe that this shouldn't happen. There might be nothing that you can do about it, and that is fine. It just struck me as looking kind of bad. --Danaman5 18:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object for an unencyclopedic tone -- don't present disputable claims by the article's subject as fact. Overall, it's an informative article, but needs some massive copyediting, both on general understandability grounds and on NPOV. It's far too gushy.
  • "Alpha Phi Alpha was born of a desire to promote close association and mutual support among African Americans at Cornell University" (appears to be some debate presented later about where and how this frat was formed; could just as easily be interpreted as a desire to form an organization that gets to exclude people)
  • "The visionary founders" is not appropriate in any encyclopedia article unless presented as someone's opinion
  • "The organization's status as a fraternity was an evolution, through trial and struggle. Since its founding, the Fraternity has supplied voice and vision to the struggle of African Americans and people of color around the world. Alpha Phi Alpha will celebrate a century of service in 2006 as the first national Greek letter fraternity." - this is a marketing blurb, not an encyclopedia article
  • "The convention expressed the hope that the influence of Alpha Phi Alpha would reach every (African American) college and university in the land, to bring together under one band and with one bond of fraternal love, all the worthy leading college men wherever found, to form, as it were, a link to join them together" - oh, please... let's start with conventions don't express, people do
  • "The Sphinx® has a proud tradition of being one of the world's preeminent fraternal magazine, publishing cutting-edge, authoritative thinking on the key issues facing today's communities" -- IMO, doubtful, put it in quote marks if that's what The Sphinx claims. And there's no reason to have a trademark symbol here (the rest of that paragraph has the same problem as the beginning) (I still don't like the really long block quote -- could be cut in a third without losing anything of importance)
  • "The slogan remains the battle cry today for Alpha voter registration efforts" - inappropriate
  • The quote boxes are very unencyclopedic as they are presented and should be removed.
  • "During the Great Depression, the fraternity continued its advancement in leadership, service and ideas when needed in the black community"
  • "This committee would voice the views of the national organization on the issues of the national life in which the interests of blacks were involved" -- needlessly convoluted -- why not "This committee expressed views on issues of importance to black members"?
  • "The history of Alpha men in the history of America, and their place as vanguards of the civil rights struggle is ostensible, as Alpha men were at the forefront of these activities" (unencyclopedic tone, and why link to wiktionary for perfectly ordinary English words?)
• Needs a lot of work, I think, but is probably fixable during the FAC period. Tuf-Kat 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed all the above concerns except the use of the quote boxes. Administrator Brenneman suggested I use article History of Michigan State University during peer review as an example of how to improve Alpha Phi Alpha. The suggested article uses quote boxes and where I got the idea and html code. I need more guidance as to why my use of the quote boxes is very unencyclopedic when a current Featured Article employs the same concept. Perhaps the boxes were added after it became a featured article. Please help. Ccson 14:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some of my concerns remain unaddressed. I think the quote boxes at that article came after the FAC, but perhaps not -- I've removed them in any case. The tone of the article is still off, and it needs a good copyedit. My above comments were not exhaustive; the problem is systemic. This article reads like a marketing brochure. Tuf-Kat 00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the history of the History of Michigan State University article, the quotes were there before and during the FAC process. I have rewritten the articles to provide some additional linkage between the quotes and the bodies of the articles. Jtmichcock 21:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have communicated with a major contributor for the History of Michigan article, who states the quotes were in the article during FAC, and that no one questioned their encyclopedic value, and the article did received Feature Article status with the quote boxes. Ccson 03:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - It's not the existence of the quote boxes that bothers me, but rather their background color, which I find distracting and unprofessional. Furthermore, I have a number of other issues:
  • ...a group was born of a desire to promote close association and mutual support among African Americans. This needs sourcing. How do we know that was the desire? Can you quote someone on it? Name the person who said it, please. Addressed Below
  • The editors recount the history and mission of the magazine as -- it just cuts off there, and goes into the blockquote. You need at least some form of punctuation there... Addressed in Article
  • ...when needed in the black community." implies that they were needed, which is a POV, unless it's a quote.
  • ...as it sought to clean its own house..." is unprofessional language, unless it's a quote.
  • "The fraternity's first pilgrimage to Cornell was held..." The term pilgrimage seems inappropriate here, esspecially when linked to emphasize the definition, which is about religion. Civil rights work isn't exactly a religion. Addressed Below
  • at Montgomery, Martin Luther King, Jr. was leading the people in a program of non-violence, and leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. You've never mentioned that MLKJ was a member of this fraternity previous to here, and even here, it isn't clear. If he was a member, that'd be a pretty significant thing to mention, don't you think? Addressed below and in aticle
  • Furthermore, there's a bunch of names mentioned that aren't expressly noted as members. Addressed Below
  • however; the fraternity turned its attention to the new phases of need for humanity. This is POV, unless it's a quote. How do we know that humanity even had new phases of need? Addressed Below
  • Today, Alpha Phi Alpha continues its commitment to the African American community is more POV, unless it's a quote. Please attribute and source. Addressed below
  • The objectives of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity (Inc.) are to... this whole paragraph needs a source. Addressed Below
  • ...the first black fraternity to charter a chapter on a historically black college or university. Needs a source. Sourced
  • Why is "memorial was received from the founders of the fraternity" bolded? I thought it might be a misplaced bit of wiki-markup, but it looks deliberate. (this was how it was in the source but I have removed the bold type)
  • What does "(remove pledge line from local chapters)" mean? (Rewritten)
  • Alpha Phi Alpha does not create great men... is very POV, unless it is a quote, as is the continuation of that statement, ...but it does instill its principles of scholarship, fellowship, good character and the uplifting of humanity, thereby, infusing in each Alpha man, the qualities and potential to become an extraordinary person. (Rewritten)
  • The fraternity is rich with members is POV. (Rewritten)
  • Alpha men were instrumental in the founding and leadership of... needs a source. (linking to each name would provide the source, but I have provided additional external sources)
  • From the ranks of the fraternity have come men who have emulated its status as first, by becoming the first African Americans in many arenas such as Kelly Miller, first to be admitted to Johns Hopkins University, and Todd Duncan, first actor to play "Porgy" in Porgy and Bess. Run on sentence. (Rewritten)
  • The Presidential Medal of Freedom has been awarded to multiple members which incude William Coleman and Edward Brooke. Awkward sentence. Needs some more punctuation and a little rewording. (Rewritten)
  • The image gallery in the "Heritage" section is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of images. If those images illustrate something, the image should be placed next to what it illustrates. However, these images are only tangentally related, and aren't really appropriate. The text that comes after the image gallery needs desperately to be sourced, and preferably included as part of a quote, and put into that context. The claims put forth there can't really be undeniably accepted as fact. Addressed Below
  • The fraternity serves more than its immediate membership, it combines its efforts in conjunction with other organizations to benefit humanity throuth its national programs. This sounds like ad copy, or recruitment text. Rephrase to be more neutral and professional. (Rewritten)
  • The campaign to erect a permanent memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr. is one the most ambitious projects in the history of the fraternity. That's a matter of opinion, wouldn't you say? So who holds that opinion? Can you quote him? (Sourced)
  • Alpha men provide youth participants with excellent role models to emulate. You have a source, but it's still POV. Use it as a quote, or don't use it. (Rewritten and removed word "excellent")
  • The three goals of Project Alpha programs are: Source? (Sourced)
  • The "Centennial era" consists of nothing but a list of facts. Rewrite as "Brilliant Prose" please.
  • In that year a club was formed called Kappa Alpha Nu, but the club expired after a short time. Without more explanation, this is a non-sequitor. Please elaborate what this has to do with anything. It is implied that Kappa Alpha Nu was another black organization, but implications can be misleading, so please spell it out. You've mostly fixed this by adding extra context, but I'd still prefer if you'd simply state that ΚΑΝ was a black organization.
  • But this is a misnomer. Sentence fragment.
  • Charles H. Wesley, an acclaimed historian and a member of both... non-sequitor, doesn't belong in this paragraph, and more relevance needs to be described.
  • It's also mentioned that the organization is interracial, but absolutely no mention is made of any white members. Even if no white members made any impact on the world, that'd still be notable to mention next to all these black members making their marks. If white members have been notable or influential in any way, or just plain successful, this should be noted for comprehensiveness sake. As the article stands, it implies that despite being nominally interracial, it really is "Black only" anyway. This should be corrected or confirmed outright. Fieari 05:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Addressed below and in article

Thanks for your input Fieari, there's a lot to sort thru and it may take several updates due to time contraints of my own, but I do appreciate your efforts and the time you have taken to read the article and provde valuable input; I wish you were around during peer review.

• • There are over 50 footnotes in this article which will provide basis for much of the information presented. For example, the reference to "a group was born of a desire to promote close association and mutual support among African Americans", footnote 3 address's the source of this information and where it can be found. What else are you looking for here, because it's going to be a problem for much of the information that is taken from books, who don't have a copy of the book to verify the information?
  • I used the fraternity color "Old Gold" for the background, however: what color would you not object to. This seems to subjective since some like the quotes and others questions the color,is there a standard color that should be used so I don't have to keep changing as new contributors supply input? Would the green color in the Michigan article be appropriate for this article in your opinion?
  • Regarding mentioning names, I thought i mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the lead section that MLK was a member. The sentence leading up to the bullet point says "Alpha men were at the forefront", how is this not clear for MLK or the other names bulleted? Buth, I had mentioned that MLK was member on several occasions after this, but based upon tuf-kat's review that the article seemed like a Public Relations brochure, I removed that information so that it wouldn't seem like a public relations brochure. you can review the history pages 4 days ago to see it was there. I will review the history so that I can read the information for MLK, and will mention fraternity brother by every other name that's not specific. i hope this does not cause objection for other contributors.
  • Can you provide some of the names that are not expressly mentioned as members. Upon review I could only find one (charles houston). Each name in the Membership section is an fraterity brohter, although I believe I'm redundant is some instances of saving fraternity brother or Alpha men. Any help you can provide is appreciated.
  • I used the term pilgrimage because that's how the fraternity refers to the one held in 1956 and the last pilgrimage held in 2005. I am printing a paragraph of the wikipedia articlepilgrimage, Secular and civic pilgrimages are also practiced, without regard for religion but rather of importance to a particular society. For example, many people throughout the world travel to the City of Washington in the United States for a pilgrimage to see the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. British people often make pilgrimages to London for public appearances of the monarch of the United Kingdom. Further, I wasn't implying this was part of the civil rights campaign, just that the 50th anniversary occurred simultaeneously with the birth of the civil rights. HOwever, I have changed the heading of this section so not to confuse other reades. i do see how it might have been ambiguous.
  • the fraternity turned its attention to the new phases of need for humanity. I don't know if this is a quote or not, but I have provided a footnote as to the source of the text, which is the fraternity history book, 1981.
  • Today, Alpha Phi Alpha continues its commitment to the African American community is more POV, unless it's a quote. Please attribute and source. ( I thought I provided a source as well as link to the website this information was obtain), pls look again and I will verify.

The objectives of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity (Inc.) are to... this whole paragraph needs a source. ( Here too, I thought I had provided a footnote as well as link to the website this information was obtain), pls look again and I will verify.

• • Alpha men provide youth participants with excellent role models to emulate. I will remove the word "excellent", they do provide role models.
  • The source regarding the images in he gallery came directly from the artilces that linked to in the pictures. I have removed the gallery so this should no longer pose a problem.
  • Robert Zawacki is white and the organizations sole Rhodes Scholar. I added this to article. Vice President Hubert Humphrey is mentioned twice, but I didn't and still see no need to mention his race since all vice presidents of the U.S are non-black. Both of these men are mentioned in the Membership section
    • I'll made a majority of the changes, but will work on the Controversy and Centennial era sections later. thanks for the advice and please check back and provide more feedback. Ccson 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You seem to misunderstand something -- you can't make an opinion neutral by putting a footnote on it. If you want to state someone's opinions in an article, you do that by saying "John Smith said that 'Alpha Phi Alpha produces excellent role models'". Otherwise, you present their opinions as facts, which violates WP:NPOV. Tuf-Kat 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't know who made the statement. It was on the website provided in the reference, so the statement isn't neutral, it's removed, but readers who look at the footnote will see the entire text which states "Alpha provides excellent role models". Would it be okay to say The Fratnernity states it provides . . .". Also, that's just one item ins the your litany of objections. Have the others been sufficiently addressed since you don't mention further objections? thanks again for your input, I'm trying to make this work. 67.34.214.125 02:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I gave a personal name as an example, but whatever the source is, it should be identified. If it's the fraternity's website, then absolutely, name that. The objections I have not crossed out remain unfixed. At least one, the Civil Rights vanguard one, has gotten worse (gained poor prose with no improvement in referencing or tone). I want to make this work too -- I think it is fixable during the FAC period and that it has, overall, improved substantially already. Tuf-Kat 02:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

TUF-Kat: I did an overhaul of the article and would appreciate it if you could C & P any remaining objections below this to see how much further this will have to be worked over. Thanks. Jtmichcock 03:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Your changes have not solved the remaining objections from earlier. Tuf-Kat 11:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tuf-kat, you only have 2 remaining objections. One being the quote boxes which are not objected to by Fieari, he objected to color and that has been changed. You still have an open objection to the unencyclopedic tone of the sentence using "vanguards". This sentence has been copyedited. Can you confirm if you still object to your still open issues or if either of the 2 have been solved? thanks again for taking the time to assist with this article? Ccson 05:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have three remaining objections (which were not exhaustive -- this is still too promotional). The vanguard sentence has gotten worse. It's lost detail without improvement in citation. The Great Depression sentence is still unsupported, and not obviously related to the rest of the paragraph. See below on the quote boxes. Tuf-Kat 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Fieari, can you strike thru the objections that have been solved, so it's will easy to see what remaining. thanks. 67.34.214.125 03:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm going through them now. With so many points, it takes time to just check that they've been dealt with. Gimmie a bit. Fieari 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fieri, I believe this mornings' version should address your remaining concerns:

1. "The fraternity's first pilgrimage to Cornell was held..." The term pilgrimage seems inappropriate here, esspecially when linked to emphasize the definition, which is about religion. Civil rights work isn't exactly a religion.

I have inserted the term pilgrimage into quotes to evidence that this is the fraternity's term, not a descriptor. Although the CRM is not per se religious, the imagery often takes that form.

1. however; the fraternity turned its attention to the new phases of need for humanity. This is POV, unless it's a quote. How do we know that humanity even had new phases of need?

I modified the text to delete value judgments and unnecessary hyperbole, including this.

1. The objectives of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity (Inc.) are to... this whole paragraph needs a source.

The ¶ has been omitted since the illustrated actions are a manifestation of objectives. Proof in the pudding, etc.

1. It's also mentioned that the organization is interracial, but absolutely no mention is made of any white members. Even if no white members made any impact on the world, that'd still be notable to mention next to all these black members making their marks. If white members have been notable or influential in any way, or just plain successful, this should be noted for comprehensiveness sake. As the article stands, it implies that despite being nominally interracial, it really is "Black only" anyway. This should be corrected or confirmed outright.

There are no hard "numbers" as to the exact percentage, but I added text and a cite to state that the group is predominantly black. As to the few white members, this is noted in the text now.

I hope this satisfactorily addresses your objections. Jtmichcock 13:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • Okay, I've struck the ones I think are fixed. I have to go for a moment, but when I get back I'll explain how to fix the last few problems. I think there may be one or two more issues too that I noticed... I'll get to them once I get back. This article is now VERY close to FA quality. Fieari 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

TUK-KAT (and others): I have used quoteboxes in more than one article, the most recent being Gerald Ford which became a feature article just a few weeks ago. Just as we use photos and drawings to illustrate an article, it is perfectly legitimate to use quotes to the same effect. The FA process does not demand uniformity and should focus on content while allowing different styles to be advanced and appreciated. That's my .02. Jtmichcock 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Photos and drawings are not analogous. They are, or should be, only used to illustrate something that can not be illustrated any other way. Quotes are only words, and can always be incorporated into the article itself. Placing certain quotes in a box and setting them apart places emphasis on it, implying it expresses a correct, or at least very important sentiment. All the quote boxes could be removed without losing anything but a couple of opinions of dubious relevance. So MLK gave a speech to an organization and made a vague claim that some leaders will result from it? Who cares? Any organization will produce leaders, and putting MLK's quote in a box accomplishes what? All I can see is that it implies he was correct and that this particular frat has been extra-specially blessed by God to produce national leaders -- this is obviously highly debatable. Regarding the use of quote boxes in other articles: I don't think they should be there, and I would have opposed featuring them too. My objection still stands and will not change as long as they are there, because their presence violates a fundamental policy of this site, WP:NPOV, by implying that a particular opinion is more valid than others. Tuf-Kat 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Quoteboxes. Your turn. Jtmichcock 22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

removal due to suppression and boosterism

Clear cut suppression of knowledge and approved topics including homosexuality, hazing, pledging and violence which is documented and in its history..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=50479585

205.188.116.12 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please create an account if you want to participate during the FAC period, and please cite verifiable and reliable sources here before vandalizing article. Also, personal observation and experience is "opinion" not "fact". Ccson 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No one needs an account to comment and the person's link was entirely appropriate insofar as the "brown paper bag test" is still a problem within the black community. The problem was not the link, but the fact that the person deleted most of the rest of the article so that the link could be stuck in there. I have added content to the article to address the issue raised and I hope this will avoid further edit battles. Jtmichcock 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about the black commnunity, and the test he refers was used decades ago, and only by a single chapter as far as his reference cites. It's too generic to apply to the whole organization when this was a single act. Hazing is different, we only mention one chapter, but one can find many cases where this has occurred within Alpha and other fraternities and sororities. [User:Ccson|Ccson]]. Also, I know one doesn't need an account, but it difficult to determine who does the update when multiple use the same IP address.

The Lion King

I believe that this article has went through some major changes for the better since its last nomination. The article is very well-explored, and covers pretty much every inch of the movie. Partially a Self-nomination. PlatformerMastah 06:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, references and inline citations are necessary. Also, images need specific fair use rationales. — TKD::Talk 06:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Inline cites are not strictly necessary; referencing is though. (Oh and Oppose)Batmanand | Talk 07:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, they are. (c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged; emphasis added. Inline citations are a definite requirement for FA status. Fieari 07:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • When did that change? They used to be optional but strongly encouraged (like cite.php is now). Batmanand | Talk 14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
        • References are mandatory; the level of "inline" citations/footnotes/whatever is still a matter for debate, but "complemented where appropriate" means something short of "must". -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Suffers from overlinking; e.g. "The brother to the king". Fredrik Johansson 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I can clean up the excessive linking when I have time. I think someone in an earlier message said that the article needs a little cleaning up. I can help a little. --Starionwolf 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, needs inline citations. Additionally, the "Trivia" section should be converted into "brilliant prose"... sections containing nothing but lists of facts are depreciated in FAs. Fieari 08:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, the article suffers quite heavily from "List-itis", and could do with some significant work there. It also includes a number of very trivial facts whose importance is not asserted. The layout could also use some work from an aesthetic point of view. It's quite crouded in places, too sparse in others, and the colors in some of the lists also clash. Fieari 08:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Fieari (and also please note WP:FUC about fair use images). Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - a search for 'Tezuka' on the page only finds two mentions, article can't possibly be comprehensive. --zippedmartin 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Get over it. This article is about The Lion King, not a crappy Japanese cartoon. More than one mention is ludicrous.

Raven-Symoné

Due to certain user's fine contributions, this article became unbiased, neutral and accurate. This article deserves to be Featured because of this. The finely written and this must not go unnoticed. This article really deserves to be featured someday.

Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - see comments above Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ummm... people generally don't vote for their own nominations. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy - primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. As long as a concensus is reached, I don't think there is a problem with voting on your own nominations. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• object: I quite agree that a lot of work has been done on improving this; and kudos to everyone involved. However, I'm afraid I see a few issues:
  1. The quality of the writing needs some work. For example, "As a baby, Symoné worked for Atlanta's Young Faces Inc. modeling agency was featured in local print advertisements." isn't a sentence; I wouldn't parenthesize "(she returned for the first sequel as well)", since that's another film role in its own right; "as the Raven Baxter"; "It became Disney's..." not start of a sentence, so no capital; but overall the prose just seems a little uninspiring -- too much like a simple list of works.
  2. Template:Biography has a bunch of suggested contents for a biography, and while that's certainly not set in stone, this article just seems to hit the "works" section. I'm not seeing anything about her life, background, etc. This is going to be frustrating to read, since that's exactly what got pruned out; but I feel you need more "meat" in the article. It just needs to be neutral in tone, and backed up by references so that it's verifiable.
  3. The formatting could use some work. There are two different table layouts used in "Discography", and a different layout again in "Filmography".
  4. There are no references.
  5. I'm not sure about the licence status of the picture. It's an album cover, and the licence on it specifically states "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of album or single covers ... solely to illustrate the album or single in question ... qualifies as fair use ..." (emphasis not mine). I think this is therefore unacceptable use under Wikipedia policy. In any case, wouldn't you be better off with something more documentary of what she really looks like? How about fair use of a newspaper photo?

     The fair use image is acceptable in Wikipedia, but fair use images need rationales- see WP:FUC. See WP:FU#Acceptable uses for the factors necessary for an image to qualify as fair use. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Keep at it... I'm sure this will be the basis of an FA, but I think it has a way to go yet. — Johan the Ghost _seance 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object- The lead is too short, and doesn't summarize the article, as set forth in WP:WIAFA. The article is too dependent on lists rather than "brilliant" prose. I doubt that this article also fits the comprehensiveness required by most FAs. For examples of some already-featured articles similar to this one, see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Culture_and_societynext comment. In addition, the article lacks references, critera 2(c). It should have inline citations, generally WP:FOOTNOTEs. Finally, the article could use a copyedit to remove grammatical errors; for example, the first letter after a semicolon is not capitalized. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  I guess you meant Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music; Mariah Carey looks like pretty much the ultimate example. — Johan the Ghost _seance 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, those would be much better examples (can't believe I missed it)! AndyZ _t 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No references. Too much dependent on lists. Lead is too short and does not summarise the article.--Dwaipayanc 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per reasons above. I refer the nominator to Lindsay Lohan for an example of the FA standards.--Fallout boy 05:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object: There is too little of everything, except lists, and there is too much of that. The article is in no way comprehensive, doesn't make the case that this person is a significant event or responsible for significant actions, doesn't provide a comprehensive biography, and the subject is so young and culturally inactive that I doubt the article can be comprehensive or compelling for the next, oh, fifteen years. Geogre 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object. Is this a joke? Anonymous, have you read the FA criteria? This article fails all of them: it has 2 paragraphs and an intro, and despite what Geogre said, it can become featured, as Raven has had a lengthy career (from Cosby until now); it has no refs, the image lasks fairuse rationale, the list goes on. If you are doing it in good faith, please take the time to read other featured articles on singers/pop stars, namely Mariah Carey (as already pointed out), Celine Dion, Kylie Minogue.... If you are doing this as a joke, you really shouldn't play around like this. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Perfect game (baseball)

In the last year (especially since Randy Johnson's perfect performance), this article has been substantially improved, researched, and acquired international content. It's well written, detailed, and from a Major League perspective anyway, complete till the next one. It's a good job, and good enough to represent WP on the FA list. It reflects the agony (losing a perfect game to a last possible batter's hit) and the ecstasy (17 in the modern era, so far) of the topic. In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a contributor, though not for a while. ww 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object: this is way too much of a list. Perhaps you should split the lists off into seperate pages, say, List of perfect games in Major League Baseball or List of perfect games in Japanese baseball. Furthermore, this list is not comprehensive; have there really been no perfect games in minor league baseball? Perfect games called such have also happened in a sport I won't name right now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• object: a few deficiencies, I think:
  1. I would have a more concise lead sentence; the current one is a little long. I might be inclined to start with "In baseball, ..." to clarify the scope right away.
  2. "Several games have not qualified under this revised definition." You haven't mentioned any revision.
  3. "... one of the most difficult achievements in baseball, or indeed any sport." Ditch "any sport", unless you can figure out a way to make a meaningful, quantifiable and verifiable comparison between pitching balls and, say, climbing K2 without oxygen, or rowing across the Pacific.
     • Or rephrase to say "rare" rather than difficult -- "difficult" has connotations of being physically demanding, whereas a perfect game involves a great deal of luck (as the article says). — Johan the Ghost _seance 22:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. The lead isn't a summary, and should be; I think the article body could use more text (it should completely explain the subject), and the lead a little less.

  Cheers, — Johan the Ghost _seance 22:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have contributed to this article a great deal, and allow me to address some of these points. Perfect games in minor-league baseball should not be in this article, because that would make it too broad in scope. The article's focus is on the seventeen perfect games in MLB history. Given how many minor league teams there are--every single MLB franchise today has five or more, plus there are still independent minor league teams out there--to include minor league perfectos would risk making this a long and bloated article. Plus, I have never seen a comprehensive list of minor-league perfect games anywhere, and would have no idea where or how to research it. If anybody does know of such a list and thinks it should be on Wikipedia, then it should definitely be a separate article....Regarding Miss Madeline's suggestion about perfect games in softball: softball is a different sport. Hence, different article....Regarding the "revised definition" of perfect games: there is indeed one game listed that did not qualify under the revised definition: Shore's game in 1917....Regarding 'any sport' and how to make a 'meaningful, quantifiable and verifiable' comparision between a perfect game in baseball and other sports: the answer is very simple. A perfect game is very quantifiable and verifiable: it has happened seventeen times in baseball history (dating back to 1876). How many times has K2 been climbed without oxygen? How many times have people rowed across the Pacific? More or less than seventeen? Is climbing K2 even a "sport" in the commonly defined sense of an athletic competition involving winners and losers?...Regarding the notion that a perfect game should be called "rare" and not "difficult": well, I invite that user to try and throw a perfect game against a major-league team. Of course throwing a perfect game is difficult. Of course it's physically demanding. Throwing a ball sixty feet with accuracy and speed in such a manner that 27 people who make their living hitting baseballs can't hit it hard is physically demanding. Even the undistinguished pitchers who threw perfect games, Robertson, Barker et al, were all tremendously good for one day. Perfect games involve the luck factor, but they also involve a great deal of skill.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.249.3 (talk • contribs)

Object - Although this may not be an actionable objection. I don't think that this article can be a featured article because it essentially amounts to a list of perfect games - no "brilliant prose" is really possible. The alternative - describing each perfect game in detail - could be tedious and repetitious. Something which may be actionable, though: There's a fair bit of miscellaneous detail about the perfect games pitched in the MLB, but for the Japanese league, this isn't true. However, I feel that as this article is basically a definition + list, it doesn't meet the criteria. Sorry. The Disco King 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Object - simply a list. No lead in for someone that does not understand (American style) baseball. Not fit for a worldwide audience. asnatu 20:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So?

• Comment shouldn't it be titled "Perfect game (baseball)," or at least have italic redirect text at the top noting the bowling, darts, etc. contexts? Also, needs pictures. Kaisershatner 15:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Take it to featured lists if you wish. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The naming is all wrong. It really kind of has to be Perfect game (baseball), because another sport where "perfect game" is rare and interesting is in bowling. Additionally, there are other sports, I'm sure, that would have the same interest in a perfect game, but they don't come to my American mind as quickly as bowling does. Geogre 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Chicago, Illinois

Mrmaroon25 (talk · contribs) (I think that's who put this up here) seems to be having difficulties with renominating, so I'll help him out a bit here. Old nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago, Illinois1. Fieari 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Not ready yet. See old nom. Fieari 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The article has no inline references, and is referenced poorly overall. However, I must say that my previous objections about picture alignment and placement have been nicely resolved. The article as a whole, however, is not ready. RyanGerbil10 13:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a current Good Article Collaboration of the Week article, which means major changes to the contents of the article are currently occuring and/or are likely to occur. The article should be listed only after it is stable enough to be considered for FAC. As much as I like the city, I would have to agree with the two objections above. AreJay 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 14:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Needs MUCH BETTER Picture. ie. look at the other photo submittals for world class cities.
• Strong Object. Article highly underreferenced. I don't think use of Wikitravel as reference is allowed at all (=> Use primary references). No inline citations. External links section is cluttered. Article still having "Collaboration of the Week" hence not likely to be stable. Single entry sub-sections is a misuse of subsections. See also links not having proper format and even external links have been included in see also section. Single line paragraphs need to be merged or deleted. External links in prose to be avoided. There are many other problems. I would suggest that you go through some of the featured articles and model this on their structure. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

David Bowie

I'm nominating this article because it is comprehensive. The subject has also had a wide effect on pop culture and beyond. - Deathrocker 18:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The intro needs to have more information in it and there aren't any references that I could find. RENTA^{FOR LET?} 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object Agree with Rentastrawberry. The article needs references and the lead, at one sentence, should instead be 2-3 paragraphs which summarize Bowie's significance. As well, agree that references and inline citations are needed. Finally, many of the single sentence sections read more like a timeline and should be turned into prose. An example, see the section "2000 to today: Contemporary Bowie". This is essentially a collection of single sentence statements often broken down into years. Instead, this should be changed to prose, i.e. paragraph format. --Ataricodfish 18:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: This article reads like a magazine article, not an encyclopedia article. It has a breathless, fawning tone to it. There are numerous low-value links, e.g. lightning, Philadelphia, nadir. There is too much minutiae (e.g. he is reported to have called someone a ‘wanker’, he had made no plans for any performances during the year). The fact that he participated in producing ‘Transformer’ is mentioned twice.
  Meanwhile, more info would be useful in some areas. No discussion is made of the business end of his music, only the production. He turned down a knighthood, why? As the other comments indicate, there is room for more useful references. —ogenstein 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism and Judaism

Article Created 7 Aug 2004. As of 16 Apr 2006, there have been 136 Contributers, 60 are IP addresses, 76 are registered Users

Total 7 Aug 2004 to 16 Apr 2006, 924 Edits
Stats from (VChapman 16 APR 2006)

Previous submission archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mormonism and Judaism/archive 1

There has been a huge effort to bring this page upto wikipedia standards, and the activity has settled down. With many individuals and a complex issue, the spirit of wikipedia came alive to correct this article and allow it to meet wikipedia standards. (14 April 2006)

• Strong object:
  • No explicit listing of references. In addition, much of the material (particularly as regards Judaism itelf) is simply unreferenced.
  • The existence of article borders on original research; certainly there is no reputable source provided to demonstrate that a comparison between Mormonism and Judaism is particularly meaningful (versus, say, Mormonism and Shinto or Mormonism and Zoroastrianism), or that the article's choice of topics for comparison is appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • RESPONSE Included it a list of other book on same issue, discrediting the original research, and reputable source complaint
      • Covenant and Chosenness in Judaism and Mormonism, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, November 2001, ISBN 0838639275
      • Spiritual Vision: Hebrew Cryptograms -- The Key to Unlocking Parallels Between Mormonism and Judaism, David B. Cohen and Irving Cohen, Deseret Books, SKU: 4702961
      • Mormons and Jews: Early Mormon Theologies of Israel,Signature Books, January 1993, ISBN 156085006X
      • MY BURNING BUSH, THE SPIRITUAL JOURNEY OF NANCY GOLDBERG HILTON, AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY By Nancy Goldberg Hilton PhD, ISBN 0-9776403-0-2, Library of Congress Registration Number TX 6-288-494
        • Nancy tells about her spiritual journey from Judaism to joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also explains the points of LDS doctrine which Nancy found fulfills her ancient Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.145.145 (talk • contribs)

Huh? None of these are even mentioned in the article, and they don't seem particularly representative of mainstream theological literature, either. Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm dealing with over 12 76 to 136 different contributers, on the topic of religion. The Origianl research issue was raised in the first archive and shot down, I'm simply demonstarting that the issue has more merit than the other topics you suggested. Mormons claims Israelite decent is a well founded and well established belief. All you have to do is hit the web to uncover that issue. I wish this article had ISBN numbers also, but it isn't the work of any ONE individual. I am going to try to compile a list. And these have actually been added to the articel under a heading of Similar Works. Anyone got the ISBN # for the Torah? VChapman 16APR06

My First source cited is going to be The Book of Mormon, Church of Jesus Christ of, July 1981, ISBN 0967686563

2nd Source Pearl of Great Price, January 2003, ISBN 0766136531

3rd The Holy Bible, King James Version, National Publishing Company, January 2000, ISBN 0834003465

Now I'll start on the other references, I'd hate for this article to not make it based on this issue. Any help locating published sourced for cited information would be appreciated, I'm going to try to locate said sources based on the 25+ reference links in the article. VCHAPMAN 16APR06

I can see where that would make sense for a Mormon views of Judaism aricle; but this article attempts to do a rather broader comparison. I'm asking for some evidence that such a comparison is considered meaningful by anyone other than the LDS; or, if it isn't, suggesting that the article be renamed and trimmed accordingly. Kirill Lokshin 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Name Change is out, please refer to Talk:Mormonism and Judaism#18, VCHAPMAN 16APR06

In that case, it may be appropriate (as was mentioned by several people in that discussion) to edit the contents to be something more than a side-by-side listing of several arbitrary points from the two religions. Kirill Lokshin 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not easy, there are many Mormon and Jewish Contributers, after that discussion on dec 2005, this is the reworked article, and the LDS contributers had little to say on the issue. It happened very fast and effecently. Also addressed in the talk session. When dealing with a religious comparision, you have to not offend either party, and successfully maintain a NPOV. Not easy, I'm ready to move on from this topic, unless someone else weighs in, but I feel all of this is adressed on the talk page, about 3x the size of the article page plus the archived page mentioned above. Best Regards, I guess its upto the community to decided. I'm getting too much into this, and I feel like even though the entire page has been completely restructered, by the Jewish Community of Wikipedia, its still the same complaint. VCHAPMAN 16 APR 06

• Object. Although I don't agree with Kirill Lokshin about the original research claim, I must object that the lead section is completely unacceotable in its current state. RyanGerbil10 03:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have expanded on lead section. Probally the last part to be adressed, I had to but great thought into a NPOV approach to the beginning of the article. Something I have been struggling with for over a year now. (VCHAPMAN 15 Apr 06)

*Object - Almost no references whatsoever, and the first paragraph is a grammar train wreck. "Mormons just as Jews, consider themselves to be full and entitled members of The House of Israel, and God's covenant with Israel. A claim not well accepted in the Jewish Community." is a terribly written sentence. Dee man45 22:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• My concerns have been rectified, so I now support. Dee man45 01:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Help on the grammer if possible, I think I cleaned the sentence up. (VChapman 15 APR 06)

• Object imbedded external links should be converted to WP:FOOTNOTEs (I'll do the conversion, but WP:CITE (see also WP:CITE/ES) information will be needed- consider {{Cite web}}). My main objection is that the article does not have a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents . At 64kb, this article is too large, and needs to implement Wikipedia:Summary style. Please use a proper system of subpages to shortern down the length of the article. AndyZ _t 14:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support. The article is definitely too large. My personal concerns are with things that are not so much documentation of beliefs as much as "proofs" or apologetics (the date correllations between events in Mormonism and the Jewish calender comes first to mind, mostly because, if you consider the day before the day before the new moon to be a Jewish holiday, than there are about 150 of them). I'm also concerned about references that are not primary sources for this article, but instead were sources for a referenced article. You could be compounding and passing on a mistaken understanding. As for grammar, I've fixed some in the past, and can find time this week to take another look. FiveRings 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• The writing in the lead section is particularly bad. When I read the first sentence - "Mormonism and Judaism have significant differences and some similarities." - I cringed. This definitely needs improvement. Raul654 13:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object This article is not titled properly. When I saw the title, I thought that it was an article on both mormanism and judaism, and for some reason they were combined. Only after reading a while did I descover that it was a comparison article. How about something like: Compasrison between mMrmonism and Judaism. The title of this article creates imidiate confusion. How could we possibly have a featured article which is not even titled correctly?
• Object I am not sure that there is even a reason for this article, it seems to me that any similarities are probably not meaningful, and they are definitely not meaningful to *both* religions. Some sections also seem quite superficial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object In my opinion, this is original research. PDXblazers 00:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

England

I nominated England because it is the most popular, influental and successful home nation in the United Kingdom. It accounts for 83% of the total UK population. I think England deserves to be a featured article because the English culture has been influental on the cultures of the British Isles and, on the other hand, given the extent to which other cultures have influenced life in England. It has also been spread over large parts of the globe due to the British Empire.

England has also produced many, many scientists, authors, writers, musicians - which have influenced the world greatly. From The Beatles to William Shakespeare, England has given the world such knowledge and entertainment for such a tiny nation.

We have given the world the English language, with about 380 million native speakers and 150 million-1 billion as their second language. Making this the 2nd most spoken language in the world, and the highest number of secondary speakers due to English being a 'universal' language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batazer (talk • contribs) .

Comment - Lovely though England itself is, the Featured article criteria are more about the article than the subject. A quick glance indicates that it needs proper referencing - it currently only has one inline reference. —Whouk (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Comment The above appears to be some kind of experssion of patriotism, as opposed to a description of the strengths of the article. Are you clear that it is the article that will be evaluated, as opposed to the subject of the article? Jkelly 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment from someone who has edited this article; it clearly needs at lot of improvement before it reaches featured article status; in fact its probably too far off for suich a critique to be paticularly useful at the mo Robdurbar 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Move to peer review This article fails WP:WIAFA on many counts. Please move the article to Peer review and incorporate suggestions coming out of the discussions there. AreJay 04:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Definite Object and Move to Peer Review Almost completely devoid of references with too many lists and a clearly patriotic nomination (rather than merit-based). Staxringold 14:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Object The worthiness of a topic does not play a role in determining whether or not an article is well-written, factually acurate, verifiable and comprehensive. Fails 1, 2a, 2b and 2c. It has short, choppy prose and longwinded sentences. It uses weasel wording, is almost completely devoid of references and is badly formatted. There are images present with dubious copyright status and some of the templates used, such as the Topics on England are obtrusive. Move to Peer review where it needs much needed help. --Bob 15:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't looked at the article, but if its prose is on a par with that of the nomination text above, it fails. In addition, some people will take offence at the use of 'successful'; what does it mean in this context, anyway? Tony 15:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object: No way is this anything approaching FA standard. It reads as though it has been written off the top of someone's head after too many pints of their famously warm beer. The page lacks references. Sections and sentences lack continuity - and as for compelling prose! References are essential especially for some very dubious statements such as "Many people often refer to the United Kingdom as England, either on purpose (for various reasons) or out of ignorance." Who exactly are these "many people" and what are the various reasons, I'm agog to know. "The simplest view is that an English person is someone who is from England " well that told us something we didn't know - can we have a source for that. More importantly a source for thist, with some figures: "Although a part of England, a small, but noticeable, minority of those living in Cornwall feel similarly, considering themselves ethnically Cornish first". For a place the nominator feels ".....deserves to be a featured article because the English culture has been influental on the cultures of the British Isles and, .....been spread over large parts of the globe due to the British Empire" the nominator seems remarkably ill-informed: "...This tradition has continued with the likes of Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and J.R.R. Tolkien, who are all often considered the greatest writers of their time" - their time? - are they? - by whom? and where is Anthony Trollope and Thackeray and Wilkie Collins etc etc etc.? Then we have this gem "Composers from England did not achieve the same recognition in comparison to their literary counterparts" Absolute rubbish who has said this? What about Henry Purcell, Elgar, William Walton, Vaughan Williams], Jeremiah Clarke, or even at a push, the naturalised, Handel. I'm not going to continue with this. Take it away look up Wikipedia Criteria, and then go and do some proper research. Giano | talk 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Now come on, Giano, tell us what you really think. ;-) —Whouk (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "....The Beatles and The Rolling Stones have achieved success only rivaled by U.S. music" someone forgot Abba. Must be my age. Giano | talk 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Obejct, largely as per Giano. If the contributors would like examples of poor writing in the article, please ask me. Tony 00:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

John Brooke-Little

With the recent passing of John Brooke-Little, the world of heraldry as lost and important voice. Mr Brooke-Little was responsible for founding The Heraldry Society which has had a profound impact on heraldry over the half century. I think that this article does a good job of explaining who Brooke-Little was and why he was important to heraldry. Though it is a topic that many may not be familiar with, I feel that it deserves to be a featured article on the wikipedia.--Evadb 09:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but this article doesn't have any citations, inline or otherwise. It's well-written and matches many of the criteria, but information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Add some references, and maybe do a peer review. Good luck! The Disco King 15:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, King. I'm unsure of how to add citations and also of which facts need to be cited. I'm pretty deeply immersed in heraldry, so I'm unsure what things aren't common knowledge. Any ideas? Thanks again.--Evadb 15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It has four references - the obituaries in each of the four UK broadsheet newspapers that I mined some few weeks ago to expand the article. However, the article has expanded greatly since then, so much of the new information must come from elsewhere, and the sources of the new information should be added to the "References" section. In addition, it would help to indicate explicitly the source of any particularly interesting or controversial facts - see m:Cite/Cite.php for the current favoured method for adding citations (using the <ref>...</ref> and <references> tags). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Object:I have read this article, but apart from forming the view he was probably the greatest social climber since Cinderella (reading between the lines). The need for, or indeed achievements of his life have not been explained. He seems to have been to an obscure school (is Claysmore School a proper public school?), and studied obscure honours and titles. we are told he achieved many honours "He was appointed a Member of the Royal Victorian Order (4th class) in 1969." I think HM's lawn mower achieves higher. Then we have "Many believed that he should have been considered for knighthood, but that honor was never given to him" I smell a story here - but again we are not to be told it. Firstly, who exactly is many? and more interestingly why was not given the honour; like so much in this page we are not told the details. What exactly does "Due to his convivial life style, though, Brooke-Little was not adequately suited to the managerial responsibilities of the office of Garter." mean? - was he an alcoholic? womaniser? What exactly - and why can't we be told? Then we have statements like " the science of heraldry and armory" What exactly is scientific about heraldry, surely if it is anything it is an art. As a biography I think this is a toadying page that tells us nothing about the subject. Giano | talk 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The Cinderella quip is good. However, Giano, you cannot seriously contend that this man has no place in Wikipedia, when he held one of the most senior and ancient heraldic offices in the world, was a widely read author and academic writer, and had his life obituarised in all the English national newspapers that carry obituaries? Your objections are pretty snobbish ("is Claysmore School a proper public school?" and "HM's lawn mower achieves higher") and seems to focus more on the man than on the article. As to your criticisms of the article, they aren't very constructive and make it hard for editors to address them other than by deleting the article, which isn't what the featured article process is designed to encourage. On your two concrete points: (1) Noone can say why he was not knighted and speculation wouldn't be encyclopedic; however, it is correct that long serving heraldic officers with a track record of publication and scholarship to boot (like Sir Antony Wagner, who was also a twentieth century King of Arms) would at least be in the running for knighthoods. (2) A convivial life style can obviously interfere with serious management responsibility, without it being necessary to assume a person is an alcoholic or a womaniser or anything more than the article states. Evadb is a relatively new editor (Feb 2006, by the looks of it) who has done a lot of work on this and other heraldry related articles - so tack a bit more towards WP:CIV, eh? Cheers! Chelseaboy 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you "Chelseaboy", Have you wandered into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion by mistake? This is the FAC page. Nowhere have I said this person is not worthy of a place in wikipedia. I say this article is not worthy of being a FA. I am not particularly; fussed by lack of inline cites (though many are) but it would be interesting to know who declared his lifestyle "convivial" and what exactly was meant by it - to me it means a "bed-hopping drunk" - perhaps I move in strange circles, but I'm sure it means various things to various people, so lets know why he was "not adequately suited to the managerial responsibilities of the office of Garter" - because if his conviviality. If my objections seem patronising to the man, that's a pity, they are meant to accentuate the shortcomings of the page, which seems always to insinuate but never quite tell the truth about the subject. I'm sure in time Evadb will produce very good FAs, because the FAC page, in my experience, is a very tough, and consequently very good place to learn the art. Giano | talk 18:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I think I misunderstood you when you said "The need for, or indeed achievements of his life have not been explained. He seems to have been to an obscure school (is Claysmore School a proper public school?), and studied obscure honours and titles." I thought you meant he wasn't notable, and that this was a reason in itself for refusing FA status. Of course, the things that make JB-L notable (his offices, and his publications) are already in this article. My mistake, however. If I can be allowed to carry on barking up the wrong tree for a moment, I rather like the idea of a FA on an obscurish topic - it's the sort of thing you find on Wikipedia that you might not find in a paper encyclopedia, and if it's done well to boot, well, hooray. Chelseaboy 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. There are bed-hopping drunks in my circle as well, is it possible that you and I know each other IRL? ;-)

• Convivial as I'm sure we would both like to be, I doubt it's the same circle - unless your idea of conviviality is the local fund-raiser's cheese and wine! - However, I seem to have made a career here on writing pages on "obscurish topics", and sadly obscure or not they quite rightly have to conform to the same standards as the other pages and FAs. Giano | talk 21:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is a nice article in several ways, obviously written with love and care, but I'd advise the nominator to take it round to Peer review first for more eyeballs, and then return to FAC. I second Giano's complaint about the tantalizing, unexplained hints — "convivial lifestyle", as mentioned, appears to be a euphemism (though for what?), and euphemisms are not encyclopedic. More teasing still are the improper lions, a notion that boggles my mind. Please unpack these riddles. Please also try to make the short paragraph about the White Lion Society more layman-friendly, I'm quite baffled by it. (What's a "notional name"?) The Lead is too short and does not adequately summarize the article, see WP:LEAD. Please make only links relevant to the context. Example: stroke good, speech bad. Btw, I don't believe that Brooke-Little was widely known as "JBL" when he was born. Bishonen | talk 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

Star Wars

I have nominated this article because the Star Wars article has been listed as a good article for meeting the criteria AND because it's time for this influential science fantasy saga to become a featured article. This article covers everything about the Star Wars universe, from the movies to the comics, to the games to the books. This article has had 1 previous nomination last year, but since then this article has gone through extensive revision, copyediting and improved writing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batazer (talk • contribs) .

Object Does not fulfill criteria of brilliant prose. Too much weasel wording throughout such as It is also often argued and It is also thought by whom? Also lacks references. --Bob 20:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Object

• Need a reference for things like estimated to be $20 billion
• Remove both dot points/paragraphs about Revelations/TROOPS, the link to the cat at the top is enough
• Cultural influence is poor - Cultural influence of Star Wars needs to be created...
• Need fair-use rationales on all images..especilly since the John Williams/young George Lucas are dubious... Cvene64 22:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oject per Cvene64. Computerjoe's talk 07:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't like how you have articles devided into the orginial and prequel trilogies. It's supposed to be one saga, one story. There should be one article titled Star Wars episodes. Tobyk777 07:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The references section is not very long, and there are no links between the references and the facts they are supposed to be supporting. For example, let's take three facts at random and see whether the article allows us to trace them to a published source meeting WP:RS.

1. "An example of the space opera genre, the Star Wars story employs archetypal motifs common to both modern science fiction and ancient mythology, as well as the romantic music motifs of those genres." Not only is this not referenced at all... I have no idea what it means. What are the "romantic music motifs" of ancient mythology? Does The Odyssey have musical motifs? Presumably, they were whatever Homer played on his lyre, but I don't think John Williams or anyone else knows what they were. (Is "romantic music motifs... of ancient mythology" a way of saying that John Williams uses a musical vocabulary reminiscent of Strauss and Wagner? Then why not say so?) In any case, this statement is an opinion, so, whose opinion is it and what's the published source for it?

2. "Lucas acknowledges that the plot and characters in the 1958 Japanese film The Hidden Fortress, directed by Akira Kurosawa, were a major inspiration." OK, what's the source for that? It mentions an interview on a DVD. OK, good, let's at least have a citation giving the ASIN for the DVD, the title of the interview, and the approximate number of minutes into the interview where he says this. I've argued that this should count as a source. Others disagree and feel that DVD commentaries do not meet the criteria for WP:CITE or WP:RS, but such a citation would be better than nothing. This entire section on influences is innocent of source citations and rife with weasel wording and unattributed opinions: "It is also thought that the setting for the Star Wars universe came from Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy..." Thought by whom? "some Dune devotees consider Star Wars little more than a campy film adaptation of Herbert's work." Which devotes and where did they publish these opinions? "Some comic book fans have also drawn parallels between Star Wars and Jack Kirby’s epic Fourth World series..." Which fans? Where?

3. "Other sources, including publicly available draft scripts of Star Wars, show that Lucas had an incomplete and quickly-changing conception of the Star Wars story up until the release of the first film in 1977." Great! But, uh, where are those "publicly available" (i.e. "published") draft scripts? Why aren't they cited? Do they meet the standard of "published" in the sense of WP:V? If not, are there good published sources that can be cited in support of this statement?

Dpbsmith (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object per the objections raised above. The only real contribution I can make is about the link with Asimov's Foundation series. See here for speculation that lightsabers derive from the force-field penknives of Foundation; here and the references therein for Lucas's lifting the "Galactic Empire" from Asimov; and I. Asimov and Yours, Isaac Asimov for the writer's own thoughts on the matter. Lots of people say that Coruscant was originally named Jhantor, which would make perfectly clear the fact that it is a rip-off of Asimov's Trantor. Unfortunately, the first couple pages of Google hits on this return only Wikipedia mirrors.

Ah, when scholarship becomes incest. . . . Anville 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support

1. Pece Kocovski 09:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This articel is well written, and has spelling and grammer correct, what more can you ask for?

Counter-Strike

Comprehensive and routinely vandalized; should be featured and protected accordingly. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This is never going to get featured with no references whatsoever, but there are other problems as well (short sections, too many lists etc. - try a peer review first). I agree it's pretty comprehensive though. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and what do you mean with "protected accordingly"? -- grm_wnr Esc 20:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Put on more watchlists for starters. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Esc 08:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article lacks references and inline citations. There are a few short sections (like culture), and too many lists. Suggest peer review first. AndyZ _t 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. "Routinely vandalised" implies at least a certain degree of instability, and "protected according" (I assume you mean semi-protect) can happen with or without FA-status. Batmanand | Talk 15:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's not a complete article, the development history just isn't complete. Where are barking dog studios? When were as_, de_, and es maps introduced? What about the experiment with drivable vehicles circa beta 7? The removal of bunny hopping? Sure, someone new to Counter-Strike won't have a clue about it, and may not even think it to be important. But even back in Counter-Strike's beta days, it was easily the most popular online FPS around, things like that affected a great deal of the community back then, and should not be omitted. I don't like the "commonly played unofficial maps" section either. I know we are judging this article alone, but it links to List of Counter-Strike maps, something which I personally think should be deleted as it's full of unsourced POV (size, complexity, favour?) and should be redunant due to Counter-Strike maps. The legacy section should at least mention the slew of counter-strike clones which now exist. The counter-strike culture section should be expanded given the large article at Counter-Strike culture. This is no way near featured standard. - Hahnchen 18:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom Brady

there has been talk of this nomination, so I am going to step up and nominate it.

• Refer to Peer Review/Strongest Object. As a major contributor/editor to this article, I've been lazy, I know. I let the peer review suggestions slide for two months while working on other projects :(. It's important that we do what the peer review says before going to FAC. Hence my vote. — Deckiller 22:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Uhhhh Strong Object one of the better NFL Bios I agree, but it should be send to peer review, image problems, the magazine cover is a copyvio and the other is a AP image. the Other information section is basiclly another name for a trivia section, that should be removed, list need to be converted to prose, writing is rather poor and some unrefrenced POV claims lay though out the article especially in the Debate section. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Sometime in the near future I need to enhance the prose, which blinds me in some spots (not literally :) ). That's my fault for letting a lot of new editors taint the prose with minor details and POV claims and awkward wording. A "Good Article", but nowhere even near "Featured Article" status. Unfortunately, I've been pressured back into playing an MMORPG, so my Wikitime is extremely short nowadays :(. — Deckiller 16:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you. I nominated this article to try and get someone on to this. Im involved in to many discussions to take care of the article, and I would most likely end up changing it into a bias article

• Object This isn't ready, and there is still some material to work with. At this point it's little more than a page that recalls his NFL seasons. More information needs to be included on his personal life for the article to be truly comprehensive. Also the Other Information section (which is a points list) needs to be converted to prose (something à la Tom Brady in Popular Culture) and needs to be included. The Brian Close article is i think the best FA example of a sportsperson's biography on wikipedia. Use it as a template. Thethinredline 08:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fremantle Prison

Very informative article. I copyedited it, so partial self-nom. Neutrality^talk 20:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I personally enjoyed reading the article, and never questioned its factual accuracy with its abundance of relevant references. Written very well. — ßottesiηi^{Tell me what's up} 20:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Lead is too short. Batmanand | Talk 22:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with above, the lead needs to be expanded to at least one paragraph and one and two sentence paragraphs need to be adapted to ensure quality prose. If these issues are fixed and no other major qualms are presented I will most likely switch to support. Good luck. michael ^talk 04:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• weak oppose -- was going to suggest taking the dull grey image from the info box and swaping with the entrance image but it is/was a prison. The section on notable prisoners expand to 2-3 sentences on each including time period they where there. ie

Brandon Abott is a convicted of bank robbery 1989(?) sentence to 20yrs. escaped by fabricating a Prison Guards uniform and wlked out through the front gates in 1992. He spent 2 and 1/2 years on the run as Australia most wanted criminal.

The articles is directly about the building not the inmates but that list is just a little distracting Gnangarra

• I would say the article is about the institution rather than the building alone. So I have nothing against mention of notable prisoners. But perhaps it could be prosified instead of being left as a list. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You should explain the image of the 6th commandment...otherwise it appears it was randomly stuck in there. --Osbus 18:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In particular, the caption should make it clear that it is a picture from the prison. It would probably also be better to have it in the text where the chapel is mentioned. JPD (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Gallery is not serving any useful purpose in the article, which already links to Wikimedia Commons. If integrating the additional images within the text doesn't make sense, the pointer to Commons serves those readers looking for images. Jkelly 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Laser

I think this page is quite comprehensive with all nescasary links and quite relvant images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masterofhogets (talk • contribs) .

• Comment: The article looks well written overall but I definetely think "References" section needs to be improved, since the article contains so much technical information. &#150; Tutmøsis (Talk) 00:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• oppose for now. The section on misconceptions is almost completely missing sourcinng and a lot of other sections are short on citations. Other than that it looks good to me. JoshuaZ 04:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Insufficient lead section, insufficient references, and inconsistant referencing (use of external links within the article itself while also using the footnote system). Fieari 07:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - For the following reasons:
  • What means hue? -- the link redirect to color
  • Awkward sentence: "Laser action is understood by application of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics theory (see laser science)."
  • Too many parentheses, e.g.:"(discovered by Albert Einstein while researching the photoelectric effect)" could be easly rephrased in order to improve the flow.
  • Some sentences are too complicated/technical, e.g.: "The pump energy is absorbed by the medium, producing excited states. When the number of particles in one excited state exceeds the number of particles in some lower state, population inversion is achieved." This does not mean anything if the reader cannot imagine what "pump" mean.
  • The authors seem to consider the reader should know what is a quantum state, what is a photon etc... It should definitively be more pedagogical particulary in the first paragraph following the lead. Vb 12:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Although this article could be nominated for good article status.--Funky jo (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

H5N1

After a failed featured nomination, this article was marked as a Wikipedia:good article, then nominated for Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week. Following this, the failings identified in the previous featured nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H5N1/archive1) appear to have been corrected. --Barberio 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Avian flu box is cutting into the text... --Osbus 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• i fixed the box cutting.(and removed the "current" box, becuase they both served the same purpose. Vulcanstar6 02:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object. I think the event in fact will be unstable for some time. Brand 18:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object, for the same reason as above. --Doug (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object to title of the article. "H5N1" is rather slangish. A correct title would be H5N1 influenza virus or Influenza A virus H5N1 or Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 or some permutation thereof. Kosebamse 06:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per above. The article's title is misleading, the name should at least mention that it is a virus. --Ragib 07:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  The objections to the title not being lengthy enough don't seem to make sense in that every other article on a similar virus subtype is named in exactly the same way, as far as I can tell. For example: H1N1, H2N2, H3N2, H7N7, H1N2, H3N8, H5N2, H5N8, H5N9, H7N1, H7N2, H7N3, H7N4, H9N2, H10N7, SV40, HIV, etc. What's "slangish" about a scientific designation like H5N1? -Silence 20:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  If that is so, then they should all be renamed. An article title should make clear what the article is about. These do not. And the proper scientific designation is "Influenza A virus subtype H5N1" or something similar. Kosebamse 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  OK, then let's change 'em all. -Silence 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  Another unaddressed problem with renaming "H5N1" to "Influenza A virus subtype H5N1" or similar (which I've yet to see a single citation supporting, despite the claim that it's the standard form and "H5N1", the most common term used in the references, is "rather slangish"): what would it mean for the daughter articles of H5N1? Would H5N1 genetic structure be renamed to the nearly-indecipherable (to a layperson) "Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 genetic structure"? Will "Global spread of H5N1" be renamed to "Global spread of Influenza A virus subtype H5N1"? Will "Transmission and infection of H5N1" be renamed to the massive "Transmission and infection of Influenza A virus subtype H5N1"? Until authoritatively-referenced support is provided for the name-change so we can be sure it's not original research (or just plain unnecessary), and until it is specifically explained exactly how all the sister (H10N7, etc.) and daughter (H5N1 genetic structure, etc.) articles will be renamed, this trivial stylistic objection is unactionable. -Silence 02:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  These problems are relevant, but not under discussion here. The discussion is about the qualities of a single article. While "H5N1" is fine as everyday use, and as a redirect, it is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. If you write an article about lower California and call it Baja, you won't get it promoted until it is moved to Baja California. The same principle applies here. Popular names are, under some conditions, acceptable as article titles, but slang is not. And as for the "original research" matter, that is, excuse me please, quite ridiculous. The correct name of the virus is "Influenzavirus A subtype H5N1" or some variation of that, and there's is nothing to debate about that. If you want authoratively-referenced support for that, look up any virology textbook or scientific journal, ask a physician or biologist, or make yourself familiar with nomenclature in biology and medicine. Kosebamse 06:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  Baja is a false, and highly misleading, example. The sole reason Baja can't be a Featured Article is because it's a disambiguation page. As soon as you find something equally noteworthy that "H5N1" is likely to be confused with, I'll consider the analogy valid. :) A better example would be voting against Vienna because it's not called Vienna, Austria, voting against DNA because it's not called Deoxyribonucleic acid, or voting against HIV because it's not called Human immunodeficiency virus; that level of detail, though perhaps marginally less "slangy", is unnecessarily and unhelpfully elaborate, is not particularly consistent with most other articles of a similar nature, and is too much of a stylistic consideration in any case to be a valid and actionable FAC objection.

  And, if those clearly-related problems are not under discussion here, than neither is this article's title, as it is impossible to rename this article without renaming those; this article is no different from any of the aforementioned ones, and to half-implement a new naming scheme over a certain type of article is worse than to not implement it at all.

  I'm starting to come to the conclusion, though, that this business about renaming the article is nonsense. H5N1 is not "slang", it's just the shortened form of the full, "technically correct" name, used throughout articles much like one would use a human's last name throughout most of the article rather than constantly repeating "George Washington" or "Charles Darwin" in every line ("Washington" or "Darwin", better). And, like most people and other articles, the fully-extended name need not be the title; the name that's most common is used instead, e.g., Mahatma Gandhi rather than the more correct and complete Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. However, for such articles, while the article title uses the simpler, more widespread title, the beginning of the article has the more technically correct artitle title in bold so it is clearly marked. I see no reason not to put the exact same principle into practice here: keep the article at its useful, simple, efficient title of H5N1, but have the article begin with the fully-extended Influenzavirus A subtype H5N1 (or whatever the technically-correct designation is; noone in this discussion seems very clear about that, despite all the demands for a page-rename), then go on to use simply "H5N1" for the majority of the rest of the article. -Silence 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  I was not refering to our article Baja but to the improper and slangish use of, say, geographical, names, and the same principles apply to every science, be it biology, medicine, or whatnot. Your examples are not valid either: "Vienna, Austria" is an Americanism that is not used anywhere outside the U.S., "DNA" is a widely-recognized abbreviation (but should nevertheless be a redirect rather than an article title), and the same goes for "HIV". HIV and DNA are universally recognized, so one does not need to explain that it's a virus or the substance of genetic information, repectively, but H5N1 is not so universally known, and therefore our article should make clear that it is a subtype of a virus.

  My argument is that we should use the most correct and informative form of title that is available without getting totally unwieldy, because it helps our readers to understand what an article is about without having to look into it first, and also that slang should be avoided. There's a fine line between slang and useful abbreviations, and my feeling is that "H5N1" is on the wrong side of the line. But I accept that other views are acceptable here and am retracting my objection. Kosebamse 18:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think H5N1 is acceptable, because this is not exactly a "slang"; you can call it a popular name. The practical inconvenience of making the name Influenzavirus A subtype H5N1 would be the appropriate renaming of the daughter articles. Of course, the proposed name would be more scientific. Take the article "Lion", it would have been much more scientifically correct to have it named Panthera leo instead. But that sounds ridiculous! Most of the viruses do not have any common name, so we have to create article by their scientific names. Just a few virus (like HIV, H5N1) has got a rather "common" name. People (people of non-scientific community) can easily identify the viruses by that name. So, I do not think there is any flaw in retaining the present name of H5N1.Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Although the article looks quite good, I am sorry to say that I agree with Brand that the issue is a little too unstable at the present time. AmbExThErMaL 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. The only partially agreeable point of objection here seems "Stability". However, this "unstability" is not due to edit wars, rather as a result of the subject being a current event. With more discoveries, and more spread, if any, one has to update the topic. This cannot be called unstability. Rather it reflects the article's up-to-date-ness. For example, the spread map may have to be changed as H5N1 spreads, but that is NOT unstability. In fact, in that sense, this article is not going to be "stable" in near future. I think the article meets all other criteria of an FA. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. WIAFA: "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day. current events have their own "current events" section on the mainpage. that is where this article belongs, along with the other daily-changing pages, not on the featured list. Zzzzz 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The article in question, as of April 2006, is An introduction to what was known about the Z genotype of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of type A of the subtype with the fifth of several known types of the protein hemagglutinin and the first of several known types of the protein neuraminidase, as of April 2006. We could name it that and create a new article for data learned after April 2006. Then the article would meet all your criteria. Ha! I beg for help all over the place and the people with the most critisicm help the least. Silence has been a big help, only I wish he and others would help some more on the related H5N1 and Flu articles. Many people, myself included, don't want an article we are protecting from vandalism to receive a spotlight and receive even more vandalism. Actually the conclusion that this series of articles belongs more in current news rather than FA seems to me to be exactly accurate. Yes, that too will spotlight it, but that can't be helped. I'll just have to accept it. WAS 4.250 22:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion

• Support - Great article to me, excellent presentation . I will give it a for that. Article must be featured on the main page. Mastermind 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Contains no inline citations, contains unsourced statements, has an inadequate lead section, contains stub sections, contains absurd platitudes (religious beliefs "are a force for good, and, sometimes, ill in the world"). It's also poorly organised- there's a section on 'spirituality' which consists mainly of quotes from Gandhi. Henry^Flower 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Mild Object. The article seems OK (although I agree somewhat with Henry's objection) - but Religion is a 'big topic' like Physics, Mathematics and the like. I don't think it should contain a lot of explanations - but merely lay out the broad spread of available Wikipedia content in a well organised fashion. The Physics article is a great example of how to do that. Almost the entire text of this article could be placed into a 'lower tiered' discussion of religion in general that would be prominently referenced - but not a part of - that top level article. I'd prefer to see this called something else with a new Religion article replacing and referencing it. SteveBaker 15:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: page layout can be improved. Images seem to be all over the place. &#150;Tutmøsis · (Msg Me) 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

...also expansion wouldn't hurt due to the fact some sections are large and some are short. A subject greatly studied/discussed so information shouldn't be a problem to find. &#150;Tutmøsis · (Msg Me) 02:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. The information is broad and comprehensive, but the lack of in-line citations presents a concern. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No inline citation. And per above--Dwaipayanc 10:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object:
  • No inline citation plus I find the organization of sections odd - why is religious belief tucked away at number 5, and is really short.
  • There generally needs to be a better effort in referencing and detailing views. For instance, sociology and social anthropology are mentioned briefly but there is little attempt to explain these perspectives or to provide references (and these are important sociology has its very roots in the decline of religion in modern society; and anthropology has its roots in religious ritual). Rather, quotations from theologians and philosophers - plus a bunch from Gandhi - are given (though strangely, theology or theologian do not appear as words in the article) as well as a sizable and rather opaque quote from another encyclopedia (i think wikipedia should avoid directly quoting other encylcopedias in this way as much as possible) without explanation.
  • The models of religion in this article which come from Development of religion - what is the source for saying that these are the main models? is it a widely accepted source? or is it just one theorist or how one book lays it out? (incidentally, the "religion is the opiate of the masses" quote belongs directly to Karl Marx who is referred to in the development article but is strangely missing here).
  • The religion, metaphysics and cosmology section (and maybe the religious beliefs section too) is a stub - FAs shouldnt have stubs.
  • No mention of New Age religion. Bwithh 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As Roman Catholicism + Protestantism (christianity) are and have been the world's leading religion, it seems their should be a percent greater of information regarding them, instead of so much information on obscure relgions, meditations, and rituals. The article gives the impression from the pictures that religion is practiced only by savages**

MINI (BMW)

This article has been accepted as a Good Article and spent two weeks in Peer Review without significant issues. Since it's companion article (Mini) is going to be on the front page on Monday this seems like an appropriate time to get this article through the same process. Many thanks in advance for your valuable comments - having seen how much you guys helped with Mini, I'm excited to see what you have to say about this one!

SteveBaker 15:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- Is there a way to reduce the length of the timelines so readers don't have to scroll sideways? --Osbus 01:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah - good point. I'll see what I can do - those timelines are templates so they are used in other articles - and I don't want to mess up their needs - but I'm sure I could lose some width somehow. The other problem is the perennial one that we don't know how narrow is narrow. On my 1600x1200 display, I never need to scroll them. On my ancient laptop, I have an 800x600 display and *EVERYTHING* needs to be side-scrolled. Where between those two extremes are we looking? SteveBaker 03:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I usually don't have to sidescroll anything, but for the timelines I had to scroll a little less than half the screen. It's probably just my screwed up browser, though, causing problems again.But if you could reduce the size, that would be great --Osbus 15:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I think I found the problem with one of the templates: When you have 11 columns - each labelled with 'width=15%' you're pretty much guaranteed that your template will take up 165% of the screen width! SteveBaker 20:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object: 2a, writing not good enough. Let me know which sentences you want me to critique. Tony 15:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh? How am I supposed to respond to that?! You need to tell me which sentences you don't like. If it's the entire article - then you need to tell me what about it you don't like - or at least give me enough examples to extrapolate from. "Not good enough" doesn't tell me anything! SteveBaker 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my way of implying that any sentence you choose will require editing (although, I admit, a few sentences might pass). Tony 04:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, there are entire sections that have no citations ("Criticism" and onwards). I also feel that there is much more that can be said, though I could support it at around this length. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 14 April 2006 @ 21:04 (UTC)
• Object Article does not represent Wikipedia's best work yet. My main concern are prose and references. Regarding the prose there are too many one-sentence paragraphs and the prose does not flow smoothly throughout. Regarding the references complete sections, such as Criticism, The Next Generation and Prototype and concept cars, are lacking citations. Joelito 01:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well, this feedback is truly the least helpful imaginable - vague "its not good" comments are of no help whatever. Well, let me concentrate on what I can understand:
  • One sentence paragraphs: Well, there are six one-sentence paragraphs in the 29 paragraph article. Three of those are in 'Success story' and each of those is a separate, complete statement that is independent of the others - I think this is what a paragraph is supposed to be. Short of padding the article with content-free words, it's hard to see what to do here. If I simply run them together then we end up with a paragraph that talks about the reason the car is popular, the backlog of orders and a mention of an important starring role in a movie. Those things don't belong together...so they are separate. It's not right to simply say "One sentence paragraphs are wrong" without looking at WHY they are single sentences. When all that needs to be said on one topic is one sentence - there is no better thing than one sentence.
    • I could tolerate one-sentence paragraphs if there is absolutely no way of joining them to create better flow in the article. Joelito 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Poor prose: OK - I can take that criticism - but I simply don't know what to do here. The prose seems OK to me - so unless someone else rewrites whatever seems bad, this article can't ever improve.
    • This is exactly my point, the prose is OK but it needs to be superb to be a FA. Weasel words plague the article. Joelito 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • OK! I can hunt for weasel-words and kill them. That is useful critique. Thank-you! SteveBaker 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • References: There are precisely three English language books in print about the MINI. I read and referenced all three of them. Every fact in the article can be found in one of those three books - and most facts are in all three. Would you like me to litter the article with random [1], [2] and [3] tokens? How would this help the reader? There seems to be no way to say "this entire article is backed up by these three sources" - littering the damned thing with pointless references just makes it look ugly. SteveBaker 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Footnotes are needed for sentences like "Dr. Alex Moulton, designer of the original classic Mini's suspension is reported to have said of the new MINI "It’s enormous – the original Mini...". Where or when was this said? Also this sentence "Some MINI convertible owners criticise the poor rear visibility in the convertible". Some MINI owners is a clear definition of weasel words and these weasel words are used throughout the entire article. I keep reading and I find unreferenced facts like "An all-electric MINI is in use at the British Embassy in Mexico that uses around 200 kg of Lithium Ion batteries". Reference? Joelito 02:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • But all this will get us is a bunch more pointers to the same three books. To take a concrete example - I just checked and the all-electric MINI is mentioned in all three books. SteveBaker 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • It is my opinion, and possibly an opinion shared by ithers, that heavily referencing 3 books is better than leaving important facts withouth a reference. Joelito 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The double bass article has been the result of a lot of hard work by many individuals. This is by far the most comprehensive guide to the double bass, that is still understandable to most non-musicians, on the internet. This will surely be an interesting read for anyone browsing Wikipedia. -Bottesini 15:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object.The Terminology section is very inaccurate-in fact, most of it is flat out wrong. I refer interested parties to James Barket's excellent translation of Alfred Planyavsky's The Baroque Double Bass Violone for a discussion of the early history of the double bass. A thorough review of the text should put an end to this "it is called a double bass because it used to double the cello part" nonsense once and for all.

"Because it is approximately twice as large as the cello (the bass member of the violin family), and because the double bass was originally used to double the 'cello part an octave lower, it is properly called "double bass." This is incorrect. -brax42

• Support Not sure about the Beatles pic tho'!--Light current 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No inline references; references themselves also need to be more detailed. See WP:FN. Daniel Case 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, 2a. I've read only the first sentence in detail: can you avoid starting with a negative? Further down, can you shorten the huge list of components, or integrate it into running prose? There are too many stubby little paragraphs; some merging is required. Tony 01:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The section that had a negative at the beginning has been moved to avoid this. I will begin to remove the bulky list of components. -Bottesini 02:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• comment, get fair use rationale for the pics. Vulcanstar6 21:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What does this mean?--Light current 22:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Article is about 30% too large for FA and needs quite a bit of trimming--Light current 02:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We have many featured articles larger than this one, including at least four newly promoted in the past month. Andrew Levine 17:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• In that case the FA requirements need amending.--Light current 17:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Dozens of people have supported longer FAs in the recent past. We very specifically don't limit ourselves to a particular size, just whatever is necessary to cover the subject in full (although I agree that this particular article could use some trimming). Andrew Levine 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well this does have an effect on peoples efforts to raise the article to FA standard and has already caused some slight diffs of opinion.--Light current 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object
  • Lead is too short, not an adequate summary of the whole article
    • Has been addressed -Bottesini 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • TOC is too big
  • the list of double bassists should be moved to a list page, which would cut down on the page size and TOC
    • Has been addressed -Bottesini 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • External links and references should be split. Stuff used as a reference should at least have the date of access, consider using template:cite web.
  • Too focused on Europe and North America. The double bass, and various variants, are used elsewhere in a wide variety of contexts. This article will probably need subarticles.
  • Needs inline citations.
• Tuf-Kat 20:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object redundancy in sentences, circular writing, fails 2a --Bob 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you care to point out some of the redundancies and O writing? Thanks--Light current 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Here are some random examples.

• • Mention of string section and symphony orchestra at least twice in the lead.
  • 'extra-high', 'extra-low'.
  • 'The double bass is also the only modern bowed string instrument that is tuned in fourths (like viola da gambas)'—remove 'also', as usual; singular/plural inconsistency.
  • 'The issue of the instrument's exact lineage is still a matter of some debate, and the supposition that the double bass is a direct descendant of the viola da gamba family is an issue that has not been entirely resolved.'—remove 'still' and 'is an issue that'.
  • 'The design of the double bass, in contrast to the instruments in the violin family'—insert 'that of' before 'the instruments'.

I won't go on; it needs very thorough copy-editing, not just a fixing of these examples. Tony 15:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Judaism

Very well-written article, concise, etc. It has references as needed, too. Currently a good article, it should be featured. Yes, I know editing has been "temporarily disabled" for new users, but this is very temporary, and it is generally quite stable. Sasha Slutsker 00:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Lacks inline citations. Definitely a good article, but FA has slightly higher standards. Fieari 00:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I will go through and add inline citations right now. Sasha Slutsker 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object: explanation of the Jewish take on monotheism states that "Scholars argue as to when the notion of monotheism arose", yet there is no discussion in the same section of the dispute or who is disputing this. This leads to the section that does talk about this (Critical historical view of the development of Judaism) states "many critical Bible scholars claim that certain verses in the Torah imply that the early Israelites accepted the existence of other gods...". No reference to the scholars (or even an example of a notable scholar) is given. I cannot support until we get sources for these assertions. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object—not well enough written. For example:

"Judaism does not fit easily into conventional Western categories, such as religion, ethnicity, or culture, in part because of its 4,000-year history." Can't quite see the logical connection.

"professor Daniel Boyarin has argued that"—bit awkward to single out one commentator for naming, and then not to provide a reference citation.

"because it is not national, not genealogical, not religious, but all of these"—illogical without inserting "solely".

Let me know which other sentences you'd like to be critiqued. Tony 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to fix the first one, by adding "unique and varied" to better relate it to the following sentence. Let me know if that is not sufficient, or feel free to be bold and fix it yourself. I cannot presently tackle the second sentence. The third sentence seems to be in a quotation from the professor, so changing it would seem like misquoting him. --Danaman5 05:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object The holidays section should list and describe every holiday, not just the main ones. Also, the section for denominations isn't organized well. Tobyk777 20:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

World War II

former nom

Re-wrote a lot of this article. Expanded some sections, shrunk some sections. Added sub-headers, added more pictures, removed redundant pictures, etc. Spend a lot of time improving this article. I think this article is a FA. Mercenary2k

• Object. The Table of Contents is terrifying. The article is subheaded nearly to death, and a huge number of sections are far too short. RyanGerbil10 20:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The subheadings were removed, making the TOC now about the same length as the TOC to the WWI article. Do you withdraw your objection now that its been changed? Drogo Underburrow 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> Sometimes FAC is difficult. However, this article can't pass until there are no one or two sentence paragraphs. Anywhere. If there are only one or two sentences that can be said about something, it should be merged into another section. In my opinion, this isn't written in summary style at all. RyanGerbil10 16:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We are working on eliminating all one and two sentence paragraphs. How is the TOC now? Drogo Underburrow 01:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is getting much better. I am moving much closer to supporting the article, I have struck the "strong" from my objection. RyanGerbil10 23:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object100% Support Agree with the table of content. All images on the same side. Lincher 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I object to these objections. The TOC is hideable and its the content that counts! Having all images on the same side actually helps - try making a similar page that works well at all screen resolutions without resorting to a similar tactic and you'll see what I mean. Pcb21 Pete 21:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The TOC is a representation of article structure. If the TOC is bad, the article structure is bad. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Getting better, I like the TOC now, as per the sections The Battle of The Atlantic, Eastern Europe, Lend-Lease, The Middle East, Western and Central Europe, Dieppe Raid and Europe in ruins, they are too small to get the info wanted when you read the article. Maybe pooling them with other sub-sections that are similar or adding text so that they get longer. If this is changed, I will give my support. Lincher 18:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC
        • The article is 80k right now, so we shouldn't make it longer.. The purpose of those little sections like the one on Dieppe is to put mention of them into the chronology, a brief summary in one or two sentences, and a link to the main article. So, somebody wanting to learn about Dieppe, but not very sophisticated at searching, goes to the WWII article, finds the Dieppe section, then takes the link to the main article. The format of the article is a chronology, not a history. If you want history, then we have to eliminate mention of Dieppe entirely, there's no room for such small raids, as one editor pointed out, objecting to its inclusion even in the chronology. So, would that satisfy you, if we eliminate the small stuff? Or do you want us to dump the chronology format entirely and write a micro history of WWII? Drogo Underburrow 18:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I give my vote to this new reworked article, it looks much nicer like this, you see what you are interested in faster and it is easier to read. Sorry for all the hassle but it was worth the work since it looks far better to me. Lincher 13:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The TOC is quite intimidating (although that in itself should not be enough to oppose), but the real issue for me is references. Yes, I know the subarticles are better referenced, but, considering it is WWII, probably the most written-about subject in all of history. As such, having a dozen or so references to me is not enough. Also, there is some poor prose, eg in the "East Asia and the Pacific" section. This could, and should, be an FA, if for no other reason than to show off how well we can do really important subjects, but it is not there yet. Batmanand | Talk 21:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Object to the objection. The top 8 or so references are a good choice for a general overview in my view (and run to many thousands of pages so we're hardly short). As you yourself say, the specific references are better in subarticles. Pcb21 Pete 21:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Then can I suggest a bibliography subarticle, such as Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide, as a place to put a list of all of them? This is such an important topic, that must conform to almost impossibly high standards to NPOV and verifiability, that this (somewhat drastic!) measure is IMO necessary. Batmanand | Talk

I don't like that idea so much (the Rwanda article set was copied from the French Wikipedia and never fully sorted out). If I am reading about a particular aspect of the War and want some references, I don't want to have to go off to another article and then see the references are mixed with a whole load of irrelevant ones about other aspects. Actually verfiabilitity is trivial in this topic - it is such an overview that nothing detailed is being said. If you think there are NPOV or verfiability problems in this article then you should be specific about them. Pcb21 Pete 07:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Batmanand's obejction doesn't seem actionable to me. Just making a blanket request for more references is not reasonable. Just like with any objections it needs to be at least somewhat specified. 10+ sources is a lot for any topic, and this is supposed to be a summary. The amount of sources needs to be kept to a reasonable minimum or there's a very real risk of it expanding to astronomic proportions.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First, my "not brilliant prose" criticism is certianly actionable. My concern with the references is two-fold. First is that I think they should all be in one place, as with the Rwandan example. If you do not want to do that then that is more a personal bias than anything else I suppose. But if you do not want to, then the references in the sub-articles need more work. I randomly clicked on a few of them, and Operation Typhoon has no references, Second Sino-Japanese War has one, Battle of Kiev (1943) has none (and is tagged for cleanup), and Operation Frühlingserwachen has none. I clicked on 6 articles in total, and 4 were poorly referenced, if at all. Batmanand | Talk 10:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

An FAC is about the article that is nominated, not its sub-articles. But the issue seems more or less moot since the basic problems of section hierarchy, quality of prose and such needs to be addressed before any serious attempts at proper referencing are made.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article has been subdivided too much, to the point that many sections are only 1 or 2 sentences long. It's not necessary to split every possible subdivision into its own subsection (or sub-subsection, or sub-sub-subsection). - The Catfish 23:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Article structure is too complicated, the prose is fractionalized and very bad in some places (Sentences that begin with "On...", anyone?) and the article is as huge and unwieldy as ever. We have so much information and so many articles on WW II, that it's hardly constructive to keep the main article at anything over 40-50 kB. Please remember to apply the concept of summary style when writing. Try to trust the sub-articles a bit more. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Nother thing. There's just too many pictures. Even if more than half are removed, they're still highly representative for most theatres and aspects of the war. And, as pointed out, the actual picture layout is very unimaginative. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• comment What about the debate about when the war started...such as with the Japanese invasion of China, etc?...Also, I liked the prior format of the article better. Rlevse 11:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Intro is too many grafs; you could probably start to answer many of the objections here by consolidating a lot of the paragraphs. It would at least tame that monster TOC. I know it's not fatal to the nomination but I don't think a Wikipedia article should ever have a TOC so long it is the only thing onscreen for any portion of a downward scroll. Daniel Case 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hate to say it but I don't know if this article will ever pass here. I have watched it and I'd suggest that there is a low-level, but still consistent and noticable instability that the page cannot shake. Most obviously, the intro changes regularly. With recent additions, it's still not accurate. "A primary part of the war began between Germany and the Allies. Germany was later joined by Italy, Japan, and others, jointly known as the Axis." Japan did not "join" Germany later. Japan was at war in China from 1937. This is just the sort of micro-debate that has (in my watching) always plagued this page. And the TOC? My God. I actually cited this page a while ago on talk for having a good but not overwhelming TOC. Now it's just "browse past this monster." Something radical would have to happen here (gutting a majority and agreeing on true summary style) before this could pass IMH(and sorry)O. Marskell 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. On the one hand, I feel that an article like this absolutely must reach FA status. On the other hand, the standard that an article like this must reach is very very high and it's not there yet. The main obstacles are the ToC, lead and terminal shortage of sources, as described above. Also the article makes some strange structural choices, e.g. outlining Japanese reasons for war before German ones. Perhaps the adherance to chronological order is a little too rigorous. The writing is generally good, although choppy due to the aforementioned over-sectioning problems. Loads of images, which is good, although I've not checked the copyright status of things like maps. Overall, the content (writing and pictures) is good, but its the peripheral stuff (sources, structure) that lets this down. Nevertheless Mercenary2k should be congratulated for his work so far on what is undoubtedly a tough article to write. Soo 23:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object huge TOC, many short paragraphs, too many headers, and seeming lack of references. For an article like this with summaries, you could forego some of the inlines and just use a bunch of general references as well for backup. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT Ok Guys, I read your criticism of this article. I changed many of the sub-headers into Bold. It still looks the same but now, the size of the TOC has been dramatically reduced. Does this satisfy you guys??? Mercenary2k 7:00am, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You've still got that choppy prose thing going on. Too many one paragraph sections. What's the use of all the headers? It would be better to work them into the opening sentence of the paragraph. Also you still haven't fixed the lead or the shortage of references. Soo 12:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are asking for is a complete change of format, getting rid of the chronology, and introducing a narrative of the entire war. No doubt you want the narrative to be short, too, certainly no more than the 45k or so taken up by the chronology section right now. That is a tough demand. For one thing, the format right now makes it easy to add material. POV disputes are kept to a minimum, as the format calls for brief factual summaries of events, and a link to the main article. Analysis is kept out, to the main pages, where specialists can argue to their heart's content. A narrative format would make it hard to add new material, but people would do it anyway, sticking in prose that doesn't fit. It would breed endless POV disputes, since in order to keep things short and fit the entire war in a narrative, material has to be synthesized. Then arguments will rage as its very, very hard to synthesize material without getting POV. Attempts to be NPOV, by including competing interpretations, will then balloon the article and make it totally impossible. Drogo Underburrow 13:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me. My other criticisms stand. Soo 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The criticism on this page is going to do the article more harm than good, as editors try to adjust the article. A good example: material is added on Operation Mars; but no doubt sensative to the charge that the article has too many small sections, the material is put into a paragraph that deals with Stalingrad. Now, a person is likely to miss the Operation Mars material as a result; Operation Mars was not part of the Stalingrad campaign, it was on another section of the Eastern front. Logically, it should be given a short section of its own, just a sentence or two and a link to the main article. The "monster" TOC made it easy to find things in the article. Now, editors are going to cut it down simply so it won't be as big, making material hard to find. The article used to have a logical design: short sections linked to articles on other Wiki pages. It was a chronology styled format. The article during the prior review in January was much the same; it got about 50/50 support. What has changed? Editors filled in glaring holes in coverage. For example, in January, when half the editors were ready to ok it for featured status, the article didn't say one word about the Western front after the Battle of the Bulge; nothing at all about the actual defeat of Germany in the West; yet the same period on the Eastern Front was covered in depth. Other areas were similarly completely missing, huge, huge sections of the war, for example in the Pacific were completely absent. - Drogo Underburrow 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, on behalf of all the critics, that we have sounded a little harsh. FAC can be a temper-fraying, overly critical process, but the aim is always to make the article better. FA status is hard to attain - and for a good reason. These are the articles that will be on the Main Page; that are held up as models for others to follow; that people brag about on their user pages. As such, they need to be the best. Sorry if we have made the task sound impossible, but it is only because we have the integrity of FAs at heart. Batmanand | Talk 14:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Drogo Underburrow has made some very valid points. If we turn this article from a chronological based article to one where we summarize it, its gonna get entangled in massive POV problems. It will never reach FAC status because the War is interpretted in different ways. Canadian editors would want to include Dieppe, yet Russians would want Operation Mars and other major battles on the Eastern front, Americans could include Battle of Huntgen forest, etc, etc... And if everything gets included and everything is covered in depth. This article could become a book. Doing this article chronologically is the best way. Everything that is important gets covered, nothing gets missed. Any missing information can be easily added. I went through this article, there are some grammer, sentence structure problems which need to be fixed. Other than that, I dont see anything wrong with this article. I think the amount of negative reaction to this article is shocking to me, as I and Drogo have spend a great deal of time improving this article. Mercenary2k 12:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Becoming an FA is tough and there should be no apologies for that. The article is good but it's not there yet. Don't take it personally. Soo 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Support --Xtreambar 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Support --this is the best it's been. Kudos to the author for hanging in there. Rlevse 10:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok Guys. Here we go Again. Major work done on this article. Massive improvements everywhere. Every major event of the War covered in chronological order. So I don't see any bias problems. This article is a FAC, just need your approval.--Mercenary2k May 13, 2006 2:24 AM

• Strong support. A fascinating article on an event that need to be remembered. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object; absolutely no attempt has been made to address (or even respond to) the points raised during the peer review. Briefly:

• Masses of extremely short and choppy pseudo-sections (most are only one paragraph; some are only one sentence) don't really qualify as brilliant prose.
• Insufficient use of inline citation; most of the article can't easily be traced back to any particular source, including piles of potentially questionable statements and statistics.

These are the same issues that came up during the previous FAC, incidentally; I don't think simply ignoring them will somehow cause the article to magically be promoted. Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What you are objecting to is not bad writing, but writing that is in a chronology format. Passages are short and choppy because that is how timelines are. Is it a requirement for FA status that articles not include lengthy timelines? Apparently in your eyes this is a rule. Drogo Underburrow 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The requirements for a featured article are quite clear: the prose must be "compelling, even brilliant". Choppy writing—no matter how seemingly appropriate for creating a timeline—cannot, by definition, satisfy this. (This is, incidentally, why actual timelines are properly the province of the featured list.) Kirill Lokshin 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Kirill Lokshin - 71.115.57.95 21:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object. 10 references in a 91 kb article are not enough and I do believe that it should be possible to find sources on WW2. --Maitch 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object - this is one of those articles which really should be featured, given the ridiculous amount that's been written about it, but this just isn't up to snuff. Also, the lead contains a sentence fragment. Find more sources, and deal with the suggestions from the peer review/last FAC. The Disco King 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. There are numerous issues with this article which need to be corrected:
  • The number of short paragraphs in this article is unacceptable. Many are one sentence long, and each section seemingly contains at least one of them.
  • There are no inline citations used in this article, which is an FA requirement.
  • Ten references for an article of this size an scope is not adequate, surely there is more material to be found concerning the topic.
  • I'm not an expert on copyright, but many images seem to have questionable or objectionable copyright or fair use rationale.

More work still needs to be done. RyanGerbil10 23:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Kirill Lokshin - TomStar81 00:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Kirill Lokshin. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object. References need fixing. "ref_war" 2 to 4 and 6 to 7 don't appear to be linked to anything in the article. Chances are the points they referenced have been moved into one of the subarticles, but at the moment, the article uses 4 refs, not 10. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object Does not correctly follow Wikipedia:Summary Style: The ==Chronology== section should be spun off into its own article at Chronology of World War II and a good-sized summary left in its place. Makes no sense to have anything but inline links and mentions of individual battles and operations from the main WWII article. In other words, this article abuses use of 'Main article' links ; just link inline unless the 'Main article' is a real daughter of this article instead of an article in its own right. For example, an article on an individual battle would not be a daughter article of WWII (and thus not merit a main article link) while the Aftermath of World War II would. Trying to summarize so many stand-alone articles and put it into this one article has resulted in way too many very short sections and disjointed paragraphs. A much more high-level treatment is needed ; detail can be in daughter articles. Also needs a great many more inline cites. Granted, this topic necessarily will be one of the largest we have and thus need to go above the regular max size of 50KB of prose, but I think we can do a much better job of summarizing this topic so it is at a much more comfortable reading length. --mav 14:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. The Chronology of World War II should be in prose and not just a collection of headlines like in the Timeline of World War II. --Maitch 16:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Those two links go to the same article. Drogo Underburrow 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. I'm saying that if an article gets made for Chronology of World War II it should be different from the style of Timeline of World War II, which means it should be written in prose instead of headlines.--Maitch 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Sections aren't prosified enough, doesn't flow enough. Lincher 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe breaking the WWII article in sub-articles where World War II would have big lines of what happened and World War II (1939), World War II (1940) ... would be where it goes in deep details in order to have longer sub-sections and not having a big WWII article. Lincher 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. As per nomHezzy 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The objections that the article is chronology based, or that the writing is choppy (of course it is, it is a chronology) are objections of taste, and have nothing to do with whether the article is of featured quality or not. It seems as if editors are judging not on the quality of the article, but whether the article matches a format they like. Drogo Underburrow 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Object First as per syle/quality objections above. Second, parts of the article are extraordinary US-centric. The introduction has been recently changed to allude to a fringe theory. My attempt to work on this issue met with uncomfortably strong opposition. Myciconia 04:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Object: for something as important and documented and written about as World War 2, this article is excruciatingly thin on both citations and content. I'd like to see a lot of the images cleaned up too - they are causing a lot of formatting problems due to their abundance. Also, I feel the WP:LEAD is too long and doesnt give a quick summary of what it was all about -but rather appears to condense the timeline into a few paragraphs. Are subtitles like "the beginning of the end" necessary? they strike me as POV in many ways. Obviously we'd want to be avoiding a sort of "allied" account of it. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object as per Kirill Lokshin: Chronology-only descriptions of wars are just plain annoying. Campaign-based formats are much more easily preusable, and more useful in descriptions of wars. In addition, a timeline already esixts that can be prominently linked. UnDeadGoat 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Excellent article. Love it. Great information.
• Comment. You are arguing about either writing a chronology or a campaign-based article. I wonder which style did Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica use in their respective articles?
• Object because I think this needs to make better use of Wikipedia:Summary style. There should be more on cultural ramifications, which are vast (cargo cults, to give one example) -- World War 2 had the effect of moving massive numbers of people all over the world, causing their cultures to intermix. There should be a section on cultural depictions of World War 2. I think that, over all, it's too detailed on military history, which is only one important aspect of the topic. Some of the non-military history sections are also too uncomprehensive to satisfy summary style: "the home fronts" (and why the home fronts?) doesn't cover Japan or the Soviet Union at all. It needs inline citations throughout too. Tuf-Kat 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Snakebite (bite)

Awesome article, which is very well written with references for every fact stated - and there are many great facts. Also has pictures to help illustrate article. Overall, definitely meets standards if you ask me. --71.112.13.219 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose- Some plagiarizing. EKN 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

• Oppose, and suggest moving to Wikipedia:Peer review, nowhere near FA. For full reasons read the criteria at the top of the page, but a few ideas to get you started:
  • Expand the intro.
  • The article is about the prevalance of the bites and how to treat them but has little background info on the biology. Things like what snakes are venomous, how their bites work, how they evolved and how they hunt. Better integration with snake venom would help.
  • References section is disorganised and inline citations don't follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
  • Much of the article is written in an informal tone, which it shouldn't be.
  • Oh, and that disambiguation link is redundant, the page name is not ambiguous.
  • Joe D (t) 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Very strong bias towards the US. --Carnildo 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasona above. Also, the title of the article is ridiculous. It should just be "Snakebite", with the disambiguation page being "Snakebite (disambiguation)". Andrew Levine 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

EKN, please point out this plagiarizing.

Carnildo, the simple fact is that the US did a majority of the snakbite research and did it on the US alone. Other countries have cunducted some research though and that was included in the article, while others (i.e, Africa in general) have not. I think what you mean is that there was more space given to research done in the US. What are we supposed to do? Remove it and pretend it doesn't exist for the sake of balance? --71.112.13.219 06:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly not, but if that's the case then maybe that is worthwhile mentioning in the article. This fact in itself seems pretty notable to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You just need to get out there and find the relevant info for all the other regions of the world - should be pretty straightforward. I'm sure there are snakebite guides out there for Asia, Africa, Latin America etc. Bwithh 03:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - For the reasons above, but I'd also like to add that for featured articles, the standards these day include having footnotes for each inline citation instead of having inline direct links. This is a good idea because you can see a full citation, with title and author and date and everything, before even clicking the link. Fieari 15:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current style of referencing on the snakebite article, which uses Harvard and embedded HTML links. Footnotes cause a number of technical problems, and are no longer recommended by many academic referencing style guides. Further, per Wikipedia:Citing sources, there is no need to jump from referencing styles if the current form is done correctly, and in this case it is. I'm removing the comment "Cite sources properly with Wikipedia:Footnotes." from the To-do list.--Mad Max 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Too US-centric and reads like an instruction manual and therefore fails WP:NOT and criteria 1. Needs a major copyedit to rectify this. Also, although referenced, try re-formatting to include footnote style references. Cite.php, although not required, is great for scientific articles. -Bob 15:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

McLaughlin Planetarium

What I believe is a fairly thorough article on history of this now defunct Toronto institution. This article has already been peer reviewed, and it has been stable for some time now. A niche subject to be sure, but an interesting one for those interested in how such institutions start and how they can decline. Captmondo 03:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Promo photos need fair use rational --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - A couple of issues.
  • First, I'm uncomforable with the inline system you're using, particularly since when I click on the links in my browser (I use Firefox), it doesn't move the page down to the references section as it should. If you use the WP:FOOTNOTE system, there won't be this problem. Furthermore, the use of longer titles for the footnote links isn't as aethetically pleasing as discreet numbers, since the larger footnote markers break up the text too much.
  • Additionally, there are things mentioned in the lead that aren't detailed further in the article. Specifically, mention is made of "attendance decreasing" in the lead, but no mention of attendance is given at all in the article itself. Attendance information should definitely be included for comprehensiveness sake.
  • The WP:LEAD is innapropriately sized, in that it should have at least two paragraphs. With expansion of the article, it may require three.
  • Could more notability be established? This is a question, not a statement.
  • The article needs more inline citations to support statements and facts. Even things like how many floors it has and how many seats it contains. Sourcing for facts like that shouldn't be tricky-- just grab a brochure and quote that. But it needs to be referenced anyway.
  • Some psuedo-weasel words are used. "It was decided..." is frequent. Who decided? Can you quote them on it by name please?
  • The sections seem kinda stubby, with mostly two paragraphs per section. Is there really nothing more to be said? Perhaps you could combine sections if there isn't. Too much subdivision can hurt an article's appearance.
  • Why is JENA capitalized? Does it stand for something? It isn't linked, and it isn't explained. Please elaborate.
  • Likewise, what's a "Universal Projection Planetarium type 23/6"? I know you go on to describe the projector in later paragraphs, but does "type 23/6" actually -mean- that it's this specific projector, specific model, or does it signify something else? This isn't 100% clear.
  • You mention "typical shows". Can you detail some of these shows further? Is there a listing of all shows given?
  • You mention that the company that made the shows for the planatarium also made shows for other planatariums, but you don't say which other planatariums, or provide links that would elaborate for someone interested. This is another case where more references would help, so someone could find more information.
  • You use the acronymn ROM in places that aren't near where the acronymn is explained. Remember, in an encyclopedia, you can expect people to skim your article without reading every word, and as such, terms should be expanded where possible so reading any given section is still clear.
  • In many cases, the information presented feels like a disjointed list of facts, and not "brilliant prose", which would be more flowing, and would tie everything together. Fieari 17:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Fieari. Ardenn 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • I just want to acknowledge the comments that have been made, especially the detailed list by Fieari. Will hopefully have the chance to address most or all of the concerns over the next couple of evenings. Stay tuned... Captmondo 19:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

World of Music, Arts and Dance

I have nominated this article, as it contains strong, true information. It covers all about the topic, including a piece about the history of the festivals, about its aims, and what it does, and what it has helped to acheive. It also contains a picture of its logo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimHxn (talk • contribs) .

• Object: A good start, but much work is needed before this article reaches FA status. Comprised mostly of lists, contains no references (unless you count WOMAD's official site listed as an external link) and the articles size are the most obvious points against it at the moment. WP:WIAFA is worth looking through. --darkliight^[πalk] 11:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object Perhaps consider Wikipedia:Peer review instead, but be sure to note the requirements for featured articles (or possibly lists). (specifically, fails 1-little prose, 2- not well-written, not comprehensive, lacks references/footnotes, and not stable due to inclusion of future dates, lead too long, lacks hierarchal headings, image lacks proper tag). AndyZ _t 13:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: You'll need to expand a lot...going in depth into the festivals would be interesting. --Osbus 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object Basically almost a stub with a date list at the moment. Needs a great deal more work. Bwithh 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per above. Note that nominator placed the FAC nomination concurrently with the active peer review, located here [1].--Ataricodfish 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object As stated above, it is basically a stub. There is almost nothing on the history, organisation or aim of the festivals. Needs a lot more work. Also, remember to cite sources, which this does not. --Bob 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas

Nominate and Support - The Dallas, Texas article has undergone huge amounts of renovations since its last candidacy including text & visual additions, pruning, format cleanup, sourcing, and updating of information. Not quite relevant to its own featured status, but hundreds of offshoot articles on specific areas/structures of the city have also been expanded vastly along with renovating the areas briefly mentioning them in the main article.. The article has also been designed to be pleasant on the eyes of viewers on many different screens, with special attention paid to images of a nicely-sized uniform width and formatting meant to keep wide-monitor-users from experiencing image clutter. See what you think... drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are several locations where citations are needed. Some of those locations are pointed out with and others aren't. joturner 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I added seven references just now.. which also enabled me to add some other pertinent information. A few {{fact}}s still exist.. I'll look in the handbook of texas later so I can add references to the history section. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 11:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article does not have 3(c) of WP:WIAFA- a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. It also fails badly criteria 5- of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. The article should have daughter articles- for example History of Dallas, Texas, that go into further detail, while the main article remains a summary on the topic. Verifiability seems a tiny bit weak also; there are 19 footnotes, and is a 52 kb article. One footnote is blank (as of now). Some more WP:CITE information can be added, including authors. Sections like "Architecture", "Education" (only 1 in the libraries), "Transportation", and "Sports" lack citations. AndyZ _t 13:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree about the history section. Fixed the footnote, It was a reference that was used four times in the page and the definition was further down than the first instance.. fixed. About to go make a history page.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object There are several sections that I wonder why are in the main article in the first place (Architecture, Districts and Communities). For the first section, it is merely repeating the corresponding subarticle while the second mentioned section is mostly lists (something that is frowned upon for featured articles. Use prose whenever possible). I suggest that these sections be merged into the geography section under "cityscape." Also, the section about highways isn't very useful in describing road-based transportation in Dallas (how are these highways laid out? Has there been any concerns about them? Is there anything special about these highways?), while at the same time not mentioning anything about other roads in the city. As a final note, there is no information about the government in Dallas, notably when it comes to the city's overall political scene. I suggest you look at other city FAs (e.g. Boston, Massachusetts, Canberra) for further ideas on improving this article. Pentawing^Talk 03:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now. The article needs to follow Wikipedia:Summary style. Geography seems to have a lot more content than the other sections. Also, apart from a couple of really large images, the Culture section dosen't have much content. Per, Wikiproject Cities, you will also need a "Law and government" section as well, at the very least. AreJay 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per above. Should follow Wikipedia:Summary style and Template for a U.S. City.--Dwaipayanc 09:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Per WP:SS, I'm in the process of making subpages for most (if not all) major sections. I've already even made extensive subpages for subpages with the History of Dallas, Texas section. If anything, this should be a learning experience drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 03:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Torchic

Here goes nothing, I'm nominating this because after months of full rewriting and being promoted to GA status, I, among others, believe that this article is ready to face the FA gauntlet that nominating an article of this nature is. While trying not to only judge this article within the Pokémon hub, this article is only second to Bulbasaur, which acheived FA.. eventually. In short I believe this article is of a high quality and please don't let your prejudices against "Pokécruft" fail this article, it at least deserves a chance. Thank you for reading this and all comments are welcomed, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Minor object Object, for a number of reasons:
  • A "Trivia" section is utterly inappropriate for a featured article. If these details cannot be worked into the text, they should be eliminated.
  • The links in the "See also" section are (all?) given in the body, and should be omitted.
  • What exactly is the footnote after "The drawing and sprite design" giving a reference for?
  • Most importantly, there are piles of uncited—and sometimes rather questionable—assertions throughout the article. Some obvious examples:

1. "Many gamers have criticized the Advanced Generation artwork as a whole..."
2. "Torchic as a species are universally playful..."
3. "Torchic dislikes darkness because it prevents it from seeing its surroundings..."
4. "If attacked, it strikes back by spitting fireballs over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit..."
5. "One of few things common to most of the Pokémon games..."
6. "...choosing it as the starter Pokémon is considered a steeper difficulty curve than choosing Treecko, the Grass-type choice, or Mudkip, the Water-type choice."
7. "Since Grass-type Pokémon such as Oddish, Sunkern and Shroomish are very popular early in all incarnations of the series, Torchic has a definitive type advantage against these Pokémon."
8. "This confusion with types is not unlike Gyarados, an aerial sea serpent, being a dual Water/Flying-type, as opposed to a Dragon/Flying-type as many suggested."
9. "It is set to appear in the un-released game, Pokémon Ranger, a Nintendo DS exclusive."
10. "His feisty Torchic is best known for the running-gag of using Ember on Brendan's hair, setting it ablaze."
11. "An important rule that many players overlook..."
12. "This makes Star Cards somewhat impractical, since they can not be upgraded from their Basic stage state, and are primarily savoured for their rarity instead."
13. "...most likely because of its initial popularity alongside the release of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire."

This article still needs substantial work before it's up to featured level, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I was against doing this to start with (damn Cel) but I shall try and give some feedback-

I'll just go and delete this article now... Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have omitted a number somewhere in there, so I'll reply generally: everything that comes from the Pokédex can be easily cited as coming from the Pokédex, so that should present no problems. For the other items, I am asking for a citations for the (sometimes weasel-worded) opinions being given. In other words:

• "is considered a steeper difficulty" - by whom?
• "very popular" - by what measure?
• "as many suggested" - who?
• "best known" - according to whom?
• "primarily savoured" - according to whom?
• "most likely" - according to whom?

As far as "Trivia" is concerned, a list of vaguely related notes hardly qualifies as brilliant prose; and I don't see such a section on Bulbasaur, in any case.

Finally, do keep in mind that I'm trying to provide constructive criticism here, and please don't react quite so negatively ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine it was there last week :P I've started doing most of them, thanks for the comments! Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the stuff I can still find or I can remove. The main problem is the theories that I generally thought up which I may need to investigate to cite... Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Have you removed the other points permanently, or are you still looking for sources for them? Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just gone through and all of the points that you raise above have been fixed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torchic&diff=48253722&oldid=48100447). --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've struck most of my objections. However, the citations provided don't seem to directly support the "universally playful" and "best known" assertions; is there something I'm missing here? Kirill Lokshin 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The universally playful is from the anime I think, I'll probably remove that since it's not unaminously true. The main Torchic is playful, but others have been aggressive.. so that'll get fixed. And the "best known for" has been there since before I started working on the article and never got cleaned up. Thanks for updating your opinions and I'll fix your remaining quibbles. Are there any others points while I'm cleaning up? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "universally playful" section and I changed "best known for" to "reputable". I'm not sure that's the best word but all the Pebble Version article said was "Torchic has a bad habit of incinerating people".. thoughts? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "has a reputation for"? "Reputable" isn't used in that sense, if I recall correctly. Kirill Lokshin 13:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Reputable" is now "has a reputation for", thanks for the suggestion. ;) Is there anything else? Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Both of those left unstricken have been fixed now - one has a source and the other is totally removed. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Now that the significant objections have been resolved, a few more suggestions you may want to consider:

• "Pokémon" seems to be inconsistently italicized, at least in the section headings. Is there some convention being followed here that I'm unaware of?
• The numbering for the general references and the numbering for the footnotes will be confusing if the article is printed, so the "Books" and "DVDs" sections should probably use bullets intstead.
• The text is slightly confusing at times (e.g. in the "Characteristics" section: "This powerful fire also serves as its ammunition in battles. If attacked, it strikes back by..."; presumably the second "it" refers to Torchic, and not the fire), so a few rounds of copyediting might be beneficial. If I have some time later, I'll try to do a bit myself.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, all done. I copyeditted the largest section, and Cel did the whole thing, but it would be great if you could do one too. Thanks for everything, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A note about the titles. They're not meant to be in Italics because they're generic. Thanks again, 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose This is not even a major pokemon character. Besides, didn't Pokemon die as a fad five years ago? Do we want Wikipedia to promote dying franchises above important subjects. Fanboys need to stop pushing their semi-religious agendas on the rest of us. They seem to want to nominate every tiny little piece of fancrust (yes I spelled that right). What we have here is the start of every Pokemon article becoming a photocopy of the beloved Bulbasaur and being offered up as a feature. Bulbbasaur was contentious at best.--Mark 2000 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is an AfD objection being made on this FAC page? In no way is this an actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that not kind of a ridiculous reason to oppose an article? Phoenix2 23:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but how can you justify your "Strong Oppose" with the fact that don't like the subject? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, its perfectly reasonable to not want wiki to be a laughing stock, but rather a serious research instument. How can we do that if we keep rewarding rediculous subject matter?--Mark 2000 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Not really, you've not even read this article. You've not commented on the actual content, just the subject. You're generally ramming your Point of View at us as if you're 10 and spamming this nomination. Oh, and "ridiculous subject matter" is spelled with an I, unless that was one of your witty "fancrust" jokes? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid, that reasoning is not in the featured article criteria. In fact, it is totally against them, as one cannot change the subject matter. --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Celestian beat me to it. "Subject matter" is not a valid reason for objection. (As a side note, neither is subject matter a reason for support... many nominators would do well to remember this) If a subject is notable enough to be included in the wiki at all, it is a valid subject to be a featured article. Go whip up consensus for all pokemon articles to be deleted if you like, but this isn't the place for that. Fieari 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • What Celestianpower said. If the subject is important enough to warrant an article, then there's no reason said article cannot be eligible for featured status. Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • According to Wiki guidlines it's very debatable whether this deserves to be an article. It's only a minor character. Hell, could you even really call it a character?--Mark 2000 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The proper place for that debate is WP:AFD; if you feel the topic doesn't deserve an article, you want to make a case for deleting it (which I very much doubt would be successful) there. Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
          • And besides, it is definitly a major character, per it's appearences in four video games, plus the Anime--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral As for my vote, I'm concerned that the article doesn't quite treat the subject as a fictional creature enough. There's a little too much talking about it in terms of "Suspension of Disbelief" instead of in terms of the real world. Usually, this would be enough for me to object outright, but I'm unsure how to suggest that you fix this problem, so I'll simply stay neutral for the moment. But note my disapproval anyway. Fieari 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean to say that the writing is too submersive into the character's world and I should try to write from a more analytical stanse? *checks notepad* (Disapproval noted) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. I was an ardent supporter of the Bulbasaur FAC, but I don't find the overall quality of writing in this article to be comparable to the Bulbasaur article. I have to agree with Fieari on the point that I am currently unsure of how the article could be improved, so I will wait and reevaluate my vote at some later point. RyanGerbil10 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Has potential; I would recommend more thorough citing and removal of anything that could seem POV-ish. I'd rather wait to vote to see if things get improved; right now I'm neutral. Everyking 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object This is Bulbasaur in drag. Had I known this would happen when I supported Bulbasaur's FAC, I think I would have voted no on that too. Seriously, though, template writing is not brilliant and compelling prose. If you can rewrite this article to make it 100% original and not simply a cut and paste job of Bulbasaur I'll give it another looksie. As it stands now, not a chance...Weak Support due to my Strong Objection of the nominator's attitude toward people who kindly took time out of their lives to read the article and offer their opinions... --Jayzel 03:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your support. I'm sorry if I had a go at you, I do appreciate the people who read this and I thank them for that. I'm just getting really aggrovated when I'm trying to get this article promoted, and I never thought that I would only get praise, but it's just stirring me up that people are saying this should be deleted. It angers me, there's nothing I can do to fix that and I shouldn't care. Anyway, I am sorry for anything I have said (a chicken in high heels and adorned with wobbly lipstick is still making me laugh :P) and thank you for all your comments. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand this objection. Surely a standard set of criteria for Pokemon characters keeps the quality of each article high? Taken on its own (without reading the Bulbasaur article) I think this is actually not bad. Certainly I've been using similar wording in the PATRIOT Act title series. I don't see why this is a big issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Have you actually compared the article to see what's the same? Otherwise you're just listening to hearsay and not forming your own opinion. And chickens in high heels sounds slightly comical :P, 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is now 100% original.. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I have no problem with the same struction and layout in every character article, but numerous whole paragraphs is a bit rediculous. Say I accidently stumbled upon the Bulbasaur article, found it interesting, and decided I wanted to learn about the other characters in the series. I would become bored out of my mind reading the same paragraphs over and over in all the different articles. It would probably turn me off to wanting to learn more. Who in their right mind would keep reading articles that opened the same exact way, but with a different character name inserted? Also, I think giving this FA status would set a terrible precedent. Why would anyone bother to try to be creative or original when they could just stamp out thousands of cookie-cutter articles?--Jayzel 05:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  The objection is that we shouldn't reward the same thing twice. Featured Articles should represent the diversity of Wiki. Is wiki all about Pokemon? Will we feature all the pokemon?--Mark 2000 05:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  That is not an actionable objection. Featured articles should represent the diversity of Wiki, but they must represent the highest quality that Wiki has to offer; if the rest of the articles are not up to par, {{sofixit}}, but don't penalize projects that are doing their job improving the articles in which they can contribute their expertise. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm stepping in now. Yes, yes, this is a carbon copy *rolls eyes* Would you like to now what's the same between the two? All the information I've copied from Bulbasaur is:

  The Pokémon anime series and films are a set of adventures separate from most other versions of Pokémon, featuring Ash Ketchum as the main character, and following his quest to become a Pokémon Master. He and his companions travel around the Pokémon world battling other Pokémon trainers.

  The Pokémon Trading Card Game is a collectable card game first published by Wizards of the Coast in North America, in 1999. The concept is similar to that of a Pokémon battle in the video games in that each player takes turns to hit the opponent’s Pokémon.

  As you can see, all I borrowed were explanations to what the anime and the Trading Card Game actually are. I would've wrote my own, but the quality of these articles is not as high as Torchic and Bulbasaur, so I used that information. If you'd like me to rewrite it that's fine, but I don't think I should have to. Oh and to whoever said "I wouldn't have supported Bulbasaur if I new this was going to happen.", I spent a great deal of time writing this, alongside Bulbasaur's FA, it's passed GA, it's improving right now, and I won't have all my work made redundant by you. Anything else? :) Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 09:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Of course I would like you to re-write it. I wouldn't have bothered to mention the issue if I didn't care. *Rolls eyes* --Jayzel 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well if all you have problem with is those sections (I'm sorry if you call 2-lines a paragraph you've gone to the Div Side) I will gladly fix them, although I think they are very high quality and not needing replaced. I will though, at least it'll end this. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • All these notes have now been fixed. This article is 100% unique from Bulby (if there is it's coincidental.) Now that we've sorted that out can we stop with the "Bulbasaur clone!111!!!" comments now? Oh, and are there any other issues anyone would like to address? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now. Objecting on subject matter is completely irrelevant here, but there are several things that give me pause:
  1. Citations in the lead: if you have to use them, that means you're not going into the statement in greater detail inside the body of the article, which means that the statement should not be in the lead anyway.

     I told myself that I wouldn't reply to any comments here but here I am :P. What do you recommend about the multi-billion-dollar bit? The Ken Sugimori thing is better suited to "characteristics" (where I moved it to) but I don't know what to do about multi-billion-dollar... --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

     Just remove it. It belongs in Pokémon, not in Torchic. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

     The problem that I have in that case is that that was one of the criticisms of Bulbasaur. I was told to establish the notability of Pokemon (which is where most of Torchic's notability resides) in the lead. That's what I'm doing. You obviously disagree so I'm confused as to how to resolve it. --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  2. References: several sections lack references in several paragraphs: For example, the first and second-to-last paragraphs of the In the Pokémon video games section, second paragraph of the In the Pokémon anime section, middle paragraph of the In the Pokémon manga section, and the first half of the In the Pokémon Trading Card Game section. While it is admirable that you remember those off the top of your head, if you know them cold, it shouldn't be hard to reference.
  3. ...featuring Ash Ketchum as the main character, and following his quest to become a Pokémon Master – though what constitutes a Master is somewhat ambiguous. What on Earth has that to do with this article?
  4. This one is the most troubling of all: half of the article talks about things that are irrelevant to Torchic and should be in the Pokémon article instead, and I don't know how to fix it. The tone is a problem too, as it has been noted above.

Overall, it is a good article, but not yet to featured status. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

..If I shouldn't talk about non-related information in the article, how can I go into later? You've kinda contradicted yourself, it's talking about the franchise, and that's the standard intro anyway. Bulbasaur (if you're all going to bring it up then I will) has that reference!

As far as I knew, citations were meant to be placed where needed, rather than where they were short, but I shall ammend all these problems.

Your lovely quote is describing the anime.. what if you haven't ever heard about the anime?

..Well they aren't relevant.. could you please expand on that?

Could you please expand on " The tone is a problem too, as it has been noted above."

Thank you, your comments are welcomed. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't see how I contradicted myself. I said remove the non-essential parts of the article and move them to the Pokemon article. Also, if you haven't heard about the anime or manga, you're more likely to look at those pages first, instead of a particular Pokemon's article. Also, about irrelevant details, here's an example:

   The Pokémon anime series and films are a metaseries of adventures, seperate from most other versions of the Pokémon video games. (An exception to the rule is Pokémon Yellow, a game based on the anime storyline.) The anime follows the quest of the main character, Ash Ketchum, an in-training Pokémon Master. He and his companions travel around the fictitious world of Pokémon, battling other Pokémon trainers and capturing Pokémon.

   The name of Torchic is not mentioned once in that paragraph, so it tells me that it doesn't really have anything to do with this particular creature. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The contradicting was that you originally said that I should mention stuff from the intro later in the article. You later went on to say that it was worrying how the articles talks about other stuff. Kinda contradictory, huh? Anyway, you people can't stop arguing! Titox is saying "remove information that isn't from the Chicken bloodline" and ALoan is saying "making it plebb-friendly"! Meh, I'll deal with this a point at a time, tis easier.

You are suggesting removing all of the descriptive information, which makes it harder for the general reader. I value your opinions, but I don't agree. *sighs* The Bulbasaur article is just the same, and I know I shouldn't compare the two, but all of you are so I might as well. I don't whether you're complaining that this article is one up from Bulbasaur as "the next of Pokécruft crap" but it's not! It's a few people writing, and hoping that it doesn't crumble. And I can easily Torchic into that, I didn't see it as a problem. And the manga? The articles are dire. End of.

I disagree with your opinions on removing all of the information, because if you do, all will you be left is a fan-page. Which is what you're all expecting. Thank you for the comments, could you please strike out anything we've ammended? Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The anime paragraph has been fixed. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - sorry, not as good as Bulbasaur yet. Some examples: First section: Its small wings are useless for flying with, much like a chicken's - Chickens are not flightless birds, you know. That is why their wings are clipped, you see, to stop then flying. - aerial battler - I thought its wings were useless for flying with? Can it fly or not? - This power also serves as its ammunition in battles - What power? The power of "warm hugs"? - The drawing and sprite design of Torchic was created by Ken Sugimori's team for its 2003 release on the Nintendo Game Boy Advance - I thought we were talking about its characteristics, not the design process. - Second section: Torchic is described as sharing many qualities with a chicken, including flightless wings and unsteady footing - Have you ever seen a chicken? - It can also call out much like a rooster does, but in a much quieter tone - It quietly crows cock-a-doodle-doo without waking the neighbours? -- After that I kind of lost the will to live. Sorry; suffice it to say: can do

better, must do better. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Okay, all fixed. Thanks for the comments (took a little while to see where you were coming from) but hopefully we've fixed your quibbles. And I'll just say here that whatever we do with the design thing, none of you can decide. *rolls eyes* Anything else? Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers}
    • I'll re-read. The above were the most prominent issues I spotted on a quick read, but I thought the writing of this article was generally not up to the standard set by Bulbasaur. It may just be my impression, but the prose in Bulbasaur seemed to be aimed at someone who had only a passing knowledge of Pokemon, with much more explanatory background, whereas this seems aimed at the Pokemon afficionado. The best solution for the design information would be to add it in its own section - the history of the design, who did it, when, when it was first launched to the public, when any changes were made, etc. But I doubt there is enough public verifiable information to justify a separate section. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I have tried to make it accessible but Torchic has been more of my personal project. Bulbasaur on the other hand had about 3 nominations, 2 peer reviews and was the PCP article drive, so it's had a lot more varied support than this. While saying that, I still think it's good... and to the design thing, that would work on something like Bulbasaur because it's appeared every single game, but Torchic only debuted in the Advance era, so there hasn't been a great deal of change to it's design, unlike Bulby who's changed time and time again. Thanks, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object - I think this fails the test of notability in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). We simply cannot view all of the several hundred Pokemon characters as notable - they just aren't. I'd back up a claim that Pikachu was notable - and draw the line there. See also Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. SteveBaker 15:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I would tell you what you're doing wrong but instead I think I'll let Kirill's words speak again: "The proper place for that debate is WP:AFD; if you feel the topic doesn't deserve an article, you want to make a case for deleting it (which I very much doubt would be successful) there. Kirill Lokshin" If you have a problem with this article existing, take it there. If you'd like to comment on the actual quality of it, please note your comments. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Having read the deletion policy, Torchic definitely deserves an article. It's been said elsewhere but, if all the Pokémon were merged together, the list would easily be the largest article in the pedia. By a landslide. Torchic is more than a minor character (if you had actually read the article) you would have found out that Torchic is one of the three Pokémon players can choose from at the start of Pokémon Ruby or Pokémon Sapphire, and by-far, Torchic is the most popular. So, in short this article is just as significant as Bulbasaur and Pikachu, and isn't a minor character. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Somehow all Pokemon are notable in this site, I placed quite a few pure digimon character cruft in AFD before and they end in no concious or kept and that digimon junk is much less notable than pokemon. And Torchic is not a minor character in Pokemon. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If the articles are high-quality, I wouldn't mind having all 380+ Pokemon be FAs. They just aren't yet. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone said that in the last Bulbasaur nomination also, and I agree with it. 380 FAs, that cover a wide topic (videogames, anime, manga, TCG, cultural impact), give an incite into how today's creature are seen in a fictitious world, and an accurate reflection of Japan as a modern culture. Yep, that would be awful. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Object Although I'm throwing myself into the fire with this, one of my regrets was not objecting to the Bulbusaur article as I didn't like all the insults slung around. As I fear this might eventually pass, too, I don't want to be silent again. The article lacks just about anything which would be important to the outside world. Why is this encylopedic besides it being a character in Pokemon? Has this character influenced future Pokemon/video game characters/merchandise? Was this character influenced by prior characters? What are sales figures for Torchic merchandise? Why was Torchic chosen to be one of the lead three Pokemon of the new game instead of any of the other million characters? Why was this Pokemon even included in the game at all (considering I'm sure there were hundreds of drawings which were thrown in the trash)? What is the designer's opinion of Torchic? Have other video game designers/writers/experts commented on Torchic? Does Nintendo themselves have any comments on Torchic's influence on pop culture/video games/trading card sales/anything? Has anyone besides first and third party strategy guides designed to promote Pokemon commented on Torchic, as judging by the references it appears not. And I could go on... My concern is that the answer to most of these questions are "no", "the information isn't out there", or "he's just a pokemon and this is what pokemon do", in which case, Torchic should not be a featured article as there's nothing encyclopedic about it. I hope to not see 380 articles which simply tell which episodes a minor character appeared in, and to say that Torchic is an "accurate reflection of Japan as a modern culture" is insulting to the country's achievements. --Ataricodfish 04:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• I call on Raul to make clear that this debate must be conducted within the context of optimizing the article, and that there can be no question of the non-notability of the core subject matter for the purposes of a FAC discussion. Only votes which acknowledge that Pokemon in general are a legitimate WP subject and that Torchic specifically is a legitimate article can be recognized as valid. All discussion has to be done within that context, within the boundaries set by those basic assumptions, according to the principle that a vote must be actionable; in any case, it is clear that the community as a whole has already clearly affirmed the legitimacy of Pokemon as a subject. Everyking 05:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please note that User:Celestianpower deleted my objection as well as User:Everyking's comment. You can see his change here [[2]].--Ataricodfish 12:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please keep cool, Cel didn't do it on purpose. There must be an explanation, he wouldn't have done it on purpose, it's totally out of character. And why would he delete Everking's comment? It's in our favour.. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 12:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and I'll chalk it up as an accident for now. I left a message on his talk page as well, and obviously don't hold the deletion against you as you didn't do anything wrong. --Ataricodfish 12:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and in response to your comment, I've been pouring over Nintendo magazines, and all I've found so far is Torchic shaped pasta curry, is that what you meant? :P Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 12:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. :) To be honest, I don't think that Torchic or many of the 360 Pokemon can get the information to turn it beyond a well written fan guide and into a encylopedic featured article, and I felt the same about the Bulba article, but that's the past. I'm not dismissing Pokemon as lacking noteability, as some of the objections above. A FA on Pokemon, Pikichu, or possibly Meowth would have sizeable information on it's influence on culture, sales figures, designer comments, etc. I personally don't think you can find that with the other 357 Pokemon, whereas you could probably answer each of my above concerns with Pikichu. There is much much more that could be written in this article beyond an episode guide which wouldn't help any non-fan of the series. That's the information I'd hope for this and any article on a fictional character. --Ataricodfish 13:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there I could do to improve the article? Opposed to pinning down Ken Sugimori for an interview? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, answering those questions above would be helpful. My point is, you shouldn't HAVE to pin down Ken Sugimori to improve this article, there should already be articles, sales figures, interviews, criticisms, etc. available in publications. If there isn't, there's probably not enough information to move this beyond a Good Article to a Featured Article. If there is, it's vital its included to demonstrate Torchic's importance.--Ataricodfish 13:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well can you comment on the actual article? I do appreciate your points, but it's like worrying about the plates when the kitchen's on fire. I can check around, but I don't see how you should completely fail an article based on the fact that information doesn't exist. Thank you for the comments, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 13:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how nice the plates are. :) As for the article itself, I'm not downplaying how well its written. I think it's a very good overview of the character and his appearances. However, I feel that there's a different standard for good articles and featured articles. While the writing is fine and I suppose the information is accurate (I'm not familar with the later games), it feels lacking "real world" information. He's noteable as he's a Pokemon character and that's fine, and the article TELLS me that but doesn't SHOW me it. There should be *something* out there about the influence behind the character -- after all, for whatever reason, the designers chose him as a central character to the later games, so they must have felt he was more special/marketable/etc. than the other characters. The article is good but not ready for featured status as the encylopedic information is lacking.

However, although I believe my objection is actionable and my objection remains, perhaps we just see a difference of opinion here. I have high standards for the FA articles, and although the article is fine as a Cliff Notes to the character, it doesn't back up its importance outside the Pokeworld (if that's a word). Who knows, perhaps I'm the only one that feels this way, and then our debate is a mute point and it will pass through FAC. Best of luck with your nomination either way, and I appreciate that our conversation has remained civil and productive. --Ataricodfish 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting the comments - it was totally by mistake. Accept my apologies. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if I think about it logically, Torchic is considered cute and aethsetically pleasing, which is why it's used for marketing in Japan (clothes, gashapon, keyrings etc) I could probably cite it somewhere about the underlining "cute" ploy from the anime and somewhere else, and all of this to the section with the toys and other merchandise.. would that be of any use? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 14:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Celestian, apology accepted, thanks! --Ataricodfish 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Highway, that actually might answer something for me as to why Torchic is more noteable than other characters, although I don't know if completely. Obviously, an outside source would have to describe his "cuteness" and why he's marketable, but if something is found, that would be excellent. It's definitely a good direction for the article. It shows that Torchic is something more than just a drawing in a cartoon, and that's what I'm hoping to see. --Ataricodfish 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've written the first section, hopefully its okay. I'd like to hear any thoughts on it, because I have no clue what I'm doing. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

But saying that a Japanese cartoon character is notable to the real world for its "cuteness" is like saying an American superhero is notable to the real world for having special powers, or more comparably (in terms of scale of pervasiveness)like saying an American actor/actress used in advertising is especially notable for being good-looking. The correct term for the "cuteness" discussed here is kawaii and this quality is endemic/epidemic to huge swathes of Japanese popular culture. There's nothing special about Torchic being "cute"/kawaii. Bwithh 00:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But Torchic has been marketed especially in this manner. Pikachu isn't marketted as "kawaii", it's designed as cute and positive, both for male and female youth. Torchic has. Nintendo has shoved all the attributing factors into Torchic to make it specifically popular, being a Fire-type, widely the most popular of the starters, made it "kawaii" to gain female support, gave it weaknesses, its unsteady footing and its original problems with the early in game bosses, such as Cyndaquil in the anime who couldn't produce Fire for a long time, plus it evolves into Blaziken, one of the most powerful Pokémon in the game, which attracts male gamers. Torchic's design isn't just a coincidence. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that Pikachu isn't marketed or designed as "kawaii"? The wikipedia article on kawaii cites Pikachu used in airline marketing/branding as one of its main examples, and the wikipedia article on Pikachu him/her/itself says that "Pikachu is so cute that in the anime and various manga, most trainers choose to keep it from evolving". In a Dec. 1999 article about the Japanese business of kawaii in Wired magazine uses the example of Pikachu in airline marketing in its lead paragraph[3]. But my larger point is that there are so many many many examples of cuteness in Japanese pop culture and marketing, from fashion advertising to government information campaigns to military recruitment advertising, that it's hard to see how Torchic is being "especially" marketed as cute. Also, kawaii/cuteness isn't narrowly identified with female consumers - in Japan, its just as much a popular aesthetic for men as well (though with more sexual overtones).Bwithh 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But that isn't WHY Pikachu is popular. They plugged it on the show BECAUSE they thought it was cute. There isn't any marketting with Ash going "I want Pikachu!! He's so cute", which is there is, more or less, on Torchic. I actually am fixing Pikachu, and I haven't gotten to that, Pikachu isn't evolved because its so popular. Having it makes you feel like you're in the show. There a love sickness not to turn into a giant, ugly, orange mouse. Thank you for your insight on Kawaii, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 00:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Pikachu isn't evolved because its so popular. Having it makes you feel like you're in the show. There a love sickness not to turn into a giant, ugly, orange mouse." Um... okay. what? Bwithh 08:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Torchic IS kawaii, Pikachu ISN'T, Torchic has been marketted this way, Pikachu was marketted in a SIMILAR way, but not quite. Pikachu was chosen as the lead Poke because he was likeable by both boys ang girls and because he was funny. You could argue there was minor kawaii there, but Torchic is completely kawaii. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have supporting external references for your position that Pikachu is not kawaii and Torchic is especially so? otherwise... POV/original research Bwithh 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey there -- I've read over the additions and its not quite what I mean. In terms of marketability, there would have to be a major source that would back up the "cuteness" in marketing specifically to Torchic. Something like The Wall Street Journal or Business Week or a toy industry trade journal. What I'm hoping for is something specific to Torchic in terms of what makes him unique by reputable outside sources. Yes, I'm sure his cute appearance is a selling point, but really, few of the 360 Pokemon are really repulsive and the same could possibly be said of the other Pokemon. Right now, it gives the appearance of POV, even though I agree that a major selling point of Pokemon are their appearance. What makes this difficult is that an article or quote has to specifically be about Torchic and not Pokemon in general. And obviously, I'm not just looking at marketability as to why Torchic was important. A focus on how Torchic was created, designed, influenced, influential, etc., would be excellent, but it has to specifically be about Torchic and not Pokemon in general. --Ataricodfish 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object First of all, Strong Objection to all these arguments that the article isn't notable - this is a FAC and we should comment on how to improve the article. Anyway, my problem with the article is parts of the writing, for example,

1. it starts out with "multi-billion-dollar[1] Pokémon media franchise" - the "multi-billion-dollar" is totally unrelated to this article and seems to exist only to prove this article's worthiness (in fact that is the general feeling I get after reading this, unfortunately)
2. The second part of the first paragraph (starting with "Its main purpose in the games") reads very awkward to me and almost like a run-on sentence. suggest rewriting
3. "In all three versions" this is a new paragraph but there is no connection to what the three versions are - normally when you start a new paragraph you start to talk about something completely different, either that or more context. Perhaps all the game introduction should be in one paragraph

There are more, but really those kinds of problems persist. The writing in general is slightly fannish but not too bad - if someone were to rewrite it again to make it flow better it could be a FA easily - it is a pretty short article as FAs go so it shouldn't be too difficult. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I have some notes:

The Bulby FAC was harrowed because of its lack of information about the importance of the franchise, and other people will complain, its something you can't agree on

"Its main purpose in the games" seems okay to me, can you suggest anything better?

If you read the first paragraph it explains why Torchic is so important, because its a Starter Pokémon from the games listed. If you think it would be better to put that note at the bottom of the first paragraph, I can understand that. But I think that would make it more "ready very awkward"

Thank you for your comments and I would like further information on your notes. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Bulby FAC was harrowed because of its lack of information about the importance of the franchise, and other people will complain, its something you can't agree on" - yes, one of the parts of FAC is learning which objections to ignore (or at least press for a reasonable one) - often people who comment simply dislike the subject and will object for unactionable or unreasonable things or even to the article itself. Hopefully Raul discounts the obvious biased ones in the end.

""Its main purpose in the games" seems okay to me, can you suggest anything better?" - BookOfJude rewrote this and it is better now

Anyway, the main problem is that I've looked at a hundred or so of these, and this is one of the first ones I feel a strong need to rewrite large parts of - and I'm a fairly poor writer myself :\. For example, my last edit squished an embarrasing spelling and grammer error. What about the wikiproject - couldn't you get a set of new eyes to make a whole article pass and fix it up? Because that's all it needs as far as I'm concerned. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure if that would help, Cel and I are about the best writers in the WikiProject that are interested in fixing them. Most of them are useless newbies, sorry to say. Could you maybe make a list? I know that seems a stupid way to do it, but if you could make a note of all the problems then I can combat it. I can't see any major ones but I'd be interested on your thoughts on the matter. Also, I didn't mean that Raul should ignore those complaints, Cel, Kirill and myself, as well as others, believe the intro is fine. Tito and yourself don't. There's not really a middle ground but I think its more important to have some reference than none. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a lot better now on that level - so I'll withdraw for now. Bunchofgrapes is on the money though with a lot of his/her criticisms of the article - take care of those and I'd like to support as well. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This article is not well-written at the clause and sentence level. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC) This has largely been fixed. New objection points below. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object due to writing style problems pointed out by User:Bunchofgrapes and the real world relevancy issue as per [[User:Ataricodfish. Bwithh 19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment.I wish you begin improving encyclopedic articles (like Pokemon) before putting so much time in working on specific and less notable subjects. CG 15:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh, people work on what interests them personally, not necessarily what is of greater objective importance. FA rewards the good work put into any article on any subject, if it is sufficiently well written and done and all that. Of course, if it's not good enough, that's another story, but telling people what articles they should and shouldn't work on is, in my experience, an exercise in futility. Fieari 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Meh, I won't let this turn into the Bulby FAC. I don't care what your thoughts on the subject are. Please comment on this article or stop leaving nonsense. I will edit what I wish, thank you for the support Fieari. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object.
  • Plurality / meaning of "Torchic". The lead starts out defining Torchic as a species, then quickly switches to sentences treating Torchic as a character: "Torchic is most famous for being one of the three Pokémon players can choose from at the beginning of their adventure..." Either the article should consistently treat "torchic" as the name of the species ("Torchic are most famous for being one of the three types of Pokemon...") or this dichotomy should be clarified. Also, the article uses "Torchic" as both singular and plural (like "fish" or "sheep") -- how do we know that's right? Source?
  • Lapses into an in-Pokemon world-viewpoint. The article needs to be more consistent in describing Torchic in terms of our real world, not the fictional world it inhabits. To pick out one section, the "Characteristics" section is written as if describing the characteristics of a real creature.
  • Original research. As far as I can tell, "A possible reason for Torchic not being a dual Fire/Flying-type is that it evolves into Combusken, a dual Fire/Fighting-type.[10] Further evidence for this is that Flying-types have a natural advantage over Fighting-types, making it super-effective against its own evolutionary chain." is all original research.
  • Lack of secondary sources. The games, their instruction manuals, the pokedex entries, and the strategy guides are all primary sources for this material, produced (or in the case of strategy guides, closely overseen) by the same companies that created this character. The reference used for "synopses of Pokemon Anime appears to be just a fan site, so if I'm being ungenerous, I'd call it an unreliable source, or if I'm being generous, I'd call it a proxy for the cartoon itself, another primary source. I don't think enough secondary sources providing critical analysis of the topic are present here to make for an FA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your further comments, I'll probably deal with them one by one (I read the first and started itching to reply) so here goes;

From the introduction to "In the Pokémon video games" is referring to all Torchic. Anime and Manga are referring to seperate Torchic owned by people. The Trading Card section is somewhere in between. Its set in the relevant WikiProject Style guide that all Pokémon names are singular and plural "One Torchic, two Torchic, red Torchic, blue Torchic." Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers}

So is "Torchic" a species name or the name of a Character? Try to substitue the word "sheep" into many of the article's sentences, and you'll see what I mean -- they are nongrammatical, unless if you assume you are dealing with a specific sheep that someone has confusingly named "sheep". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally, its used to plug Pokémon better in the anime. Pokémon in the manga tend to have their own nicknames. The original names are used in the anime so after people finish watching it, and they go looking for it or buying a toy they don't ask "I'm looking for a toy called Fred!" Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So? It's still a problem for the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What someone has suggested to me is to write "This article discusses both Torchic as a species and individual Torchic owned by trainers." , but I doubt that'd be appropriate for an FA. I found Celestianpower's (think it was him anyway) comment when he wrote the Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Style: "Like sheep and fish, the plural of Pokémon is the same as the singular, and the same is true of each species, i.e., “One Snorlax, two Snorlax, green Snorlax, blue Snorlax”." Thoughts? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just treat it purely as a plural species? "A Torchic is...", "Torchic are", "May and her Torchic", and so forth? Kirill Lokshin 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a common error that many people make when writing. There also seems to be different between the generations; I would more likely say "A couple of Bulbasaurs" than "A couple of Torchics". But it's something to be aware when reading and writing. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Characteristics section is meant to be in "Pokémon world". It's taking information straight from the Pokédex, and in-game tool that logs all the information on Pokémon. So you can't really keep original research without keeping it in the Pokémon world.

Probably, I tried to cite it as best I could. Would any rewording help? I guess not but oh well.

Well, Serebii is used for all the guides because it is the only collection of fan guides anywhere on the internet really. All of the other sources are non Serebii.

Thank you for your insights, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Gospel of Judas

I am nominating this article, because I believe it to be a well written, informative, article that conveys more than the contribution of any single editor. ( I have also contributed to its development - so this is partial self-nomination )

The Gospel of Judas is a piece of work that was mentioned by early church fathers, often refuted as heretical. It had been lost, until a copy was found in Egypt in the 1970's. Its rediscovery, is also an interesting story because it found its way to academia though rather questionable channels. Recently featured in the news, this article developed extremely quickly without compromising the quality of the content.

Any discussions that took place, were civil. Compromise was established with little problem and in the end, I believe the strength of the article to be self evident. Not only is the subject of the article interesting, but the development of the article represents what Wikipedia is all about.

LinuxDude 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has a {{Current}} tag on it, meaning that it may not satisfy criteria 2, which requires it to be stable. Would it be worth waiting a little bit before nominating it ? Schutz 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. As above suggests, far too current to be stable. Wait a while. Daniel Case 00:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above - too much a matter of immediate controversy. BD2412 T 00:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per above.Dwaipayanc 05:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It's a decent article, it's just not stable. Wait a bit until everything cools off, then try again, for sure. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, also please cite web references according to WP:CITE (it may be helpful to use {{Cite web}}). AndyZ _t 14:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I've been helping a little with this article, believe it to be a solid article, yet I also feel that it won't be stable for a while: the text & translation of this work is expected this fall, & its publication must needs a lot of rewriting to this article. Further, this might not even be a good candidate for WP:GA -- although LinuxDude is welcome to submit it there. -- llywrch 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, articles that are current events are not stable to be FAs due to changing content and updates. Try again in future. --Terence Ong 02:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

À Hauteur d'homme

Nominate I spend 99% of my time here on Wikipedia reading articles and 1% contributing and I have spent years browsing this site; this is the first article that made look up the Featured Article candidate nomination procedure. The article is very thorough and concise, it is well organised and strikes a neutral position, something quite difficult considering the subject matter. It also has many images and sources and, in my opinion, it looks like it fulfills all of the featured article requirements. It was also sent for peer review[[4]] though no comments were made. D'Iberville 03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't read through the article yet, but the lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD - The Catfish 03:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article needs references. And yes, the intro is a bit weak. joturner 03:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak object The pics here are birlliant, and it is well written. Its a great article, but the intro needs to be longer. Also, there are no refrences, however, I think that the external links may have been used as sources. You could just retitle the section if that is the case. Tobyk777 03:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• It's too short and needs refs. Everyking 04:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Just on a superficial skim, the lead is way too short and I don't see how the text justifies all the screenshots (we have had some issues here regarding pushing the fair-use envelope with that). And more importantly, I know the article is about a francophone Candian documentary about a francophone politician, but this is still the English Wikipedia — would it be possible to provide a translation of the title in, say, the first sentence? Daniel Case 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose should use English title, this is English Wikipedia. Ardenn 02:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no English title. We do not needlessly translate titles if there is no common English equivalent. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 13 April 2006 @ 13:34 (UTC)
  • Just realised that you might be referring to within the text of the article (I assumed you meant for the article's title). Then, yes, a translation should be provided. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 13 April 2006 @ 13:36 (UTC)
• Object. This qualifies for the Good Articles list, but not featured articles yet. Featured Articles not only need to be referenced, they need inline citations. They also need to follow all community standards, including WP:LEAD, as mentioned above. This article probably isn't far from being featured quality, but it needs some work to expand the lead and get the references sorted out. Work towards at least one inline citation per section at least, per paragraph prefered, and of course, each individual claim should be cited in general. Hope we don't scare you off as a first time FAC submitter... the standards 'round these parts have been set very very high as of late, which also means that becomming featured is an honor that has some weight and worth these days. Fieari 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Louise Brooks

Ms. Brooks's Centenary is this November 14, 2006, and I feel it would be a nice tribute to have her as Featured Article on that day. I'm starting this proccess now, in case the article needs major revisions, although I'm hoping not. Vanwall 05:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Object - See: Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. The article has no references or inline citations at all. This is a must for FAC. Also, there are too many WP:POV issues. For example: Louise Brooks remains a major style influence, is considered one of the great actresses of the movies, an indispensable writer about film, and one of the sexiest stars ever photographed.

Who says she is one of the greatest actresses? Who says she is one of the sexiest stars ever photographed? These are opinions that cannot be proven. --Jayzel 05:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to include such from my offline revision - I am now working on those refs & citations offline - the POV issues will be straightened out. Vanwall 06:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps it would be a good idea to take this off FAC until you're ready, or else you'll likely get a stream of "object"s. Nice article - you've obviously put a lot into it, and I'm glad. Such an interesting personality, and sadly not as well known as she deserves to be. Rossrs 13:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm looking for this kind constructive criticism; a stream of "Object"s is welcome, as long as they read the comments first, and aren't repetetive. Vanwall 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Object no refs. pov problems. images need fair use taionale. too many external links. filmography wrong way round. category "bisexual actors"? non-comprehensive - she was a film writer but what did she write about? summarise the main themes of her writings. describe her publications in more detail. Zzzzz 13:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object It's well-written and informative, but needs work to add references and properly source and justify the images. --NormanEinstein 13:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's an interesting article, but it isn't too neutral. --Osbus 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Eminem

Article covers his career, his life before his career, analysis of his work and of the controversies it has spawned, his public actions, his personas... pretty complete, well-written, neutral. I think it's good. DS 23:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object: 1) his box could have have more info. 2) there are NO references cited 3) the pics do not have fair-use rationale for this article, heres a quote from one of the pics page: :"To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Vulcanstar6 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. No references, no fair use rationale. I need not go more in-depth as it currently stands, but there are other issues, definitely. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Per Eternal Equinox, and reluctantly too (I'm a big fan). However, this article is defintely more comprehensive than many other music articles, and with a week or so of good, hard work, could pass. RyanGerbil10 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. No references in the article. Also, please use either {{ref}} or m:Cite/Cite.php for in-line citations (don't embed URLs into the article). AreJay 02:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The inline links need to be converted to footnotes, I strongly recommend the cite.php format over the {{ref}} format. Article also needs some cleanup. I spotted a few things like contractions and informal languange. Also, the trivia section needs to go.--Fallout boy 08:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - for all the reasons stated above. Also the article refers to him as "Mathers", "Marshall" and "Eminem". I can understand the distinction between "Mathers" the person and "Eminem" the act/character, but for clarity he should be consistently referred to throughout. "Marshall" is not acceptable in an encyclopedic sense. I think you should make it very clear in the lead that Eminem is Marshall Mathers, as you have done, and then refer to him as "Mathers" throughout, except where specifically talking about the act, in which case, Eminem is correct, ie credits, quotes etc. Lead gets into too specific detail about particular albums. Lead should be a summary of the article that follows. Lists should be avoided. "Themes" and "trivia" should be converted into prose, and anything that can't be taken from trivia and put into the main article as prose, should be deleted. Find other featured articles about musicians and use them as a guide. This article has a lot of good things and is worth some extra work. Rossrs 13:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object Poor layout, no references. Cvene64 09:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object (reluctantly!) - while I would love this article to become featured, it doesn't yet meet the criteria (particularly, there are no references). Ronline ✉ 11:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object Now there are references enough, and his stage name isn't repeated too times. --Baxtaba 20:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Monty Python

A very brilliantly written article with peer review. Worth a look, in my opinion. --Tykell 04:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - On a 5 second scan of the article, I already found two big flaws. #1) The WP:LEAD is improperly sized, and is not a summary of the article. #2) The "Trivia" section should be converted to prose. Lists such as these have no place in a featured article. There may be more issues, but these were instantly noticable upon simply scrolling down the page without reading. Fieari 05:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Peer review: Move this article to Peer review. There are zero in-line citations in the article. Many images are used under fair use, but there's no documented reasoning behind how the use of those images qualifies as fair use. These are just two of the many glaring issues that need to be addressed. AreJay 14:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Further to Fieari, whether or not the information in that section is in list or prose form, much of it is too trivial (quiz rounds in Jeopardy, for example) to even be in a 'trivia' section. --BillC 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object lead is too long (3 pgraphs max). fairuse images need fairuse rationale. incoporate trivia into main body of text. there is no "Legacy" section explaining their long-term influence (south park for example). maybe turn the "pythonesque" section into this? Zzzzz 09:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object lead too long and too much individual biographical info --Bob 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Book of One Thousand and One Nights

I feel this article meets the criteria as it is complete and authoritative. Philip Stevens 16:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• A featured article should have "a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections" (--Wikipedia:What is a featured article?). The two sentence introduction in this article is insuffecient - it does not adaquently summarize this article. Raul654 16:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Operning has been reworded. Philip Stevens 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Much better. Raul654 04:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This needs more inline citations--some of the quotations still need to citations, for starters. I would also like to see the article expanded in general--coverage is pretty good, but I think that somewhat more in depth would be optimal--and in particular, I'd like to see more on what the contents of the book are--not so much what the specific stories are (there's obviously way too many to do that), but where they're from, how their told, etc. In other words, I'd like to see the second paragraph of the "Synopsis" section become a good-sized section of its own. Robth^Talk 04:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with Robth, and I'd like to see some academic references - surely this book has been the subject of many studies?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Facebook

Self-nomination.The article is about the #1 online destination for college students and it discusses the effects the website has had on student life. The article is 36kb long and has two related subarticles. [5] [6] I believe that the comments from a recent peer review have been addressed; the article is now properly sourced and has subpages. —L1AM (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- I noticed a few things that should be changed.
• It became something of a network phenomenon,. Should be it became a network phenomenon.
• Additionally, a group of music In addition sounds better, in my opinion.
• 7 red links. This isn't part of the FAC criteria, but it is def. better not to have any. One or two is okay though.
• Two citations needed in the article.

Otherwise, it's a good article. -Osbus 21:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I changed the wording on 'network phenomenon' and 'In addition'. I removed some unneeded redlinks; Accel Partners and ConnectU remain. I also removed some uncited content - a sentence about comparisons to MySpace remains. Thanks for your help! --L1AM (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I like this article very much; very well-written. I do think a few things could be changed. For one, remove the "Overview" section and integrate its information in another part; the article should just start out with "History." Second, although the article is very well-sourced, statements like this one, "Rates are on a per-impression basis at $5 for 2,500 Flyers (students get steep discounts at their own schools at $5 for 10,000 Flyers)" don't have citations and need them. The "Addition of Features" subcategory reads more like bulleted lists towards the end (just without the bullets). Somehow try to combine this text together without losing the chronology but making the prose flow better. Mmmm that's all I can think of for now....maybe a few more pictures, but that won't affect my vote. Overall, good job though. Take care of these things and I'll support fully.UberCryxic 00:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I merged the Overview section into other parts in the article. I'll try and work on the addition of features section next. --L1AM (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: overall, it's good, but someone needs to go through and fix quite a few fuzzy expressions, such as "The viewing of detailed profile data is restricted to users from the same school or confirmed friends, though one can change their personal options regarding this." More commas would help to eliminate ambiguity in places such as: "facebooks that many colleges give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community". There are too many one-sentence paragraphs; they could easily be merged. Tony 00:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The picture with Jimmy Wales picture is a bad example of a celebrity profile. Is he recognisable to people outsidethe Wiki community? This is an encyclopedia and it should be familiar to any reader and not only to wikipedians. It would be better to replace it with another famous person to avoid this kind of self-reference. CG 14:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Maybe stripping the image of Suzanne Somers as Chrissy from Three's Company currently on the List of Facebook features subarticle and using it in place of Jimbo's? --DanielNuyu 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "References in popular culture" section is completely NN material. In the digital age, 60,000 downloads is nothing, and certainly cannot be called a "worldwide hit". Also, if anyone has watched that Facebook movie, it is not very good, and as far as I know, it has never reached anymore than a showing on Google video. Even if it has been shown on campus, it's still not notable enough for inclusion here. I would axe the entire section and wait to add it back when a show like SNL or MADtv parodies Facebook. There was already a discussion regarding this on the talk page, and whoever added the material back ignored the opinions of myself and several other editors here to do so. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 00:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I removed that section. If someone disagrees, they can justify why it should be returned here. (Earlier, someone added the section back and I expanded it - sorry about that, I should have just deleted it then. Anyway, hopefully this is suitable.) --L1AM (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good, and a bit different. I'd like to see this as a featured article. Colonel Tom 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object; citation #9 is pure original research; please find a secondary source or eliminate that claim. Also, the information at the end of the "Addition of features" section needs to be cited. Finally, is there information on which schools have the most users of facebook? I recall reading in The Daily Collegian that Penn State has more members than any other school in the country, but that newspaper isn't exactly known for its reliability. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 05:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe facebook keeps a running tally of students per school on its network somewhere. see if you can find it.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Poorly written. EKN 04:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

Young Talent Time

Worth a shot IMO. PMA 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. You may want to look over the FA criteria. The article has no reference section at all, and FA requires inline citations (WP:CITE would be helpful reading for this). There are no images, which is not a strict FA requirement but would be nice, so some screencaps would work well here. It could use some subsections to break it up a bit. Since it's about a television show, some hard numbers on ratings would be desired. It also needs a peer review to help smooth out the overall writing, grammar, punctuation, and NPOV tone. The West Wing is a good example of a featured article on a television show, and may be helpful reading to those working on the Young Talent Time piece. It's a nice start, but a long way from FA status. Thanks! Air.dance 04:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object- again, featured article requires sources as well as inline citations. Please read WP:WIAFA to see some of the guidelines for featured articles, or browse through examples on WP:FA. The article should be split into sections, with an appropriate lead section. AndyZ _t 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Giddens

Over the past several weeks I have expanded this article from a stub into what looks to me like a good FA candidate. I tried to address all the comments from GA and PR, and any further comments would be appreicated. I do hope that this FAC will attract some contributors to the article - it's a shame that such an important contemporary philosopher was neglected here for so long.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll take a closer look at this article later on but for now, I would point out that this sentence needs fixing: "His rising prominence was marked in 1969 when he moved to USA and received a position at the University of Cambridge, where he created a new faculty - Social and Political Sciences." Bwithh 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object After a readthrough, I have two main points.
    • First, my general note would be that this article needs to be written much more like an universal encyclopedia article rather than one especially for those with some training in sociology (I am one of those - I did SPS at Cambridge, and I've even had a personal dinner with Giddens). I think its a good topic to work on, but in general, there needs to be much less density of jargon (even if it means some less detail). I realize that Giddens tends to write in the jargon-heavy style, but that shouldn't be replicated in the article - if you look at the Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and Michel Foucault pages, you'll see that the use of jargon is sparser and there's more clarification within the text rather than relying on wikilinks.
    • My second point is that the article needs a criticism and controversy section. Giddens may be Britain's most successful and influential living social scientist (or is it sociologist? Perhaps you should distinguish between the two), but he also comes in for a lot of criticism, especially for The Third Way. (and I don't think you'll find many ideological supporters of Giddens around the Cambridge campus either). Hope those points help with your continuing efforts on the article Bwithh 23:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Book Recommendation A good starting point for a critique of Giddens would be Stjepan Mestrovic's polemical Anthony Giddens: The Last Modernist. Intro excerpt can be read here Bwithh 00:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, I see that the Mestrovic book is already referenced in the article's footnotes - its a little strange that a book which is so vehemently critical of Giddens is used to support a very positive account of Giddens. Bwithh 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You raise valid points. I was aware that this article is being much more 'jargon-loaded' then my past two sociological FA (Max Weber and sociocultural evolution). I'll see what I can improve in the future, but I doubt I'll have time this month to do more reading on Giddens. I've been trying to find others willing to help me with this article for the past month, and if this FA doesn't bring volutneers, then I am afraid it won't be resubmitted for quite a while - although hopefully this review itself will help me (or others) when the time comes for it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object on two grounds, one fairly easily fixed, the other of which will require a bit more intensive work. First, the WP:LEAD section should be three paragraphs long, not two. But secondly, the article as a whole lacks "brilliant prose". By this, I specifically mean that there is little structure within each paragraph, leading to each sentence sounding like a new "topic sentence", which should have a paragraph of it's own. This brings about a very "stilted" feeling to the writting, making it feel like I'm reading a bulleted list that has had the bullets removed and the illusion of prose enforced by jamming the list items together in series. Fieari 20:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the sentence about moving to the United States certainly needs fixing, it really jars at the moment! As for the photograph, at present it only lists a URL source. If you are claiming fair use on a copyrighted image, you really should name the copyright holder. Some context to the image would be good - perhaps where it was taken, certainly when it was taken. TheGrappler 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stargate (device)

I am resubmitting this article for featured article status, I was not around the first time it went through but it has now become a self-nomination. I feel that it probably should have gone through the first time it was nominated, but the two main complaints were of now references and too many images. The references have been added (by someone else) and I have tighted up the article's images in addition to the entire article itself. I feel that it is ready for FA status. The Filmaker 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object, for the following reasons:
  • WP:LEAD section is too long, both technically, and visually. Technically, it should not be more than three paragraphs. Visually, in 1024x768 resolution, I like to be able to see the top of the table of contents from the top of the page, but that's a personal rule for me, not a hard-and-set rule. I'd like to see the lead section pared down a little bit... at the very least to comply with the three-paragraph standard.
  • There is a huge imbalance in the article towards describing the stargate in terms of suspension of disbelief... that is to say, it reads mostly like an encyclopedia article about the stargate in the series' universe, not in our own. There is a section detailing things from the real-world's point of view, but this section is dwarfed considerably by the fictional part. While in-story depictions need to be described, the bulk of the article should be about -real- things, not fictional things.
  • Because you should be focusing more on the real world, there should be more references than simply the episodes in question.
  • "Other uses of the Stargate concept" consists of a list. Please convert to "Brilliant Prose".
• The fictionality issue is the main one, but all need to be taken care of. Fieari 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I strongly disagree. This article is so great because it covers everything there is on the topic. It is one of the most comprehnsional articles we have. The reason why most of the article is fictional, is because there is more fictional information on the topic than real information. The other uses section should be a list. It makes far more sense that way. This is one of the greatest articles we have. I and many others have worked hard on it. Tobyk777 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Fierari (especially the long lead), and lack of non-episodic information. Look at the stuff in FA - Media, most of which is fictional. You have to drive a balance between reality and fiction. Staxringold 12:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I agree with Fierari at all points. In addition, you need to add a detailed fair use rationale for every single non-free picture you use. You can't just use a copyrighted image because it looks good. You need to explain why it is necessary for the article or the particular section. A good example you can follow is Ran (film). --BorgQueen 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry Tobyk but although I still Support as before, I knew others would object and for the same reasons. We haven't yet passed the criteria of having outside sources and more "real" stuff. Of course, I agree with you and support for the same reasons as you, which are that there just is more fictional information on the gate than real information, and that episode references are all you're going to get or need for information taken from the episodes, but these guys at FA are a tough bunch, so I'd have held back this nomination.-- Alfakim --  talk  13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per previous FAC, the article is original research and lacks reliable secondary sources -- Gnetwerker 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no original research in there. Honestly, I can't believe this keeps cropping up. Point me to one place where there is original research. Everything is taken from episodes, and in nearly all cases the episode is cited.-- Alfakim --  talk  18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's there. Take this passage for instance: The easiest way is using a Dial-Home Device (an Ancient control console usually found accompanying Stargates). With a DHD all the user has to do is punch in the address like hitting keys on a keyboard. The power will then automaticaly be provided. Puddle Jumpers seem to have an on-board DHD panel, this functions as a remote control to the gate. (the gate does not have to have a DHD for this to work, as evidenced by the DHD-less Earth Stargate being dialled with a puddle jumper in "Moebius") So, how do we, in the real world, know what an easier or harder method of using a Stargate is? How do we know that Dial-Home Devices are "usually found accompanying Stargates"? We as the television viewers are only allowed to see the Stargates the creators want us to see, correct? Unless a character on the show has said as much, "Puddle Jumpers seem to have an on-board DHD panel" is patent OR; it may seem that way to a viewer, but that viewer's inferences have no place on Wikipedia. "[T]he gate does not have to have a DHD for this to work, as evidenced by the DHD-less Earth Stargate being dialled with a puddle jumper in "Moebius"" is another example of an inference being made based on a single observation; OR. And this was only a random passage at which I chose to start reading. — Amcaja 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• This was what I was afraid. Like Alfakim I can't understand why so many of you are hung up on the idea that there needs to be more information on the creation of the Stargate. The creation of the Stargate was not that complicated and all of the information on it is provided in the article. Like Alfakim said, there simply is not much information on the creation of the Stargate, much less MORE information than on the complexities of it in the Stargate universe. The Filmaker 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As for your point on "original research": Suppose one character on a TV series shoots a another character, killing him. He does not confess to the crime and no one else on the show arrives to the conclusion that the character in question was the murder. Now there is no indication that the event could have been in a dream or an alternate reality of any kind. Should it not be written on Wikipedia that the character killed the other character? Nobody has ever directly referenced it, but the event did take place on the show. Therefore, it is an observation. Let's go one step further, say that I am a expert on firearms and I notice that the gun the murder is holding is a Heckler & Koch USP Tactical handgun. Now no one on the show has refered to it by this name, but the weapon is quite obviously this company's firearm. It's just an observation, but could it not be put down in an article? The Filmaker 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Your first example falls under simple plot synopsis, so no, it's not inherently OR. However, the creators can always say that it was a dream sequence, or that the murderer was actually a clone or a bodysnatcher, or bring the apparently dead character back to life. Fiction is slippery! As for your second example, it's not as clear cut. If you put this fact in an out-of-universe perspective, it's probably fine: "In Episode 383, a Heckler & Koch USP Tactical handgun was used as a prop in the murder scene." If you infer that Heckler & Koch must exist in the (say) Star Wars universe because you saw that gun in Attack of the Clones, I'd call that OR. Really, though, a lot of the problems with this article would disappear if you reframed things to more directly discuss episodes and the like and got away from the whole in-universe description of how these fictional devices (appear to) work. — Amcaja 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid the above sounds ludicrous, and shout as you might it is not implied by WP:OR. your second example about inferring a H&G in Star Wars works because Star Wars is set in "a galaxy far far away" and hence no H&G could possibly be there. We know very well from the show's collaboration with the military and frequent technical info (as well as being set in the present) that if we see an H&G its because there is an H&G (although MP5's are more often spoken about).
      • Anyway, as for original research, pertaining to what makes a Stargate easier to dial or whether or not all gates have DHDs, this is indeed inferred, but then so much is in everything. Every single gate ever encountered in the show has had a DHD, and from what we know about the gate system and their builders (and their intentions), every gate should, indeed, come with one; the gates that dont have it missing by accident (Carter ep101: "this is what was missing!"). How do i know what makes a gate easier to dial? Well, when they dial by hand it takes ages and Teal'c puts on a funny face of exertion, whereas dialing by remote Jumper DHD takes on average about 2 seconds. We've seen it in the show, been shown that all Jumpers are the same, and make an inference that the writers intend their audience to make!!-- Alfakim --  talk  01:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - The hodgepodge list under 'Other uses of the Stargate concept' should be transformed into a first paragraph that properly reflects where the concept of 'gate' interstellar travel comes from. Additionally, statements like "there has been contention as to whether they plagiarised the idea from a previous script submission" need citation, you can't just say that without attributing it. --zippedmartin 21:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The filmmakers have never openly admitted that the idea for the Stargate was based off of any of the points on that list. As far as we know, it was a completely original idea on their part. There have been lightsaber like swords before in cinema, but George Lucas has never said he was directly inspired by them. The Filmaker 15:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

    I see that sentence is now sourced (though from IMDB trivia... people might learn what 'research' is, one day...) - and it says they were sued and settled out of court - surely that deserves more attention, with some proper sources backing it up.

    However, the other point has nothing to do with what if anything the story is 'based off' - the concept of interstellar travel via gates is indisputably and uncontroversially one that existed before they made the film, a little bit of history behind the idea is certainly required near the start. --zippedmartin 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

    • This article's subject is not on the Stargate in all media. It's subject is the Stargate in the Stargate universe. While I agree that the "sued and settled out of court" problem needs to be addressed. I can't agree to providing history "behind the idea" simply because there is no information out there (and believe me, I've been trying). Not every popular idea is inspired by some old TV show or by the filmmaker looking at the window of a moving car. It just didn't happen that way, and if it did, then nobody has ever heard of it before. The Filmaker 20:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The article is well written and informative and has my support. The Fading Light 5:33. 31 March 2006
• Support, I think this article is really good. Just make the images a bit larger on the page, a bit brighter, and maybe try to get rid of the sci-fi logoed ones (replacing, or airbrushing - if the source allows it). CaptainVindaloo 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Obviously since I'm nominating it. The Filmaker 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree wholeheartedly with Fieari's assessment, plus I suspect much OR in the article. One of the authors have admitted to making "inference[s] that the writers intend their audience to make" (how do we know what the writers intend without citing a source that says one thing or the other?). Most importantly, though, Wikipedia articles should be about the real world, not fictional ones. Specifically, if all references to "stargates do this" need to be reframed from a real-world perspective: "To use a stargate, characters on the show usually do this. On the DVD commentary, actor So-and-so said this is really difficult to do, because the props are so big", etc. — Amcaja 21:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per the others and the fact that referencing is extremely poor, consisting only of program episodes and websites of varying reputability. Secondary sources please. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 22:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support The article accurately portrays the Stargate as it is used within the world of the show, and I believe that most of the inferences made are valid within the context of the show. While the ties to the real world are relevant, the Stargate is a fictional artifact, and thus I believe that the article regarding it should focus on the Stargate's role within its fictional world. I agree that Wikipedia articles should be about the real world, not fictional realities, as per Amcaja, to a point. Surely, in the case of only real-world Wikipedia articles being valid, articles regarding any fictional universe, whether it be that of a novel, a television show, a game, or something else entirely, would truly belong on Wikipedia. I believe that this article, and others regarding fictional universes, are valid as long as they do not claim that the phenomena, characters, etc. of their world "carry over" to the real world. In this case, discussion of the workings of the Stargate as described by the show is valid, but a claim that Stargates exist in our universe is not, although speculation regarding the validity of the Stargate science in our universe would be valid. I agree with Fieari, however, in that there are some formatting issues with the articles, such as the section on other uses of the Stargate. Surely, this can be expressed in a better way than as a list. Abhorsen327 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just altered the section on other uses of the Stargate to prose form, from its previous list form. Abhorsen327 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think the article is ready now. --Tone 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, contains original research per the above objectors. Tuf-Kat 01:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, can anyone give an example of a specific point in the article that is referenced by only an episode that should have some other reference? Would you prefer citations of an unofficial transcript that could easilly contain mistakes and is far less verifiable than the episode itself?
  • Here's one: "Stargates are typically 22 feet in diameter" -- this is in the intro (not elsewhere, a violation of WP:LEAD), and is sourced by a single citation -- to the front page of a fan site. I could go on. This article is original research, not encyclopedic. Obsessive-compulsive original research, perhaps, but OR nonetheless. --Gnetwerker 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a citation - I said somewhere with only an episode as a citation. If the citations aren't very good, that's another matter, I was responding to the point that there weren't citations at all for many things. I will try and find a better citation for the diameter, though. --Tango 11:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Barly Object: For the most part, I support this article, as I see the episodes themselves as resource enough for the most part (Don't the Star Wars films count as resources for Star Wars articles? Don't Spiderman Comics count as resources for Spiderman?). While it's possible that things arn't as they appear in the Stargate universe, for the meantime, we must assume that what we've seen is what has happened, as any twists that havn't appeared on screen havn't happened yet, and thus really don't exist. I also don't see why it has to be written so much from a real world perspective. Granted, it would be nice if there were a couple of commentary or magazine article resources that confirm some of the things that are seen.

There are a couple of things I can see that need to be fixed first before I can actually support.

1. At the top, it says "Despite numbering in the millions, only a select number of races understand how to use these relics, including, most recently, Stargate Command of Earth." As we've seen, other planets have learned how to use their Stargates since then. Change to show this.
2. Under DHD, there are two "Citation Needed". Either remove, or find an example for each you can represent.
3. Under Matter Transmision, there is a "Citation Needed". Remove, or give an example.
4. In certain instances, you use e.g. instead of citing. Perhaps you should use the number system and cite these instead (Or explain here why you're doing it that way).

Fix these, and I'll support. Dr. B 01:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Simply because I'm tired of Wikipedia being used as a dumping ground for fanboys. A serious encyclopedia has better things to worry about than devices in minor sci-fi programs.--Mark 2000 05:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to define "minor"? --Tango 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As per Tango, how do you define "minor?" To me, a series with one movie, nine seasons of the main television show, and two seasons of a spinoff show is not minor, any more than the Star Trek series are minor. Abhorsen327 17:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I define any show that has a worldwide audience that is smaller than Will and Grace's US audience to be minor. I consider any currently running show that the average man on the street can't name to be minor.--Mark 2000 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite the source of your audience numbers? I would think most people in the English speaking world (I'm not sure if stargate is dubbed into (many) other languages) have heard of stargate. Anyway, you said "minor sci-fi program" not "minor program", so you should be comparing to other sci-fi, not Will and Grace. --Tango 22:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a minor sci fi show. It's one of the biggest if not the biggest sci fi show on the air Here are it's stats: [7] These clearly show that it has more than 10 million viewers a week. It has sold more than 30 million DVDs alone. It's a huge sci fi show. Tobyk777 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have asked random people on the street about it. The response was about 1 in 10 to one in 15 had seen it. One in 3 to one in 4 had heard of it. Tobyk777 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's definitive! Case closed. -- Gnetwerker 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

10 million world wide audience is pathetic. Leno gets that much a day in the US. Next time you sample "random people" dont do it at a comic book convention. And don't you have more of a life than to harass strangers about a minor scifi show? Geez! --Mark 2000 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No the people I asked were on a train. Unless it was the convention train and there were no signs posted, they were just random people on a train. Tobyk777 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How many people did you ask? And were they like "Yeah of course!" or "Sure whatever, stop breathing on me like that."?--Mark 2000 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How many people have heard of a topic is not a requirement for an article on Wikipedia. Nor is it a requirement of an FA. Besides that, can you explain what exactly your issue with fancruft being on Wikipedia is? Fans of religious topics that are arguably fictional create articles, work on them and bring them up to FA quality. Fans of obscure biological creatures that hardly anyone would have heard of create articles, work on them and bring them up to FA quality. Why should Stargate be an exception? Whether you like the topic or not has absolutely nothing to do with me, the articles creators or Joe and Jane Wikipedian. Stick to the FA guidelines please. --darkliight^talk 10:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

10 million isn't much in general, but for sci-fi it's good (I'm not sure how good, nor am I sure how accurate those stats are). Prehaps you'd be justified in saying sci-fi is a minor genre, but stargate isn't minor sci-fi. --Tango 00:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you people having this discussion?? I think any closing admin will disregard a vote justified with something like "Simply because I'm tired of Wikipedia being used as a dumping ground for fanboys. A serious encyclopedia has better things to worry about than devices in minor sci-fi programs." You categorically can not oppose a FA nomination on the importance or nature of its topic.

An article on the most obscure charecter from the most obscure TV show can have a FA written about him if it conforms to FA criterias like Brilliant Prose and informativeness. It doesn't matter if only 5 person in the whole world have ever heard about the topic, it's not a valid objection to a FA nomination if only because it can not "be fixed", which is a criteria for making a valid objection.Loom91 13:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds of fancruft, original research and lack of any information on behind-the-scenes development or influence outside the show. Anville 10:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support looks good. Ardenn 18:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. In the absense of secondary sources, facts from the primary source that are obvious to all should not be counted as Original Research. In any case, implementing NOR in a straightjacket fashion would require us to write articles in quotations instead of prose.

This article is informative and as referenced as is possible for such a topic, nobody writes papers in peer-reviewed journals about a TV show. We must judge references in the basis of what is available for this topic, not what is available for other topics. I for one couldn't have imagined that it was possible to write such a detailed article on such a topic. However the point of perspective is a valid one and it would be good if the prose was from a real-world perspective. I doubt this attempt will suceed, but don't lose heart and keep up the good work!Loom91 13:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America

Self-nom. Peer review met with positive results. What do ya'll think?--Alecmconroy 09:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment why is a previous revision of the page in see also? If it has useful info it should be in this revision. That is going to get you opposes of DEATH most likely. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 11:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree completely. After reading through this article, it seems pretty NPOV to me; why include a link to a less NPOV revision of this article? Also, the "controversy" over access to public space could be elaborated a bit. Furthermore, did the Boy Scouts of America have any controversies prior to the 1980s? You mentioned a scandal that rocked the organization in the 1970s, and something in the 1920s, without going into any details. Lastly, the title is awkward. Maybe "Controversies relating to the Boy Scouts of America"? This article needs a fair bit of work before it reaches FA status. The Disco King 17:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The unfortunate link to the previous version has been eradicated, and the lone sentence referring to some 1920s/1970s troubles has been excised. I agree with your reasoning completely. About the title--- it IS definitely a little awkward, but finding sufficiently neutral key phrases has been hard on a page this contensious-- what would be less awkward, but equally neutral? -Alecmconroy 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm sure there's something to say about (de-)segregation of the Colored Troops in 1954, and probably more beyond that too. Tuf-Kat 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: For purposes of length, the consensus has been to focus "recent/on-going" controverisies about the actual official practices of the organization, the epicenter of which is their ban on gays and atheists. So, rationale for not including issues like "segregation", "exlusion of girls", or "scoutmaster sex abuse" is that they're not something you head a lot of controversy about these days. Perhaps more narrowly defined title is the answer. -Alecmconroy 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This is what I meant. My concern wasn't that the references to past controversies should be removed. My concern is that this article is too focussed on current controversies. If there have been past controversies or scandals (as those comments indicated) then they should be described in this article, or this article should be renamed "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, 1980-2006". I would be in favour of the prior option; just because a controversy isn't contemporary doesn't mean that it shouldn't be described. If it does get to be too long, then split it off into sub-articles divided chronologically. The Disco King 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -You raise a great concern. I feel like the current article does a good job of discussing the those things it does discuss, but there are other issues that other articles could certainly address aside from this one big main issue. I think it comes down to giving THIS page a title that makes it clear that this one is a sub-page just about the gay/atheist issue and its aftermath, and that the other smaller issues should fall under the jurisdiction of other pagers. This article just one sub-page talking about just this one issue. See the article's talk page for a brainstorm.-Alecmconroy 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment -Perhaps this should be spun off into numerous different articles. For example Boy Scouts of America and homosexuality, Boy Scouts of America and religion, Boy Scounts of America and segregation, etc. --Jayzel 08:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment- I think this is an excellent plan, although the homosexuality and religion issues are sufficiently intertwined merging those two into Homosexuality and Atheism in the Boy Scouts of America would be useful. -Alecmconroy 09:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Officially, there are no homosexuals or atheists in the BSA. The contention is about the policies. Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America's stance on religion and morals would make more sense. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course there are atheists and homosexuals in the Boy Scouts. Being openly gay or atheist is just not allowed. I agree, however, that the title should not be blah, blah, blah in the Boy Scouts. At the same time I think your title is too long. I still think my title ideas are best. :P --Jayzel 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence officially; but open or avowed would work as well. Is the issue about atheists or the position on atheists? --Gadget850 ( Ed)

P.S. I just read through the article and, I don't know, something doesn't seem right about it. There seems to be an obsession with the word "controversial". In my opinion it violates the NPOV policy here. Let the reader decide if the policies are controversial. Wikipedia shouldn't be beating people over the head by continuously repeating "Controversial policy" over and over and over. Some people might say "What controversy?" They are just excercising their First Amendment rights. Does the National Organization for Women allow men? Does the NAACP allow caucasian people? Does the United Negro College Fund pay for Asian children to go to college? Do all-women schools such as Smith College allow men? The article needs to bit a bit more balanced. Also, I think their needs to be a section for criticism of groups supporting forcing the BSA to accept homosexuals and athiests. Until these issues and the title-naming problem are resolved, I am afraid I must Object. --Jayzel 13:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is excellent-- some of the the kinds of input we've really really been needing :). "Controversy" is nice because it avoids words like "exclusion" or "discrimination", but bad because it still involves "controversy", which not that it's been pointed out to me, does definitely imply that something somewhere is controversial. For example, Wikipedia uses the title Abortion Debate in lieu of "Abortion Controversy". Perhaps "Controversy" should be removed from the title entirely, and we should work on replacing "controversial" in some cases with something more diluted-- like maybe "debated", "disputed"

Yeah-- you're right: Homosexuality and Atheism in the Boy Scouts of America is dumb-- it implies we're going to talk about the gays and atheists currently in the organization, when really, we're talking about the policies. I really like the titles of Boy Scouts of America and homosexuality and Boy Scouts of America and religion-- I think they're perfect except for the fact that about half the articles would be the same in each artcle. The legal arguments are the EXACT same, the court precidents are interchangable and reference each other constantly. The anti-BSA backlash usually references BOTH the gay and atheist issue. But a good title that talks about both is hard to come by: Boy Scouts of America and homosexuality and atheism or Boy Scouts of America, homosexuality and atheism or Boy Scouts of America's policy on Homosexuality and Atheism or Boy Scouts of America's policy on Homosexuality and Atheism. It's a real brain bender to find one that's Neutral, Accurate, and Concise. -Alecmconroy 17:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't really have an issue with the word controversy being in the title. It was a controversy (from both angles. It was a controversy about the BSA excluding some people and it was a controversy about homosexuals and atheists forcing their beliefs upon a private group in violation of their First Amendment rights). However, the article only presents the controversy in terms of the BSA doing something wrong. That is the jist of the articles POV issue. I had some other things to say, but I just saw that you have been doing some fixing of the article and they no longer apply. --Jayzel 02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose of DEATH! (to jokingly refer to the comment above). I'm objecting mainly because I believe that the article carries a POV slant, which I've detailed on the talk page. Fieari 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• On the BSA side are the interpretations of the the religious principle (a Scout is reverent) and of morals (morally straight). On the other side are a variety of group and individuals in opposition to those policies.
  • The Boy Scouts of America's stance on religion and morals and opposition thereof
  • Opposition to the Boy Scouts of America's religious and moral policies

Name length should not overide accuracy. There is precedent for long names, such as Economic and human costs of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or does this article have way too many subheadings? Exploding Boy 23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• oppose to me it seems too POV against BSA, it should be more neutral. 140.32.75.175 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Self-nom. I believe this article manages to exhibit high quality writing around a controversial figures, provides quality citations, and exhibits a good example for refactoring of related topics and academic biographies. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object needs more inline citations eg "these claims are disputed by the United Keetoowah Band and others", " he and other local AIM leaders broke with the national AIM leadership claiming that..." etc need backing. some weaselly writing eg "Churchill has attained a certain notoriety as a visual artist. Works by Churchill, such as lithographs, woodcuts, and drawings are fairly widely exhibited in galleries of the American Southwest, and to some degree elsewhere": "certain", "fairly", "to some degree" all within 2 lines of each other? categories "american anarchist", "scholar of marxism"? dont see that mentioned in the article anywhere. the "technocrats" and "little eichmanns" line in the lead is probably sourced in one of the sub-articles but needs to be cited here also. there is incorrect tag on churchill pic. regarding reference quality: nndb is notoriously inaccurate i wouldnt rely on it; mensnewsdaily appears to be a right-wing pov-pushing publication i've never heard of, dont think its WP:RS, westword seems a somewhat tabloidy source for an article about a serious academic, the ebay link will disappear once the auction ends so this ref will still become useless in a few days. i'd also like to see some non-US sources about him, as the article is very americo-centric. all weblinks need date last accessed. the 2 summary sections (essay controversy and allegations against him) are over-summarized! these sections can be longer with more detail, as the article is very short. finally i noticed it hasnt been peer reviewed which is "pretty much" a prerequisite these days. Zzzzz 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. As per Zzzzz, especially regarding the issue of the over summarized sub-articles. I previously mentioned this on the talk page, but it has been difficult to add to this article as the nominator has been particularly controlling of any contributions except from editors with a pro-Churchill point of view. So, not surprisingly, the summaries of the content that was removed and placed in related articles have remained extremely brief. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Okay, I know in the past I have agreed that unproven allegations shouldn't be in main articles, but instead should be linked to subarticles where the issue can be emphasized. I think we should bring about 5-7kb of information about his misconduct back to the main article. Basically, I see nothing wrong with a more through examination of the issue about his ancestry...the United Keetoowah Band simply stated that he was unable to prove to them his ancestry...but he may still qualify under Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma...I would expand slightly on this, and add just a bit to his rebuttal of this issue. I would snapshot the statement by the University that race there is self proving so anything about him claiming Indian ancestry is moot anyway, as all they require is a affirmation, given verbally or otherwise. I find the General allotment act issue and the issue over his claim that the U.S. government used smallpox to deliberately kill off Indians to be only worthy of a minor mention. I would expand slightly on the plagerism issue and his rebuttal. The artwork....I dunno, seems to me that if he is drawing from a dated image that was an original deacdes before, it seems it is almost in the public domain anyway...a little snippet n this may be necessary. Now bear in mind, I am not beholden to these points, but I do think they should be touched on with a little more detail in the main article...I think the essay controversy is what made him front page. I never personally heard of him before the news coverage of his comments about Little Eichmanns...etc. I think for FA criteria, this needs more embellishment in the main article, not because I disagree or agree with his comments, but because this is what brought him into the limelight...much of the rest of the "issues" seem to be the work of bloggers trying to further villainize the man, so I can't see how that needs mentioning. Lastly, more inline cites...especially linking to his writings is in order. The article overall though is much improved since I last looked at it a few weeks ago, so if we can get a few of these issues I have commented on corrected, I can see no reason it wouldn't be featured quality. In response to others, I am not sure what international opinion on Churchills work or deeds has much to do with anything. I suppose a brief mention may be okay though.--MONGO 07:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article needs to be in chronological order for his early life section. It mentions his education, then jumps to 1990 where he gets tenure, and then jumps back twice to work in his life. I read it expecting never to be told about what happened in the years between his college graduation and 1990; this needs to be clear and in order. Harro5 10:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Several questions related to Zzzzz's comments:

• The UKB dispute is linked to another (sibling/child) article as a wikilink on the word "disputed". What would be the best way to cite the discussion, if different from this?

it should be summarized *in* this article.

• The eBay link a search on all the current auctions on Churchill's artwork. Every time I've checked, there are 5-10 auctions going on of different works, but indeed, the resource is transient, and the specific work vary. How would editors recommend describing or citing this status?
• By "over-summarized" do you mean what Doug Bell does? I.e. that longer summaries would be better? I don't particularly disagree, if so, but I would just be concerned about keeping the summaries NPOV, and not try to include the whole sibling articles.

yes longer summaries would be better. obviously keep them npov.

• I agree Mens Daily is pretty fuzzy. Westword isn't so bad: not really tabloid, more like "alternative weekly", in the mold of Village Voice. It's not an academic source, but they do real journalism.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Abolitionism

What article could fit better than one about how a group tried to free those under slavery?--Timorrison 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  • The lead is too short. It should become a brief overview of the article- see WP:LEAD
  • Lacks inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs)
  • Weak, uncomprehensive sections (like Modern usage)
  • What is the point in adding "Notable opponents of slavery [not all "abolitionists"]" if the article discusses Abolitionism?
  • Please see WP:CONTEXT for date-linking rules
  • List-weighty

There are some other issues, but these are a start. AndyZ _t 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object
  • Almost no mention of slavery in this period outside that controlled by Europeans and Euro-Americans. what about the Arab slave trade and the slavery practices of some African peoples?
  • The article's writing style and structure needs to be improved considerably. The very first sentence after the lead doesnt make sense:

"many British merchants became wealthy in over one million human lives"

• • Much much too list-dependent.
  • Why are only the history of a few countries discussed in prose?
  • Modern day section basically a stub - needs much more (what about slavery (Nazi and Japanese) during World War II?
  • theres only one picture

Good topic, but needs lots of work Bwithh 02:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Calvinist confederacy

Self-nom. It was the Government in Switzerland under John calvin. This is said to be one of the most unique governments--216.7.248.254 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, a start, but please read WP:WIAFA before nominating an article here. An article requires references, inline citations (footnotes), an expanded lead, and more comprehensive information. Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that I have fixed the problem now!--Timorrison 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It has references now!--Timorrison 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The footnotes need to be explicitly cited in a case like this, not just copied and redacted from John Calvin. --Flex 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, too short, with one-paragraph sections. I removed the "Details supported by" section; Wikipedia can't use itself as a reference. (See Wikipedia:Citing sources.) If the footnotes section is also a reference for the article, you should add inline citations. Pagrashtak 22:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, I don't find any Google hits for "Calvinist confederacy" or "Calvinist confederation". Sounds like original research. "Article for deletion" is more likely to be accepted than featured status. --Flex 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, for all the reasons above. I'm not convinced this is a serious nomination. --BillC 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fenix*TX

Self-nom. I consider this the best article I have ever worked on; it's comprehensive, well-structured, referenced and of sufficient length. It has been peer reviewed and an evaluation from WP:FMP is still pending. Despite the fact that the article is about an active band, and that therefore it will likely be extended in the future, it is rather stable. --HarryCane 11:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Object. This article was better than I expected, and is well cited and good decisions have been taken about what to include and what not to. The only weakness of this article is that it lacks "brilliant prose". There are many parts of the article that are poorly worded; for example:

Reason for the change of style was Lewis' and DeLaPaz's constant feeling of unhappiness with the band's songs, as revealed by Salazar in an interview in late 2002: "[...] for Lechuza the guys were looking for a different direction so they wrote some songs that were way different, like Something Bad's Gonna Happen and Pasture of Muppets, just so that they could have some songs that they could, in their words, actually have fun playing onstage.

Someone with some time on their hands needs to step in and give the article a thorough copyedit. Other than that, a strong article and I see few other barriers to FA status. Soo 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The section you copied here is almost entirely derived from an interview with the lead singer and has therefore not been re-worded. If there's a need for it, I can re-write that part, but do you have any other examples or suggestions? --HarryCane 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Even ignoring the overlong quote, it's still bad grammar. There's lots of other examples, such as "However, said singer did not stay with the band for all too long". That's one of the most glaring examples but there are plenty of subtler instances of clumsy phrasing that a good copyeditor would be able to fix for you. There are also some POV / OR issues, especially with the "Musical Style and Critical Reception" section; examples: "blink-182 relied heavily on their rudimentary single guitar/bass/drums arrangements"; "a total of eleven songs, all of which were more raucous and energetic than those on the band's previous efforts". Soo 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - I found the language to informal in a number of places. Example: "After calling it quits...". Idioms such as "calling it quits" should be avoided when possible, in order to assist readers less familiar with these phrases, such as forigners or those who have learned english as a second language. Fieari 07:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great article, especially when compared to other articles about similar bands. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Not bad, but some of the writing in this article suffers from POV, weasal words, awkard phrasing, and other factors which help contribute to an overall unencyclopedic tone. Wisdom89 05:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Leon Minkus

Originally this article consisted of merely 2 or 3 lines, of which I expanded on a great deal to the present article, as well as moving it, etc. Of all of other articles available on wikipedia relating to ballet hisory and relating subjects I believe it is the most extensive thus far. This article offers information that one cannot find anywhere else on the web, or even in any encyclopedia, as well as the rarest feature - a complete list of works by this composer, as well as other little known details. I decided to compile from many sources of various studies on ballet history that I have in my posession, all of the sketchy details they present on the composer.

• Oppose Needs a thorough copyedit ("w/" is not an acceptable abbreviation in an FA), reference section needs sorting out. It is not "brilliant prose": bits like "Skalkovsky states, quote - "...Mr. Minkus..." sound like a conversation, not the written word. Batmanand | Talk 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• OK so how would it sound better, and what do you mean by "reference section needs sorting out" Mrlopez2681 17:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference section is badly formatted, and it is unclear what refers to what; as such inline citations would be a very good idea. Removing the ",quote -" from the above makes that better, but that was just indicative of the fact that the whole article needs a copyedit. Batmanand | Talk 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Needs inline references. Needs better structuring... almost the whole article exists under the "Life" section, with no subsections. Article consists primarily of long lists, which should be converted to brillian prose. Fieari 05:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• what subsections? What are inline refernces? What is worng with the whole article being under the life sction? Is the article not about the man's life??? And whats brillian prose? If anyone if going to say "this is not good or this needs to be fixed" it would be nice to hear specifics on HOW to fix it rathere than just merely stating that it needs top be fixed. Mrlopez2681 13:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• AGREE. I think the article is great. I myself am a musicologist and there is nowhere else on the web where one find such a wealth of information on Minkus. The article is very specific, and well written. I find it so funny that these same people who have objected have agreed to feature articel that toally suck! Tonitonitoni 13:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Subsections are the sections of text delineated by "==="; that is, sections below the larger headings. You can read about inline citations at WP:CITE and WP:FN, and they are absolutely necessary for any featured article. I do agree that it is a decent article, but without citations it cannot become featured. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 10 April 2006 @ 13:50 (UTC)

This is the user's only contributions so far. Batmanand | Talk 17:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• regarding anything else on the web for "further reading" there is nowhere else where one will get more information - look up the composer in a goolge search, youll find that there really is nothing except for a few bios, many of which are nowhere near as specific as this one, or which contain some incorect information. All of the sources I used are to be found in books. So should I say where statements are in these book are in the books?Mrlopez2681 14:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is a very nice article, though it doesn't meet FA standards. Here's what needs to be fixed:

• The article needs a good copy-edit. This has been said before, but you should preferably find someone else to look over the article and fix some of the rough spots in the writing. Not that the writing is bad, but there are areas that may be unclear as well as things that may be said in a better way. I have experience copy-editing articles and I'll be more than happy to work on this one, just let me know.
• The life section and possibly the music section needs to be further segmented. Take a look at this featured article and note how this composer's bio is broken up under sub-headings (Witold Lutosławski). The same should be done with Minkus.
• You have a large number of red wikilinks. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of finding the exact name that the article is listed under. If there is not an article, one should be started, even if it is a stub. All of these links help in the reader's understanding of the subject. In addition, a name should only be linked once in the entire article. Also, only link things that are vital to the article. For example in one paragraph, both violinist and violin are linked, only one really needs to be linked. Links should also be checked to make sure they are linking to correct article (see:Night and Day).
• You will need inline citations, in addition, the notes/resources list should be structured according to WP:CITE.
• There should be a different way of presenting his works. Perhaps in a table? The current format is simply not as easy to read.

This is indeed a good article, it just has some problems in presentation and formatting of the information. Should you wish me to help out (I have a decent knowledge of ballet as well as music), just leave a note here or on my talk page. Best wishes! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes Ganymead PLEASE do a copy edit! Make corrections! Regarding tables for Minkus' works, I myself dont like them, I havent seen any on Wikipedia that I think look ok, perhaps theres an alternative to the tables for the list of his works? All of the red wiki-links are that way due to the absence of an article, not mis spelling, etc. I will take up the matter, as I have good information on all of the sbbjects.Mrlopez2681 06:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've started working on the article. I have a number of questions on the article's talk page that need to be addressed. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

P. K. van der Byl

This article is modest in size and scope. But it offers a subtle insight into a significant issue in history - namely the decolonisation process in Africa. Bob BScar23625 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Not a work of academic distinction. But it is simple, readable, and makes a historical point. Bob BScar23625 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Refer to WP:PR - this is fine, as far as it goes, but I doubt it is comprehensive, and there are no references. See the criteria for featured articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details; note that "comprehensive" does not imply a minimum word count. I think the article is comprehensive, although concise. Bob BScar23625 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you, but I do know what "comprehensive" means (as defined in WIAFA). For example, who were his parents; where did he go to school; where did he serve in WWII; what did he do from 1945 to 1950 and from 1950 to 1962; what were his terms of office in the various ministries and what policy initiatives did he pursue; what did he do between 1982 and his death. Finally, you must add some references. If I was being picky, I would add that there are no inline citations, as far as I can see, even for the direct quotations. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments. As I am sure you are aware, his school, parents and war service details are given in the links in the article. But are you sure those are "major facts or details"?. Is the name of the school he went to fundamental to an understanding of the man and his career?. Bob BScar23625 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  I didn't know the man from Adam before having read the article, but it seems to me that his school could be important. He seems to been well known for having given the impression of being an upper-class Englishman, so it would be interesting to know whether he went to, say, Eton; equally, it would be interesting if he was educated somewhere less prestigious. I was not aware that details of his school, parents and war service details are given as links in the article - I have only read the article, not the links. If the details are so easily available, perhaps you would like to add them with a reference. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  The rewrite seems to have addressed my objection; however, as most of the text is so new, I still think it could do with a period of maturation on WP:PR. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Generally only one external link and pic and no references. Brandmeister 17:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Criterion 2a. BScar, I don't know what you mean by 'academic'; what we want here is good writing. I can see at least eight changes that need to be made in the first few sentences. Let me know if you want examples. Tony 01:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• In fairness to everyone I should say that last night I rewrote the article almost from scratch and it is now much longer than it was. I have not finished and will go back to add direct references. I would refer this article to peer review once this process is completed. To Tony, I would say that criterion 2a (beautiful prose) is a very difficult one to judge. One man's beautiful prose is another's nest of clichés. David | Talk 13:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not 'beautiful' prose that is required, but 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. This matter is not nearly as subjective as you're making out. The article should be 'stable' (Criterion 2e), and is clearly not. And it should go to PR before this room, not after. Tony 14:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - even more so Sorry chaps - I am the guilty party on submitting the article prematurely. David has done an excellent job on rewriting this since yesterday and I have added a point or two. PK is a key character in the history of the twentieth century, although few people have heard of him. Perhaps you would all be kind enough to take another look at it?. Bob BScar23625 14:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I love this guy. Nice work Bob! michael ^talk 02:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Michael. Yes, I don't think even Wilbur Smith could make up a guy like PK. Bob BScar23625 08:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object lead section needs to be at least two paragraphs - see WP:LEAD WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed. David | Talk 22:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Further comments just in case this academic vs. good writing thing has made Criterion 2a fuzzy. The writing is OK for a high-school essay, but not as a FA on WP. It's generally understandable, but more is required: plain, clear, correct English without redundancy. I've taken one whole section as an example, displayed below sentence by sentence. (BTW, the structure is a little choppy—too many stubby paragraphs and sections.)

"Van der Byl came to Rhodesia in 1950 in order to manage some of his family's tobacco farming interests, and to make his fortune." And remove the comma.

"He welcomed the move as it allowed him to indulge his hobby of big game hunting: in that year in Angola he set a world record for the biggest elephant shot; the, a record thatstood for many years." If you know that it was many years, why not tell us exactly how many?

The source did not specify. David | Talk 10:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"He entered politics via the Rhodesian Tobacco Association (of which he became a leading spokesman) and the Rhodesian Front." "Via" might be OK as a technical word in chemistry or engineering, but here, "through" or "through his association with" is required. Replace parentheses with commas, or better still: ""He entered politics by being a leading spokesman of the Rhodesian Tobacco Association and through his membership of the Rhodesian Front."

"PK was always elegantly dressed and coiffured. He spoke in with an upper-class English accent that was not his native way of speaking." The last eight words raise thorny issues; you could remove this and write simply: "... coiffured, and adopted an upper-class English accent." If "PK" was his nickname, quotes are required on its first appearance here.

"At the 1962 general election, van der Byl was elected comfortably to the Rhodesia House of Assembly for the Hartley constituency, a rural area to the south-west of Salisbury." Perfect.

The whole text needs surgery like this to satisfy 2a, I'm afraid. Tony 07:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're talking rubbish here. Your quibbles are just your personal prejudices for the type of English you prefer, not some objective assessment. David | Talk 10:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that rudeness to reveiwers is not what gets a FAC through. I won't say any more at this point. Tony 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I speak as I find, and this FAC is going to go to Peer Review anyway. I might object to lots of FAC nominations because they mis-spell words like "colour" and refer to people walking on something called the "sidewalk". David | Talk 11:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The objections seem somewhat petty and an insult to those who put effort into this article. michael ^talk 13:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Let me be 'petty' a little more, and 'insult' the contributors with objections to writing that is frankly far from 'compelling, even brilliant' (Criterion 2a). Far from indulging in 'personal prejudices', I'm concerned about precision, consistency, and standard practice, which all add up to ease of reading.

"PK" or 'PK'—consistency required.

"who strongly believed in an international communist conspiracy which was plotting to overthrow white rule"—fuzzy; try "... believed that an international communist conspiracy was ...". Can a conspiracy plot to do something?

"He inherited from his mother in 1983 a property described as 'the magnificent estate he had inherited"—clumsy repetition.

"The two were both members of White's Club"—hello?

The reference to his attractive young wife might make some readers (like ... 50% of them) gag with the typecasting of women. It's not encyclopedic language. (See Criterion 2d.)

I won't go on; the article has some good points, but it definitely does not "exemplify WP's very best work". I note that little attempt has been made to improve the prose since my first objection and that, instead, the contributors' response to my suggestions was belligerent. Tony 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• • We have guidelines about civility but not belligerence, so it's not a case of breaking any rules. You've still to substantiate your objection to the writing, which is just your personal prejudice about the style of English and really isn't something that can be taken into account. Yes, a conspiracy can plot to do something - that's the whole point of a conspiracy. What on earth do you mean by "—hello?" Is this supposed to be some form of objection? The point about van der Byl's wife is significant: after a lifetime of womanising he eventually marries a European Royal 30 years younger than him, which is highly relevant to his position. I don't know what your real objection is here because you bring up these nonsense points again. David | Talk 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You still have to substantiate your contention that my objections are 'personal prejudice about the style of English'. No, a conspiracy doesn't plot, people plot. "Hello" means that you shouldn't have to be told that 'The two were both' is tautological. Attractiveness is subjective, and in this context is inappropriate POV. My examples, here and above, amply exemplify poor writing, specifically, redundancy, repetition, and jumbled logic. It is significantly below FA standards. Tony 01:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I like the article, and it's been substantially improved since its nomination. But I agree with Tony; it wastes words throughout. Try following the six rules in Orwell's Politics and the English Language. Also, the preamble seems to stop partway; it doesn't cover Van der Byl's reaction to internal settlement or the aftermath. -- Avenue 09:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good article! 217.209.93.205 23:35 August 8, 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears

This article is about the NFL franchise, which is one of the original teams in the league. It is an interesting article that I had a hand in working on. It is already a Wikipedia Good Article and is well-written and cited. It also has daughter articles that provide details to the summaries placed on the main article. It is expanded enough to meet the requirements set by the NFL WikiProject. This nomination is a semi-self-nomination since I worked on it but not the only contributor. Thank you, read, and enjoy --Happyman22 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Too many red links, esp. near the end in the tables. Otherwise, nice article--Osbus 21:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How is "Too many red links" relevant? That is not listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It just doesn't look nice...and for newcomers to Wikipedia, it might be confusing for them to click on something and not have it appear...makes a bad impression. Of course, one or two is okay. -Osbus 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not going to oppose now since I'm not seeing anything seriously wrong, but the article is rather rough around the edges, isn't quite up to FA quality yet in my opinion. Examples:

• "the tragic story of Brian Piccolo" - doesn't attempt to explain the story or why it was tragic, kind of confusing to anyone not familiar with the subject. I know it goes into it in sufficient detail further down, but the first unexplained mention is early in the article.
• "After the firing of Mike Ditka at the end of the 1992 season, the Bears have been on a downward slide" Uncited POV claim, also they make the playoffs as a favorite to go to the SB in 2005. Apparently that downward slide stopped somewhat... but the paragraph makes it sounds like they're real bottom feeders still. The main problem is that it's drawing conclusions from raw facts twice in that paragraph, a FA no-no.
• "The Bears moved into Soldier Field in 1971 after Wrigley Field, which was the Bears' home field for 50 years, became too small to hold an NFL event" An FA shouldn't have parts that are likely to make a lot of readers go "Why is that? I'd like to know more about that..." but the article leaves them hanging. This part should say why Wrigley Field was too small. Another example is "perfected the T-formation system" - a paragraph about the system that never says what the system actually is.
• Probably should do a little bit more to establish notability to non-Americans, and non-US football fans. For example, mention "Superbowl Shuffle" more prominently, 1985 Bears role as probably the iconic team of the 1980s and presence in pop culture, etc. "The Bears in popular culture" section is a good start, but could be fleshed out a bit more to explain the actual signifigance.
• Had a lot of style mistakes (per MoS) and included some awkward sentences. Going by the "I'm not a great copy editor" rule of thumb, there are probably a lot more lurking still, though I did attempt to fix the ones I noticed.--W.marsh 04:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support, woot woot. Great article, great team, great prose, great article. Phoenix2 08:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Mostly fairly minor issues, I've changed a couple of particularly minor ones myself.

• Franchise history - The mention of the rivalry with the Green Bay Packers disrupts the flow of the section. It seems odd to go from an incident in 1989 to events in the 1940s. Is the rivalry notable enough to have its own subsection or article?
• Videotaping the "Super Bowl Shuffle" the day after a loss is perhaps unfortunate, but it is not irony.
• I presume the term "one-upped" in the phrase "The Packers have also one-upped the Bears from time to time over the years" is either an Americanism or American football parlance. Either way, to a non-American reader it means little. I assume it is something to do with one-upmanship.
• The phrase "A trip to the playoffs in 2005 season might have signaled hope that the Bears might turn around their ill fortunes." is POV, as is the phrase "Mercifully, this design lasted only one season" in the uniforms section.
• Stadium - "Some people viewed the remodeling as a mistake" is an example of weasel words.
• The use of abbreviations for positions in the list of Hall of Famers is confusing if, like me, you are unfamiliar with American football terminology.
• Retired numbers - "The Bears also rank third in all of professional sports in retired numbers behind the New York Yankees and Boston Celtics". Does this mean US professional sports or worldwide? A citation would be helpful.
• The Broadcasters section adds little encyclopedic value, and IMO should be removed. Oldelpaso 11:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I have linked the positions in the hall of fame section to help the non-American reader better understand the article. --Happyman22 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have reworded the history section so their is less of a POV, and I have nominated the article to be placed for Peer Review.

• The article has been edited to meet some of the requests made above and has been renominated for feature status

--Happyman22 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - There are serious image tagging issues with the article such as Image:Soldmain2.jpg and Image:Honeybears.jpg. You tagged the image as "The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it..." which contradicts the copyright information of the source you said you got it from. "This page may not be reproduced without permission from Stadiums of the NFL." Although, I don't have strong confidence they're the source of that particular image. Also, moving this page's discussion page to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive1 has screwed it up in the Featured articles candidates page. You should have started a new discussion. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 06:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Why was the edit-box blank when I hit 'edit'? Support with provisos ...
  • Numbers: it's cooler to spell out numbers less than 10, unless there's a good reason not to. However, at the top, there's a reason to do the reverse: "The Bears have played in over 1,000 games"—this would be easier to read as "a thousand games". I strongly recommend using an n dash rather than a hyphen for ranges; e.g., "14–16" rather then 14-16". Same for scores (73–0), and 1922–present, etc. Do a control-V on all of them—there are many, and it will improve the appearance.
  • "an agreement that was reached by Halas and Sternaman with Staley"—Do you mean "an agreement that was reached between Halas and Sternaman, and Staley" (it's the better of two awkward options).
• "newly-penned"—No hyphen after an -ly word.
  • Linked years: 2002 is a useful piped link to NFL in that year; but please delink the unpiped plain years as blue nuisances.
  • "down trend"—Do you mean "downward trend".

Could do with a quick run-through by a copy-editor. Tony 08:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson (attorney)

Very well written article, very comprehensive, well referenced, etc. I think this should be a featured article. Sasha Slutsker 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Article looks pretty good. Image:JT-bw-enhcontrast.png has issues, however. Probably should not be promoted with the only image lacking authorship and copyright-holder information. Suggest fixing by contacting subject of article or agent and requesting free-license picture. Jkelly 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Since the re-write, a much stronger article. The references make it hard to refute, yet it still shows just how much of a loon Thompson is. I think the article could use some better seperation of material (sub-section titles), but other than that, very well done. Jabrwock 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Jabrwock on all of his points, and strongly favor featured article status. --Maxamegalon2000 23:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am a bit concerned about this article. First, the only image it has is currently listed on Wikipedia:Fair use review. Second, it was recently protected under WP:OFFICE (although that should technically have no relevance to FAC). By the way, since the WP:OFFICE was initiated by the subject of the article himself, I am not sure he would be willing to do as Jkelly suggests and be willing to give a free-license picture. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Ah. Jkelly 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, with reservations. Given that this article is a target of vandalism, accusations by both sides of bias, and Jack Thompsons alleged paranoia and heavy-handed legal tactics, I rather not Wikipedia glorify such an unstable and mentally questionable person.--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not glorifying HIM, we are glorifying an article about him (which says all that he does, and says it well.) Also, vandalism isn't that much of a problem, and that might be a reason to not front page it, but it should still be featured, in my opinion. Sasha Slutsker 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Still not convinced, change to Opposed. I'm still weary of that idiot targeting Wikipedia for some unforseen legal action because of this. The way he twists his legal schooling would be a nightmare if he got wind of this. I'm sure he would consider such a nomination "harassment" or "libel."--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think that this article is very well sourced, though if it is featured it might have to be locked down since vandals would love to vandalize this page. --Benhiller 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• I notice that all the references still seem to be print sources, even though the guy has a lot of internet notoriety. Now, I'm personally of the opinion that print sources are not necessarily any more reliable than internet sources. Insisting on print sources (which may or may not also be available on the net) seems to me to reflect a stuffy old bias that isn't doing the article any good. I'm not saying include stuff from blogs and such, but websites of reasonable repute should be sufficient for some citations, which I presume would enable article expansion. This also makes it easy for the reader to access and verify the source. A second point: I recall that Jack Thompson specifically denied that the birthdate given is correct. Therefore this should surely be cited, shouldn't it? Everyking 06:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to, say, Gamespot or some other gaming site, it was decided by those higher up that such sites are biased against Jack and therefore not appropriate sources. A lot of people seem to disagree, but right now there's sort of an atmosphere of shrugging our shoulders and working around it. I'm happy with the results. --Maxamegalon2000 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, all right, if it's a question of bias I suppose that's acceptable. Everyking 19:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the references are not all print sources; you seem to have been fooled by the fact that they're all reputable sources, which is exactly what the restrictions were supposed to achieve. Perhaps you might reconsider whether your gut reactions actually coincide with the opinions you claim to hold.

Also, the reason he specifically denied that his birthdate in the article was correct is because at the time, it had been altered by a vandal and gone undetected. I'm not aware that he disputes the one currently given. --Michael Snow 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you mean by "whether your gut reactions actually coincide with the opinions you claim to hold". Everyking 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you gave an evaluation of the article based on a supposed insistence on print sources, and proceeded to wax eloquent about the "stuffy old bias" involved. This was apparently based on a negative gut reaction to the selection of sources. But in reality, the selection of sources involved a strong emphasis on reputability, a consideration you endorsed. One would think this would have given you a positive impression, but then perhaps you brought some misinformed preconceptions to your evaluation of the article. --Michael Snow 19:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The article itself is well-enough cited, and conforms to WP:NPOV. But it has a history, even a recent history, of both edit warring and outside legal threats by the subject of the article. It just feels too unstable to promote at this time. If the next six months see the page relatively unvandalized, and relatively stable, I'd support FAC nomination; but not just now. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The best way to insulate yorself from legal challenges is to make the article as balanced and well written as possible. If it ever came to Court, a judge would be scratching his head wondering how someone could be complaining after his article was given such a distinction. That would probably end up being the one thing needed to kick it out. Also, whether or not this makes Featured Article is one question; placement on the front page is quite another. I would also recommend that everyone keep to the script when evaluating and not single out subjects. Speculative legal threats are not featured article criteria and asserting someone is litigious can itself be deemed libel. Jtmichcock 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I ain't a lawyer, but I certainly am close enough to know that a judge is extremely unlikely to care one whit about FA status if evaluating a lawsuit (whether copyright, libel, COPA, or whatever). In any case, my objection is not any sort of legal advice: I simply do not feel that an article that has a recent history of substantial instability is a good FA candidate. This includes the WP:OFFICE freeze, blanking, rewriting, etc.; along with the actually existing recent legal threats against WP regarding the article (I made/make no claim about whether the subject is litigious: that sounds like too much amateur lawyering on your part, Jtmichcock, I'm afraid... take that in a collaborative spirit, not as a criticism). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, real and not an amateur. Experience litigating the issue too.Jtmichcock 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Which issue? (I listed three distinct ones, but that's hardly exhaustive). Still, it strikes me as enormously peculiar that an actual lawyer would claim that a judge would care about FA status for any of the issues. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Libel. That's the only "legal" issue I can see. In terms what the Court will look at, the care with which a particular matter was researched and the amount of effort put into the preparation are critical factors when evaluating whether there was the degree of malice required to sustain a libel suit by a public figure. Jtmichcock 18:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - If I threaten wikipedia with legal action, will I get an article about me featured too? --zippedmartin 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Given my personal involvement, I don't know if I should "vote" here, and in any case I'm not really ready to support it for featured article status. While it's no longer an embarrassment to Wikipedia and I'm pleased with its improvement, I'm not sure that I would necessarily describe it as exemplifying the "very best work" we have. I'm also sympathetic to the concern that featured status is premature, and that a longer track record of stability should be demonstrated in this case. --Michael Snow 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - For the following reasons:

1. Broward County is discussed but not introduced, try something like "Broward County, a county that banned As Nasty As They Wanna Be, ..."
2. "Institute for Creative Technologies, which was created by the Department of Defense to help overcome soldiers' inhibition to kill." gives the impression the institute was actually created by the Department of Defense to help overcome soldiers' inhibition to kill. Instead try "Institute for Creative Technologies, which Thompson claimed was created by the Department of Defense to help overcome soldiers' inhibition to kill."
3. The article doesn't explain why Thompson objected to Howard Stern's show.

Otherwise the article is pretty good. Cedars 01:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment These objections still remain unresolved. They are simple actionable objections — I strongly oppose the article being featured without them being addressed. Cedars 00:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Geo Storm

• First FA nomination

Since the image problems have been ironed out, I believe that it is now ready to be a featured article. --Karrmann

I don't think there's enough substance for it to be an FA.Osbus 02:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What things should be added to the article to make it more substantial; i.e. what would you recommend adding? Remember, objections should be specific enough for the issues to be fixed. Evenprime 04:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some of what Staxringold said, but I think (probably wrong, since I'm not an expert on cars) this is a rather narrow topic. Osbus 00:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose While I still feel my issues from the last FAC have been ironed out, this is far too fast to be re-nominating. In addition, it really could use more meat on its bones. I can't say what, but that isn't part of my opposition. Maybe Geo Storm's in pop culture, development/design process for the car, development/design process for what replaced it, etc, etc. Staxringold 22:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object; I think this article is quite comprehensive and well referenced. However, I'd like to see some sales statistics (something more substantial than "The Storm sold well and was popular with owners". Some car development information would be nice too, as Staxringold said. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

This article has been submitted before. Since it's last submission it has undergone several substantial rewrites. It is now a very thurough article on a very important film in animation history. --The_stuart 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Object Article does not have many references and inline citations, especially when needed, and has a great deal of weasel words. Some examples:

• "The lack of question mark in the title is allegedly due to a superstition that films with a question mark in the title do badly at the box office." -- Alleged by who? Also, a very awkward sentence.
• "While Who Framed Roger Rabbit is considered a modern film classic" -- By who?
• "The film's finale, during which its main characters are essentially tied to a rope waiting to be sprayed by a hose, was cited as being weak and unimaginative." -- Again, by who?
• "Disney allegedly nixed the idea, most likely believing the idea to be overkill" -- Is this opinion?
• "...and some animators and animation artists have cited the extra movement as unnecessary and distracting." and "Many film buffs label Jessica Rabbit a "Frankenstein" of film goddesses..." and "some people feel that the tone of the film deviates..." -- Another weasal word example, who are "some" animators or the "many" film buffs or "some" people?

And so on. Right now, the article has too many uncited opinions and allegations, weasel words, and facts which are without references.--Ataricodfish 05:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment-There are too many one-two sentence paragraphs and not enough transition. I also disagree with Ataricodfish's comment that the title should be changed to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. The movie's official title doesn't have a question mark on it. Osbus 17:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment When did I say that a question mark should be in the title? I was pointing out the weasal word in that sentence, that "allegedly" movies don't have question marks in it for profit reasons, when there's no source as to who alleges this. And the sentence is very awkwardly written, repeating the phrase "question mark in the title" twice in one short sentence. I stand by my objection.--Ataricodfish 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow...I can't read. Sorry 'bout that, sir (or Miss).Btw, I agree with you. -Osbus 01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Just thought I was doing something wrong there for a second when I read your comment. :) --Ataricodfish 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now. Needs a lot of references and inline citations, especially the "Critical reaction" and "Legacy" sections. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, for now as well. References, please! You can even provide footnotes with further information on things not affecting the understanding of the subject, like I've demonstrated. Also, it's missing some details, like the original name. -- user:zanimum

Potato

I feel its a very well written article, a lot of time and effort was put into it. --GorillazFanAdam 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Please expand the lead, as per both WP:LEAD and WP:WIAFA (the former requires 2 paragraph lead, the latter requires it be a brief overview of the article). The article also lacks inline citations (critera 2(c), generally which are presented in the form of WP:FOOTNOTEs. "Distribution" is very short and should be either expanded or merged into another section. Try to avoid using personal pronouns- example: The ancestor of our cultivated potato change the our to the. Finally, the years without full dates should not be linked, per WP:CONTEXT (I'll take care of that). For an example of a FA, see Black pepper. (This article will also benefit from being placed first on peer review) Thanks, AndyZ _t 01:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I'd like to see more paper references in an article about a universal topic. Also, the lead is far too short and the writing is rather poor in places. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

American Pie (song)

Awesome song. Everyone loves it. The information on this page is really good as well. —This unsigned comment was added by Ahummer (talk • contribs) .

• Oppose - This article is all about interpretations of the song. That's a good start (although it seems a bit overlong), but other important information to include is:
  • How it was critically received
  • What kind of a cultural impact it had
  • Any interesting details about the recording

Etc. For some really good FAs on songs see I Want To Hold Your Hand and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction. Also, it's a good idea to reference all quotes. Lastly, the system of referencing leaves something to be desired, and the lack of paper sources will likely be a big black mark agains this article. It's a good start, though - keep plugging away at it! The Disco King 06:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• • P.S. - What's up with the Madonna box at the bottom of the page? Seems kind of out-of-place. The Disco King 06:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I inserted it after merging American Pie (Madonna single) into the article. It does look weird, though. Extraordinary Machine 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Far too many quotes of the song's lyrics and other (most likely copyrighted) sources; this is a better candidate for Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Additionally, there's way too much material devoted to interpretation (creating an overwhelming table of contents) and not enough on any other aspects of the song, as The Disco King said above. Line after line of excessively long discussion of what a certain lyric may mean (without being supported by footnotes), and much of it borders on original research by the author, e.g. "It is possible that "the levee" also refers to the name of the bar in New Rochelle, New York (now known as the Beechmont Tavern) where McLean imagined he and and his friends mourned the death of Buddy Holly." None of the references support the information on Madonna's cover version, and the inline external links need to be turned into footnotes. Extraordinary Machine 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- article more closely resembles fansite page than encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research to begin. Jkelly 20:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. When I see a featured article, I shouldn't feel like I want to give it a major rewrite. I feel like I'd like to do that with this one. Carlo 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins

AS being one of my favorite movies, this article is well covered and covers all the facts of the movie between it and other "Batman" movies. This article is worthy of a FAC. --Bugs5382 20:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Support per being the nominator --Bugs5382 20:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose The Cast and Awards sections as lists are not so great, the trivia section really needs to go, and the references are generally thin. The article should probably go through Wikipedia:Peer Review before an FAC. Loved the movie. Staxringold 21:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Some reasons:

• "The movie also solidified Christopher Nolan's capability of directing a major blockbuster." and other POV claims are uncited. As said above, citations in general are scarce. Really should have had a peer review first.
• Trivia sections are rarely brilliant prose. Most of the disorganized blurbs there would work better in paragraphs and sections of their own. There really is a lack of prose overall, and I think breaking up the trivia section help this a lot.
• Lead could use some work, see WP:LEAD. --W.marsh 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Too recent for my tastes. Plus, I suggest that the Trivia section have additional references to more of the trivia when it can be mustered. --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - References are fairly scant. Plot summary is too long. Should be an overview only. Trivia section is also too long. Actually, trivia section should not exist. Wikipedia is not a repository for trivia, which by definition delves into greater detail than the thorough overview that an encyclopedic article should provide. Whatever can't be absorbed into the main article should be removed. Overall writing style is ok, but not great. (Peer review would be a good idea). IMDB vote figures in the image box should be removed. This figure is updated on IMDB - are you going to keep editing this article to keep it up to date? Images are not correctly tagged (don't use both the screenshot and the publicity photo tag for the same image as the image can not be both) and show no sources, and no fair use rationales. As such they are likely to be deleted at any time. Rossrs 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: In light of the objection to the trivia section, may I humbly point to my query in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive to further help in cleaning up that section? Some trivia could stay, as they do provide "behind the scences" info that can further enhance the article, yet don't have a place for them within the article elsewhere. I support the trivia section, but I do ask that suitable references be provided to be verified if so desired to "keep the trivia in check" to provide the good, from the "really speculative." --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion "trivia" = "trivial". I don't like the idea of something that is largely "trivial" being held up as Wikipedia's best work. Having said that, much of the "trivia" section is not trivial at all, and could easily be incorporated into the article. There are some good things in there, and their inclusion in the article would strengthen the article. Anything left over, should go. Also I just noticed this "In the movie, Dr. Crane declares Falcone hitman Zsasz insane as a favor for the mob boss. Rachel calls him on it and says Zsasz really isn't crazy. Ironically, the comics' version of Zsasz really is quite insane. He also appears in a quick cameo in Arkham Asylum, when the patients are escaping." This is trivia at its worst. "Rachel calls him on it..." is as far from encyclopedic as can be, "ironically" is used in the Alanis Morisette sense, rather than correctly. This is an example of fancruft masquerading as trivia and is exactly the type of thing that this article does not need. I maintain my view that we should be moving away from "trivia" sections as nonencyclopedic, and work on ways of enhancing articles and elevating Wikipedia's status as a quality resource material. There are numerous fansites on every aspect of popular culture, and they have their place - but Wikipedia should not be using them as a model. Rossrs 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose-Plot summary is too long, Reaction contains POV ('The film takes many liberties'), Trivia can either be dumped completely or incorporated into the main article. It needs a lot of work on the prose as it reads too "fannish" in sections.Logan1138 16:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Cast/Awards/trvia could be cleaned up. Reaction needs more sources. Cvene64 11:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, the trivia section needs to go.--Fallout boy 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

NeoPets

This is an excellent article on NeoPets, the virtual pet site. It offers comprehensive coverage on the activities available on NeoPets, and tidbits like the April Fool's section which can be expanded on. I am especially impressed with the Controversy section. I have made several minor contributions to this article. This is the first really impressive article I came across in Wikipedia. Even if it does not become a featured article, it should at least be a good article! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed nomination. AndyZ _t 16:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This is a very extensive article, but it's loaded with weasel words - after going through, I found numerous instances of "Some users believe...", "Some people think...", "Some dispute...", "Groups of people believe...", and so on. Perhaps a Peer review is in order first? Alexthe5th 06:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This is a really nice article, but it has a few problems that need to be addressed. The inline citations are pretty rough -- some are before the comma or period with a space, some not. Each inline citation should be after the punctuation mark with no space -- WP:CITE would be helpful reading for this. I also see a lot of statistical facts that need to be cited, and a lot of weasel words as the above poster already pointed out. It's really good work, but I also think a peer review would be helpful. Thanks! Air.dance 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it up for Peer Review and nominate it for Good Article then. Do you think it's good enough to be a Good Article? If there is any way I can improve the article, I'd be glad to know. By the way, I have been on NeoPets for a very long time, and many of the criticsms, despite having lots of weasel words, are accurate, and it is difficult to find citations except from NeoPets players, most of which would have been frozen if they conducted revolutionary activities. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's definitely good enough for GA once you take care of the citation formatting and work on the weasel words, and the folks over at GA can be really helpful as sort of a second peer review. I understand totally about not being able to dig up good, reputable cites for the weasle-wordish segments (am having this problem currently on my soon-to-be FA nom article), but I think the rule of thumb is either cite the statements or remove them. Also regarding cites -- another good rule of thumb is to cite any statement that has a direct figure in it. For example, this line should be cited:

"By May 2005, a Neopets-affiliated video game producer cited about 35 million unique users, 11 million unique IP addresses per month, and 4 billion web page views per month."

Etc, etc. All in all, though, you've done a really nice job so far. Keep plugging away at it, remember to keep it NPOV, cite statistics and figures, and I think it'll be FA worthy before too long. Air.dance 11:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object the lead section is for summarisation. There appears to be material introduced in detail in this section which is not in the body of the article. Before I could support this would need to be sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object In addition to POV and weasel words issues, I feel this article is too long and rambling in general - several sections could do with editing down of detail. Bwithh 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object A one-line "Cultural Reference" section, lovely. This should get the weasel words and citation sorted out and apply for GA. At the moment it's a blow-by-blow account of how not to kill your tamagotchi.. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Red Dwarf

Nomination. I've been a fan of Red Dwarf for a long time now, having watched many of the episodes several times. Not only is the Red Dwarf article well written, informative and comprehensive, it also contains all the relevant citations and is probably one of the most informative resources for somebody wishing to know about Red Dwarf on the net. I strongly suggest that this article becomes featured, and hopefully, others will agree. Schizmatic 22:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: unless they are in an area with an unusual title, I cannot locate any references, which are required as per what is a featured article guidelines. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object lack of in-line refs -M^ask 00:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix the citation troubles very soon. Schizmatic 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object list-weighty, lack of references, and no inline citations. AndyZ _t 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the lists branch off into another article, which breaks down the lists and describes them in more detail. The actual content is very good. Schizmatic 01:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - This article lacks in focus. The Scenario section is mostly about characters, who have their own section, which is actually just a link to another article. Similarly, the section about episodes is a link to a different article, but later, in the section "Talking Backwards," a whole episode is described without any real comment on why this episode has been singled out for description. There's no explicit discussion of fan reaction to the series. Esperonto words are listed under "Invented Words" (which they are, but not in the sense that the section is talking about), and there's a "Citation Needed" tag next to a claim made in that section (which is a questionable section to begin with; were invented words that significant in this series? Why?). I also question the use of the word "Series" to describe what I would call seasons of the show, although maybe that's a British term that I'm unfamiliar with. This article needs a big overhaul before it could be promoted; I'd suggest referring it to Peer Review. The Disco King 15:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reason you don't understand the word "series" is that you are American; it's no fault of the article. Please also note that we use words like "colour", and extend them with "-ise", not "-ize", and things like that. There are internet sites that may help explain some of the differences you're having trouble with.

• Object - This article seems to be somewhat fragmented and doesnt flow well, its also a touch too long, especially since there is a lack of references. The content is there it just need reorganising and tidying up. Second peer review suggestion. -- Lewis 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Critical Mass

Reason for nomination:

Critical Mass is a public event that is held internationally. Perhaps it would be beneficial to many who are not aware of the event.

Possible benfits :

- Encourage people to exercise more.
- Be a part of something.
- Social engagement.
- Promote environmentally friendly attitude. 
- Help bring a common event to all people of the world.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklipse2005 (talk • contribs)

• Object - Needs a written expansion and more citations at the moment. Schizmatic 23:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Did you even read the featured article guidelines? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please try to be civil and not bite the newcomers. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 00:11 (UTC)
    • I'll be honest, I read the guidelines, and I genuinely did not beleive that this article met the criteria for selction. I thought I would be able to post the article somehwere and gain some attention as to help its refinement. If anyone has any objections, I will remove my nomination.
    • Whoops, it seems that most of my message was cut off for some reason. I apologise if that got misinterpreted to something else. Anyway, what I meant to say was that the purpose of a featured article is not to inform how the subject is "beneficial to many who are not aware of the event". The primary purpose of a FA is to mark which articles are well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, properly cited, and written so that it follows our Manual of style. Currently, the Critical Mass article lacks any citiations or references. A proper lead section also needs to be developed. And it should properly address where these events commonly take place. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This looks like a fun article and what text it does contain is nicely written. However, it lacks any references or inline citations, and the layout could use some work -- there's some bad spacing between section headers and subheaders, and I think picture placement could be tweaked a bit to give it a better flow. It also doesn't seem very comprehensive for what looks like a pretty popular event. Thanks! Air.dance 08:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Digital rights management

Nomination An informative, comprehensive, & timely article. Noclip 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Prose is impossibly dense, no references, bizarre and unintuitive structure. Suggest you take the article to Wikipedia:Peer review. --zippedmartin 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Wow, this is heavy stuff - I'd say it's almost unreadably dense. I'm sure there a lot of excellent content in this article, but it cries out for a peer review to make this more readable and for conformance to the FA standards. I agree with the above comment that the structure is bizarre and very difficult to follow; in my opinion, the entire article's organization should be completely reworked. --Alexthe5th 01:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It clearly needs to be featured, and soon-ish, but it doesn't place the controversy center stage (see zippedmartin's bizarre and unintuitive structure comment). It must considerably elevate the promenence of the controversy, and move the technical information lower down in the article. If necissary, much technical information can be split off into seperate articles, but I've got no specific recommendations there. JeffBurdges 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Refer to Peer review. — Matt Crypto 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The underlying subject is so convoluted and contentious and twisted for various reasons that I think no article that fairly reflected the subject matter could reach FA standards. A glance at the talk page shows a long history of complaint of bias, without much joy on either side. Nevertheless, Noclip's point is well taken. this article is a good coverage of a very messy topic. Just not FA clarity and spit and polich. ww 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. One of the FA criteria is supposed to be "stability." This subject is sufficiently contentious that to date it has not been possible to reach a stable state. I haven't been following this closely; I've edited the page from time to time and am thus an interested party. I see that the opening paragraph, where you'd most hope for stability, has changed quite a bit in the last few months, and in fact, in my opinion, has degenerated into incomprehensible gobblegook. The reality of the situation is that the established, accepted name projects a highly non-neutral point of view (much as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" do). This shouldn't make it impossible to write a good, neutral, stable article, but it does make it difficult, and this article has not managed to surmount the difficulties. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Glastonbury Festival

The festival is an important bit of British culture and the article reflects this well i think. Worthy (if you excuse the pun) of FA status.Logan1138 17:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object for the moment, article is rather on the light side. Too much of the content is in the ==Glastonbury over time== section, which wrongly emphasises the recent festivals. Also, makes no mention of the other Pilton Festival. --zippedmartin 22:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object as per Zipped. Schizmatic 23:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment-Thanks, your comments have confirmed a few things which i was considering doing (reducing recent festivals for example) so i'll crack on with sorting this out.Logan1138 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment-I've combined the recent sections, i intend to see what else can be trimmed ( a seperate lineup page can easily be done, as much of it was lineup details) and hopefully it can then meet FA standards.Logan1138 20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It needs more on the pre-1990s era and the non-music aspect of the festival before it's really comprehensive. I might be able to fill in some of this when I get time, though not in the immediate future. It would probably also benefit from a peer review, too.--Cherry blossom tree 23:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Illinois Institute of Technology

This article is well written, and contains references for all data and material contained within. All and all it's an excellent article that pretty much goes into detail to the extent possible to explain this institution. Chuck 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This is a nicely written article, but it's a little heavy on lists (maybe consider splitting off alumni into a list and making the faculty a good prose paragraph) and very light on references. Only one inline cite for a 23.4 KB article? All of the figures under the "Today" section beg for inlines, and I think some information about the student body demographics would be fitting. The pictures could also do with a bit of changing around to give the article a more pleasing flow, particularly the one closest to the infobox. Michigan State University could perhaps be helpful as an example to those working on this article. Thanks! Air.dance 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Both too heavy on lists and nowhere near enough refs. Staxringold 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above and lack of peer review. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This is somewhere in the range of "OK" to "good," but it's not terribly interesting to read--history section is the best. As others have noted, it is heavy on lists, light on references, and, like virtually all of our college and university articles, suffers from academic boosterism, in this case relatively mild but diagnosable ("IIT bills itself as one of the safest campuses in the city. The university maintains its own public safety force, which roams the campus in clearly-marked Chevrolet Impalas. Any call to Public Safety can be responded to in under 60 seconds..." "Today, Illinois Institute of Technology is experiencing a resurgance both nationally and in the Chicagoland area...." "plans are to reach 2,500 by 2010, as estimate that is looking increasingly conservative..." "Stuart Graduate School of Business, though low on students, boasts the 11th ranked Finance/Financial Markets program in the world." Well, there you have it. There shouldn't be explicit "boasting," billed as such, in a featured article. Not everyone will agree with me on this, but: I don't see much color or personality or campus culture here. What are IIT students like? Shouldn't a college article have something in it to raise a smile? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  There's very little color or personality at IIT. Discussing what IIT students are like certainly would not raise a smile, as very few IIT students ever raise smiles. I suppose at least we share some comradery in being overworked, typically unhappy, and surely left wishing for any kind of normal college social life. --User:iitstudent

  To be fair, the blurb about public safety is the only explicitly referenced bundle of sentences in the entire article. (I should know; I wrote it, and moreover tried to stick to the facts. :P) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points. One of the hard things about IIT, as I've mentioned on the talk page is that very, very few references exist. Nearly everything found is circular at one point or another back to the university's archives. The facts and figures can be referenced to the university's website, but other than that, most if not all the information is first- or second-person knowledge, especially the history section. Once a few publications get out I might be able to reference myself to back up my own writings, but that's a little odd. Anyway, beyond the reference issue, I think we definitely have a clear direction to move in. There could definitely be more done to address the campus life and students, and I disagree with the above iitstudent that there is little but negatives to highlight. -Duncanr 03:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Konnan

(The first nomination, from January)

The first nomination of this article was rejected primarily on the basis of the absence of in-text reference and the excessive number of sections. The number of sections has now been decreased and the article has been comprehensively referenced. The article has undergone a peer review; I believe all of the suggestions raised therein have been implemented. McPhail 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Object It is well-referenced, but those references are exclusively internet sites. It'd be better if you had more published sources. Also needs a copyedit (what's "$1,3000"?)UberCryxic 00:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment- Have you edited this? There are some mistakes. For example, In addition, he also wrestled for major American promotions such as the World Wrestling Federation, Extreme Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling and, currently, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Konnan currently wrestled Total Nonstop Action Wrestling? Also, although red links are not FA criteria, it's better not to have them. Cut out the very's. -Osbus 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Way too many of the references are to first-person interviews with the subject or the subject's online biographies. Too close to original research. -- Gnetwerker 05:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't the purpose of WP:NOR to exclude using Wikipedia as a primary source (ie. presenting data you yourself created/collected), as well as to exclude using Wikipedia to introduce new theories/terms, proving thesis statements? --maclean25 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should have cited WP:RS and/or WP:AUTO, which suggest that the subject is not a reliable source in a biography. -- Gnetwerker 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Chesham

(Self-nomination) I think this would make a good featured article. It has lots of detail, applicable pictures, is fairly clearly written, comprehensive and relatively stable. JoeBaldwin 00:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Object. You might want to have a look at the featured article criteria and check some things. First, there is no reference section at all and FA criteria requires inline citations. I'd also move the graphic at the bottom to a better position. The stub tag is still on the article and shouldn't be. Business, Industry, and Transport seems subsectioned to death -- might want to strike some of those. Also, some of the lists should be turned into prose, particularly the one under bus. It's a very nice start, but I think it has quite a bit to go before being ready for FA. It also needs a peer review to help work on the actual writing. Chetwynd, British Columbia may be helpful reading for those working on this article. Thanks! Air.dance 02:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Object. Needs to go to peer review, be referenced and have citations. Some things that would have been raised in a peer review: History section very short; geography only a single sentence about the river. Need sections on local politics; newsworthy events over the years. Demographics should have ethnic and religious breakdowns and age profiles. What percentage of the people living in the town were born there? Is there a movement to move the airstack elsewhere due to noise complaints? The section at the end of Recreation about youths causing trouble (if this is important to keep) could easily be cited from local newspaper reports or politicians' statements. For reference and ideas on expansion, a trip to the local library (I assume you're from the town) should pay dividends. Amazon listed about 12 books with Chesham; the British Library lists 91. (Not all will be relevant). But have a look at the town and city articles that have been featured (as suggested above, plus Sheffield) to see how it works. I hope this is useful. --BillC 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

New York City

I noticed New York City is already at featured level. It's quite good,It's complete and fully comprehensive.--Whoshiwoo 09:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Although there are a decent number of refs, large sections such as "Tourism and recreation" are completely unsourced. Staxringold 14:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wow, I love the way that article is set out and its images are great. But as above, it may need some more references here and there. But yeah, great article! Cvene64 14:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a very good article, but there are still dozens of unsupported assertions that require citation - in the environment paragraph alone:

"the city has the highest [mass transit] usage rate in the United States."

Gasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s.<ref>Jervey, Ben. "The Big Green Apple: Your Guide to Eco-Friendly Living in New York City." See ''Metro New York'' article:[http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/A_guide_for_perplexed_wouldbe_ecofriends/730.html]</ref> This ref doesn't support that statement.

New York has the largest hybrid bus fleet in the country,

City planners...have introduced experimental underwater turbines in the East River to take advantage of tidal currents.

The city is also a leader in energy-efficient "green" office buildings

Some parts of the city are at risk if global warming persists and sea levels rise. Kaisershatner 17:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, per above. Also the "see also" sections throughout the article should not be formatted as headings -- they clog the table of contents. Please just bold them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Such minor gripes—it is an excellent article in its own right, and is also sufficiently referenced (definitely on par with the likes of Louisville, Kentucky and Marshall, Texas [the latter of which has only three non-inline references]). It is also leaps and bounds above what it looked like when it was previously nominated. (And for the record, when creating an FAC entry for an article that has had a previous unsuccessful nomination, you create an archive for the original [SaidArticle/archive 1] and go from there). --DanielNuyu 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Of course there's problems in such a giant article, look at the history, it gets edited every day. It would be impossible to have complete references for every section simply because there's people changing it every day. I think it's unfair to compare this article to one that has been meticulously researched be a small number of people.Calibas 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The reference section and bibliography is too short for NYC, alas. Brand 12:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- massive article. Sections need to be written in summary style to begin with. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Cædmon

I am nominating this article, which I am largely responsible for, because a couple of people on the talk page recommended it be nominated. It seems to fit all the requirements: referenced, current, comprehensive, and, they say, well-written. At least one other page has been rolled into it.

It has also been very stable for the last six months orhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/C%C3%A6dmon&action=edit&section=1 so. —This unsigned comment was added by Daniel.odonnell (talk • contribs) .

• Abstain. Needs to have refernces converted to inline citations, something should be done about the lists that appear at the end of the article. RyanGerbil10 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean about the inline citations: the references are inline, and author date. The actual bibliographic references need their dates moved forward, but otherwise they are straight chicago, as discussed in the citation page.
    • I've done more research on this, and as far as I can see, the answer should probably be de gustibus: personally I find footnote references appalling--and they are completely non-standard in the fields to which this article pertains: MLA depreciates footnotes, and a Chicago-ish author-year method is very common in the field. Coming from a family of physicists and working upstairs from a history department, I realise others use other styles, but as I understand the arbitration decisions on style, this is a case where live and let live is the rule. Despite my objections to the style, I've implemented it.
  • As for the list (I only see one), I suppose it depends on whether the manuscript names and details are considered important. Moved it to a footnote.
• Abstain Support. While it's a much better article than average, to be of the same level as current FA's, it needs additional work. The lead section should be three paragraphs. The footnotes probably should follow the in-line format (Wikipedia:Footnote), or possibly Wikipedia:Footnote3. Are there more external links of value? There are quite a few things without wikilinks that could have them. The manuscripts should be wiki-linked -- there is a standard format for the naming of manuscripts see Manuscript names (check with User:Dsmdgold if you need help he's the resident Wikipedia manuscript expert). -- Stbalbach 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Footnotes: done.
  • The manuscript names are in the standard format:
  • Three paragraph intro done.
  • External links: not really. Most I've seen are tertiary discussions (and a new google search suggests not much has changed). There are no websites comparable in content to print sources on this topic as far as I can see.

Ok thanks for the updates. I've made a couple additions for your review that hopefully are not incorrect. I think it's almost there, I concur with Durova below that the lead section needs to be filled out. According to the Manual of Style, the lead section should be a miniature version of the article in summary format, so that it would be possible to copy the lead into another article and have it stand-alone as a complete version of the article, in summary format. It should speak to the general reader who has no background, providing context and significance of Bede and the Hymn for the average person. Then if the readers wants to learn more they can drill down into the article. But I'm hesitant to write a fluffy generalization since this topic seems to have a lot of dispute (was it the only poem, was it the oldest poem) -- what can we say about Bede's significance for the average person? -- Stbalbach 17:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the proposed edits--Caedmon has served so often as a tabula rasa for modern interests, I've made a point of not going beyond what Bede (our only source) tells us (e.g. herdsman vs. cow herdsman). I've also tried expanding and making the beginning more user friendly. As far as I can tell it does now cover the entire content of the article.

Object Much improved; v. good article Tony 07:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC) , but I'll strike out when the prose is made kinder to the readers. In particular, there's a tendency towards overly long, complicated sentences. In some places, this is worsened by spelling out the references in-line, rather than using numbers. Needs a run-through by someone else to clear up a few remaining problems in the prose.

"Several scholars have suggested on the basis of this etymology, Hild’s close contact with Celtic political and religious hierarchies, and some (not very close) analogues to the Hymn in Old Irish poetry that Cædmon himself may have been bilingual (see in particular Ireland 1986, p. 238 and Schwab 1972, p. 48)."

It's a long, winding sentence; can it be simplified/split? If you give references at the end of it, why tell us that "Several scholars have suggested"? (Start the sentence with "On the basis of ..." or perhaps "Etymology suggests that ...").

"... an event dated in the E text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to 679 but after 681 by Bede." If there are two datings here, a comma after "679" would make it clearer.

"tested his gift by giving him"—undesirable repetition.

Consider using n dashes for page ranges—IMV, it's much more stylish, although others may disagree: e.g., "pp. 120-127 and 178-180" could be "pp. 120–27 and 178–80".

Please put the FAC notice on the discussion page, not the article page.

Apart from these issues, it's an excellent article. Tony 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object, primarily on the basis supplied by Tony1. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object (leaning toward weak support) The very scholarly nature of this article seems to be raising the citation standards above what applies to other FACs. I agree the article needs a fuller introduction. More background would help the general reader. I gather that Cædmon lived in a double monastery under the direction of an abbess. It asks too much of the average person to presume that level of background knowledge in the early paragraphs. While parts of this article cannot be accessible to nonspecialists, the biography should be easy to understand. Durova 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support—I love this article. Everyking 05:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It seems sufficiently referenced to me, the lead is appropriately sized... if the objections above were previously valid, I do not believe they are anymore. Fieari 19:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object: I object to two aspects of the structure of the article. One, it has an awful lot of one-paragraph subsections. Basically, this makes it read more like an outline or Powerpoint presentation than an encyclopedia article. The paragraph is a unit of structure and so is the (sub) section; they should fill disjoint roles. Two, I don't like the organization of the article by source . This is essentially a biographical article, and it should treat his life as the central topic. As it stands, it feels a lot more like the article is about the sources referring to Cædmon, rather than about Cædmon himself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Life would be wonderful if important figures came with multiple, undisputed sources of information. As it stands, there is one source for Caedmon's life, Bede. There has been lots of speculation about sources and analogues, to the point that a commonly repeated canard is that there are many analogues in world literature, even though it has been known since the 1970s that this is not true. So, we have a major poet--it is hard to be more major than first attested and mentioned in pretty much every anthology--who is known from one source only, but whose story is often said to be a folk-myth. Since what we know about Caedmon's life is central *to* his life, it doesn't seem unreasonable to discuss the evidence (the source we have thinks he learned to compose as the result of a miracle). Of course, it would be much easier to write a biography of Jim Morrison: but the problem with dealing with very earlier poets like Caedmon is that they are half-myth and attested by a limited number of sources. Sometimes that's interesting too. 209.107.97.72 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object. The content seems nice, although I would like to see more extracts and quotes of original sources- but the real killer for me is the atrocious formatting. I mean, "Works Cited"? A full line between each reference? And a single External Link? Is that for real? Is Caedmon really such a non-entity on the Internet? &etc. --maru (talk) contribs 06:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, external links should be to secondary or primary material. If that is the criteria, then yes: there is nothing of use on the net. There is tons repeating the information in this article in less cited and/or less up-to-date ways, and there must be thousands of copies of one or more versions of the Hymn. But there is basically no real original research. That's the problem with a poet who's known from a single short source but is taught in every intro to poetry class.

Since there is only one original source, I'm kind of puzzled about what options there are for more... especially since we apparently don't like a works cited list. Should we make some sources up? Should we just ignore the problem of the evidence because it reads better to be sure of the validity of what we know regardless of whether that is true or not? Sometimes, encyclopedias need to address what they don't know.

209.107.97.72 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not ready to vote yet, but I wanted to take the temperature a little bit here. Of course I love the account in Bede and the poem -- both are masterpieces in their genres -- but the article has some stretch marks just now from reaching just a bit beyond its grasp. Also, there are some syntactic knots, possibly caused by too many hands in the pie or excessive revision, where pronoun reference and verb objects are not direct or clear. In the section on sources and analogs, for example, most of the discussion is of a search for analogs rather than sources and yet the phrasing could leave an inexperienced reader suspecting that all of those accounts were candidates for source. Obviously, the original author did not mean to suggest such a thing. I very much want to see Caedmon receive an FA, but I'm not comfortable with this attempt at this time yet. Geogre 17:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object IMO, there should be no citation references in the lead section as the lead section is only a brief summary of the main salient points of the article. This means that all sourced information in the lead section should actually be in the main body of the article. I am also confused by the following sentence:

"The abbess ordered her scholars to teach Cædmon sacred history and doctrine, which, after a night of thought, Cædmon would turn into the most beautiful verse."

Does this mean that Caedmon actually turned sacred history and doctrine into "most beautiful verse" (if so this is POV!!) or does this mean that this was what Caedmon was meant to do after a night of thought?

Since " ... which, after a night of thought, Cædmon would turn into the most beautiful verse" is a description of what Bede wrote about Cædmon, I do not believe it constitutes a POV problem according to Wiki standards. Polaris999 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The line about the most beautiful verse is a paraphrase of what Bede tells us. Most modern people don't think the poem is all that great. It is important that this view be represented though: Bede's account is the only example of evaluative criticism of a surviving Old English poem.209.107.97.72 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also concerned about the sentence "subsequent research has, perhaps ironically, instead ended up demonstrating the uniqueness of Bede’s version" - perhaps ironically is expressing a POV, which is against NPOV.

I do agree with Ta bu shi da yu's reservations about "perhaps ironically". Couldn't this sentence be improved? Polaris999 22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the sentence, I'd have said the PoV is if anything the premise: presumably the people who tried to show this don't think they demonstrated the opposite--however, subsequent research has made a strong case that they failed to show what they thought they did (I hasten to add that this is not real PoV in the wiki sense, since all scholarship ultimately involves dischronic disagreement about the meaning of evidence). If you accept the premise, however, then it is not PoV to say it is ironic that scholarship aimed at showing how commonplace the story is actually demonstrated the opposite.209.107.97.72 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Other than this, great article! I'll support if these issues can be resolved. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Santa Anita Park

I am self nominating this article although the foundation was not done by me. I feel that while this article may have some shortcomings with suggestions and some changes it certainly merits featured article status.

--Loucards 21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• The list in the middle is bit tedious. Is there a way to convert that into actual writing? Osbus 00:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lead too short, no references. Batmanand | Talk 15:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Note that there are some inline references, though they're certainly not extensive. Featured articles call for "brilliant prose," which usually doesn't entail a list. The history section is mostly well-written, but seems to form almost the entirety of the article, save for a list. Expand the lead, and convert that list to some good information about racing today at the park. Best of luck! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Santaanita.gif has no source or copyright information. If it's not under a free license, then it can't be used in Wikipedia, since it's quite possibe for someone to make a free-license replacement. --Carnildo 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• I have addressed the concerns and have converted the lists of races into paragraph form. I have also expanded the lead. I am currently seeking permission from the Daily Racing Form to use the image and I have all reason to believe that permission will be granted. For the time being I will remove the image from the article. Thanks for your suggestions. --216.24.38.83 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the list in paragraph form is better, it makes it more comprehensible. But I am almost blinded w/red links, which don't tend to be good in FA's. =Osbus 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lost (TV series)

Great show. I think it's time.- JustPhil 23:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Better than I expected... but the intro could use some attention, see Wikipedia:Lead section. Again, as with many TV articles, what does this really do for people who aren't fans (or aren't fans yet)? This is better than the last few though... but it would be nice to read more than 1/5 of the article before getting hit with cast lists, spoiler sections, etc. that are of minimal to no interest to non-fans. Seems to be well-referenced, though I personally don't think plucking violin strings constitutes something "highly inventive"! --W.marsh 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: as far as I am aware, the article wasn't intended/expected to be nominated for featured status yet; the editors there have previously made an improvement drive through a peer review of the article, and would likely have requested another review prior to nomination. —Leflyman^Talk 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. No screenshots. Brand 17:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware of, I don't believe images are required to have an article promoted to featured status; they simply illustrate the text visually. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that the FA guidelines require that a Featured Article have images where appropriate. For an article about a TV show, images are very much appropriate. It's subjects for which illustration is of little use (such as Psychosis, Libertarianism, etc.) that don't need pictures. Andrew Levine 22:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Due to the amount of content already there, screenshots have up to now been reserved, where appropriate, for the extensive separate articles on characters, episodes and organisations on the show, such as The DHARMA Initiative. They would not be appropriate to the main article text, which deals with the context and background of the series. —Leflyman^Talk 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In this case, I suppose that you are correct. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Although a well referenced and well written article, it's not very enecylopedic for anyone who has never seen the show (and it's possible, since I've never seen an episode). If you delete the character and show theories, there's not much to the article. It should have something on the making of the show, the development, how it was sold to ABC, were they expecting a hit from this, critical views, and competition. ABC took a huge gamble with the show, as it was considered a has-been network until this and Desperate Housewives turned it into the number one station -- some research into the show's importance for the network should be there. Finally, a comment, in that it's probably much too soon for a FA on this topic, as it's still tynically a "current event" with it still being on the air and early in the show's ever changing storyline. However, that's just my opinion, and other editors might feel differently on this as I don't believe it's FAC criteria.--Ataricodfish 19:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. My vote is based on the same grounds as Ataricodfish. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Main reason is because Lost is such a clear-cut commercial venture by being written as a never-ending cliffhanger to a degree that I've never seen in a TV-series before. It's quite obvious that it will go on for as long as ABC gets the ratings it wants and it's not even in its third season, so I'd say it's still in its infancy. And, like pointed out by Atari, the article content is not too encyclopedic. It's downright crufty at times and there's rather spurious fan speculation about the possible outcome of the series that I wouldn't find acceptable in any article about fiction. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• As required by the Featured article candidates procedure, objections "must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Please detail the particular "spurious fan speculation about possible outcomes" in the article— the article has intentionally excluded any outcomes. As Lost is a series that engenders rampant theorisation, from both fans and television critics, there is a short section of "discredited theories" which takes on the issue of speculation by specifying those concepts which have been verifiably dismissed by the series writers and creators. This section includes a commented-out notice for editors: "The ONLY theories to be included in this section are those specifically REFUTED by the show's creators/writers. ALL unsourced theories will be removed, as Original Research." —Leflyman^Talk 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fan theories that have been outright dismissed by the writers strikes me as trivia(l). That a fact can be asserted doesn't mean it should always be included in one of our articles, least of all an FA. Fans are not notable and neither are most of their speculations. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that in this case you are incorrect; due to the mystery-oriented nature of the show, "water cooler" speculation that surrounds Lost is highly notable. Countless television critics and verifiable publications have written on the topic. See, for example:
  • Contra Costa Times: "TV critic losing himself to 'Lost'";
  • Entertainment Weekly; "Towards a unified theory of Lost"
  • New Yorker: "it has become a strong presence on the Internet among nerdy gamers and those who like to weave conspiracy theories and sift through clues in TV-show plots in their free time."

However, to make sure that the article deals only in verifiable information, the section is not merely "fan theories" per se but specific concepts that the writers/creators have said the show is not about. You bring up an interesting point that I've wrestled with: how to delineating just what should constitute "trivia" in fan-oriented articles. If you're interested, I'd be pleased to have your input on my slow-going proposed addition to What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a fan site"—Leflyman^Talk 19:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. It is a good article for the fans but not one to be featured. IMO, featured articles should be 100% encyclopedic. In this case, the Lost article skews a certain degree from what WP's articles should be as it is itself OR and in reality has very few encyclopedic content.Phoebus^{γράψε μου κάτι} 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Could you give some examples on what can be changed to make it more encyclopedic? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• I believe Ataricodfish has already stated enough examples. Eventhough I find the article very rewarding to read since I am a dedicated Lost fan, it is not encyclopedic or to be more exact, it's not how WP expects the articles to be written. The episode caps for instances are 100% OR. I for one, don't care at all about WP's rules since they're just rules which sometimes should be bent if not broken in order to have the information available. My opinion is that the featured article should be one that has encyclopedic content first and foremost, and secondly about a topic that other commercial encyclopedias have few or no information at all. That would show the advantage of the WP as a project.Phoebus^{γράψε μου κάτι} 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bear community

I think this article is a very fascinating, well written article about something the general public would find fascinating. I'd like to see an article be featured that isn't quite so serious and intense. Pacian 16:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is very short, and what content is there is primarily in list form. No references at all. This article is not Wikipedia's best work. bcasterline t 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose – Please go through WP:WIAFA. The article lacks references, is mostly in lists, and has a .gif image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. per above. I don't mind have a less serious topic for a featured article, but I don't think this article is an example of the best of Wikipedia. :/ --Syrthiss 18:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not a good article and even if it was I don't think it would be appropriate to feature it. —This unsigned comment was added by Drnknsooner (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment: Appropriateness is not a criteria. Any and all articles can become featured.--Fallout boy 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The first line of the article declares that it is a stub. Stubs cannot be FAs. Batmanand | Talk 01:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Then oppose because it is not exhaustive enough, and becuse of the lack of reference. Batmanand | Talk 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to undercut you or anything but I've removed the stub tag... it was misplaced and not really appropriate anyway. --W.marsh 04:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too much of the content comprises lists and it is rather short. Brisvegas 09:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article contains relatively little factual content, and consists mainly of lists. Additionally, there is a defined lack of references. --NEMT 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per almost all comments above. I don't mind this topic becoming a featured article (articles about rarely-exposed subcultures probably would be very popular with the general public), but this definitely isn't up to FA status. The content definitely has to be beefed up, with a lot less emphasis on the lists; more references and citations need to be added; there's plenty of work required.Alexthe5th 12:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way too many weasels, not comprehensive and lacks references. Mikker ^(...) 00:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No references, too short, and slightly fails NPOV. Needs a re-write too. Wouldn't make WP:GA so why should it make FA? Recommend Peer Review. -DMurphy 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per most of the above comments. Also, after reading this article, it seems to be somewhat inaccurately named. It's not really about the bear community; it's more about bears. The Disco King 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

This looks like a great, well-referenced article. It failed a previous nomination, but since I can't find the discussion, we can assume that all of the problems have since been fixed. Captain Jackson 07:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object I'm afraid:
  • More references are needed. There are whole sections which don't have a single one (including About the indicator and The preferences).
  • Historical development section starts off in past tense and then changes to the present tense (need to change to the past tense). It also needs to be clearer how Briggs was influenced by Jung and probably needs expanding (what's happened since 1956?).
  • In the preferences section the Judging and Perceiving bullet points are confusing and contradictory.
  • Descriptions of the function-attitudes too long, unreferenced and reads like it's been taken out of the manual.
  • Criticisms and Skeptical view section largely unreferenced.

--G Rutter 09:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Brisvegas 09:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is woefully lacking on the extensive scientific criticism of the MBTI. Jokestress 18:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I resorted some of the article, but there are a few points:

1. You use the term extroversion and extraversion alternatively; although both may be technically correct spelling-wise, to help the readers understand you should use "extroversion" throughout since that's the more common term (leaving in the sentence you have explaining that "extraversion' came first).

2. When citing in footnotes, you need to specify the page or pages of the volume; citing just the book is confusing.

• Disagree to the point about extraversion vs. extroversion. Extraversion is the term more often used in association with MBTI and with the Jung typology, not extroversion. However, I still oppose the feature article as it needs peer review and more sources. --Shawn 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a good start but, as indicated above, grammar and organization corrections are necessary and Peer Review would be a good place to start. Jtmichcock 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Pete & Pete

This show is probably one of the most unique and fondly remembered shows of the 1990's. A quick google search of it shows just how large a following it has. There is a lot to be written about it, from its quirky story lines to its awesome music, and I think making it a featured article would be really great. —This unsigned comment was added by Ahummer (talk • contribs) .

• object Evaluating a featured article is about the quality of the actual article, not how much we like or dislike its subject. This article looks okay I guess, but is not FA quality. Among other things, there are no references at all, let alone inline citations. Pretty glaring problem right there. It only has only one image, and that is of unclear copyright status. Certainly could be more for an FA on this topic. There's not much in the way of brilliant prose, or actual prose at all really. The "setting" section is the most fleshed out, mostly this is just a compillation of episodes, characters and guest stars... what does this really tell someone who isn't a fan already? It's probably not particularly interesting or useful. --W.marsh 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. (1) No inline citations. (2) Too much lists and not enough prose. (3) A better copyright tag is needed for the image. (4) Some POV problems (e.g., the Content section). (5) Some mention of critical reviews is necessary for comprehensiveness, and would help to foster NPOV. A quick search of Google finds that, for example, there were some problems with the video of the season 1 DVD. [8], [9]. — TKD::Talk 04:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object Article is a series of lists with little information besides fancraft (i.e., character descriptions, episode guides, etc.). It's not FA material, and should become more article and less "list". --Ataricodfish 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object I loved this show growing up, but the information is slim. A bit more about the broad themes of the show would be good.--Evadb 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The nominator has only had 2 posts.. one of them both of them here.. Highway 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Rapping

This article covers the topic completely. It is well written, accurate, sourced, and readable.--Urthogie 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure as though all of the lyrics that are currently being displayed in the article qualifies as fair use. Correct me if I am wrong, though. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

They are all fair use-- The email where permission to show South Park Mexican's lyrics was granted is on the talk page.--Urthogie 22:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object/Comment: Nice article which could do with some expansion. Some notes from my first read- 1) the footnotes don't seem to be numbered correctly (comparing the numbers in the main text with the numbers at the bottom). 2) this line "Mainstream artists such as Eminem (who, ironically, is white) tend to have a larger percentage of black concert-goers than their underground counterparts" - don't you mean that they have a larger percentage of white concert-goers? The article reference linked says that a Eminem and 50 cent concert attracted an audience which is 50%-60% white (this is just one concert though - is there an article which has a broader survey?). 3) can the theme words in the subject matter section be wikilinked like the ones in the principle sections 4) I think that an international or multicultral rap section would be a good addition e.g. rap in France and Japan (I know you have the "international derivatives" section but I was thinking about the UK, French and Japanese (and perhaps elsewhere) acts which are described explicitly as rap. Bwithh 23:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Number 1 has been addressed. Number 2 has been addressed by reducing the generalization. As far as the theme words in the subject matter section, it wouldn't make sense to link them because people know the definition of love and sex-- it wouldn't be a useful wikilink. As far number four, I don't see why that would make sense to add-- hip hop sounds different in England than in America(I've been living here about a year), but there's no style of rapping that you couldn't find elsewhere in the world(although certain styles are more popular).--Urthogie 10:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object: This article is extremely close to FA-quality, and as a member of the wikipedia hip hop community, I would be very happy to see it included as a FA (since there are not many hip hop-related articles included as FAs). However, I think the 50 cent picture must undergo the fair use rationale policy for its inclusion in the article, because I don't see the relationship between rapping abilities and him being a top charting rapper.--Chubdub 11:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Support: Article looks great and ready for featuring--Chubdub 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. The 50 cent picture is part of the creative commons, so there's clearly no copyright issue. The fact that he's chart-topping just goes to show that his style is popular.--Urthogie 12:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

fair enough. I hanve no strong objection for removing the picture entirely, but I would still consider changing the text to make it seem more appropriate to the subject. We would not want readers unfamiliar with hip hop to equate lyrical abilities with mainstream sucess after all --Chubdub 12:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I don't think we should say any guy is good because of anything-- thats a subjective judgement. However, objective facts like record sales are definitely encyclopedic in their relationship to skills. To sum up what I'm saying, record sales does not equal skills-- but it comes into any discussion about skills.--Urthogie 12:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But the best-selling hip hop artists in history are known to have been critically maligned (MC Hammer, Puffy, Vanilla Ice are perhaps the best example). Nevertheless, you do have a point. I would still argue that there is litle relevance to rapping skills itself, but record sales are certainly definitive, especially when compared to subjective opinions.--Chubdub 13:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. 50 definitely isn't the best lyricist around or even near it(hell, he didn't even write in da club, but I think he's popular because of his delivery and persona more than anything)--Urthogie 13:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object Article has lists that need to be turned into prose. Images that aren't going to be deleted for lack of info need fair use rationales. Jkelly 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You incorrectly marked 50 cent rapping as unsourced and whatnot, when an email that states it is part of the creative commons is on its image info page. How exactly could the lists be turned into prose?--Urthogie 07:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The lists that I'm talking about are the "Principles of writing and delivering raps" and "Subject matter" sections. Not only are they not really "Brilliant prose" insofar as they are bulleted lists, it is not clear to me that everything we are asserting there is verifiable and not original research. For instance "Some hip hop fans regard speed as an important sign of skill, while others regard it as irrelevant." is almost certainly true, but I'm concerned about what we're saying when we have that as number six on a list; it is presented as if we're making a special point about some kind pf "importance of speed" controversy for our sixth-most-important criteria. I don't think that this is what is intended by the list formatting,(or by the weasel words), but I would suggest that prose summarizing the points would be both better writing and be less prone to being read as any kind of choice on our parts about relative importance. I hope that this explains why I am concerned by the bulleted-list format for those two sections. Jkelly 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object - multiple stacked images, spread them out. lead doesnt summarize article. dont put external links in the article text. would prefer fewer bullets, but more general with lengthier prose, in "principles of..." and "subject matter" sections. some images are marked as fairuse but dont really qualify here e.g. jin freestyle friday), and they dont cite source for image, or fairuse criteria. dont put "see also" articles that are already wikilinked in the main article. Zzzzz 20:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly and Zzzzz, I've addressed all but two of your concerns with the article:

• 50 cent image needs replacement.

I will find a replacement very soon that is okay to use.

• Putting subject matter section into prose.

As you can see, I put techniques of writing and delivering raps into prose. However, I think it's not a good idea to put subject matter into prose. It doesn't seem possible to form properly sized paragraphs out of that list.

So, once I get a replacement for the 50 cent image, would you two support this as a featured article?--Urthogie 16:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just uploaded a free image of 50 Cent to Wikimedia Commons, but it is his mug shot -- probably not what we want to be leading this article with. Nevertheless, if you feel inspired, you may want to experiment with cropping it and seeing if you can get anything useable. I've struck my list-based objection; I am still not crazy about the "Subject matter" being a list, but I defer to your judgement on the article. I remain concerned about the images being used in the article, however. Jkelly 16:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We wanted to use an image of a famous rapper in the act of rapping, so a mug shot wouldn't much help. Would you support this article without a lead image?--Urthogie 17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't bother me, but some other editors may object. The Vanilla Ice image is under a free license... Joking aside, there are some free images here and here. Jkelly 21:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Jkelly 02:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Snoop image is good. By the way, I replaced the vanilla ice image with fair use album art. So all the images are fair use now, no?--Urthogie 09:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

extend this section in lead to give examples: "Rappers employ several techniques and principles in writing and delivering raps.". every image has problems, they dont meet requirements laid out at Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale, please also familiarise yourself with everything on that page. one example: ludacris image has no source info, uses an incorrect tag, and has no fair use rationale. those 2 should be easy. this one is harder: subject matter section is not well-written, and non-comprehesive, seeming to lack a lot of info. please describe in more detail what exactly rapping about "partying" means, and what is "storytelling"? almost nothing about what "story" is in thix context? arent all the categories "storytelling"? there is no expln of what a "diss rap" is. give specific examples, not just "e.g. Biz Markie", find a joke he told. idea is to explain all this to someone unfamiliar with rapping. whole section assumes too much. i suggest entire section is reviewed by a 3rd party. Zzzzz 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

also found multiple spelling mistakes eg comparible, accompaniement, esstential etc. Zzzzz 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you want me to do to make the images acceptible? I don't understand, the whole image process confuses me.--Urthogie 11:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

click on the images at The Illuminatus! Trilogy to see how it should be done. Zzzzz 13:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object
  • History/Subject matter is very hard to read with all the quotes/dotpoints, its kind of a mess

How would you suggest we list the subject matter section? And why remove the quotes?--Urthogie 08:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Never said remove it, it is just not aesthetically pleasing. Cvene64 08:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm kind of in a catch 22 on that point then.--Urthogie 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Surely, surely there would be a section on criticisms of the genre.

Rapping isn't a genre. Hip hop is a genre. Rapping is something that appears in many genres.--

Urthogie 08:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see there is info in the hip-hop article.

• • The Identity section is a mess. Where is the reference that confirms the claim that living closer to a poor area increases the likelihood of listening to rap? Massive POV problems as well; who is giving respect to 3rd Base, me? you? wheres the source! "Almost all popular rappers identify themselves as heterosexual" again, says who? provide examples!

The article doesn't claim that you're more likely to listen to rap if you're poorer. It says if you live in a city, you're more likely, and that is sourced. I will find a source for the 3rd Bass claim. As far as almost all popular rappers identifying themselves as heterosexual, this is a very obvious fact. I defy you to find a currently charting rapper who does not mention their heterosexual relationships.--Urthogie 08:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I await your source. :) Cvene64 02:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It's sourced now-- he performed with hip hop legends like KRS and Rakim. The content of this show was controlled by the hip hop headz themself and was the central hip hop show of its time.--Urthogie 09:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have reworked the article to address all of your aesthetic concerns and concerns about the images(they're all public domain now). As you can see, the list by subject matter remains. I did make one change to it: I sorted it by alphabetical order-- now it is impossible to claim the ordering is based on stressing the importance of one element. I stand by my opinion that it wouldn't be reasonably possible to turn this into brilliant prose-- some things just lend themselves to lists. I await your reply.--Urthogie 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber

Good pictures, great, well layed out tables, clear, concise information and a good, if somewhat lengthy, introduction. What more could a good article need?

• Oppose Firstly, inline citations (see WP:CITE), and secondly content beyond the intro which is not a list or table. Makemi 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article? article needs references, article needs sources. Article is currently a long lead with a bunch of lists. --Ataricodfish 19:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry but i have to agree (Object). This article will never be considered a featured article (as it stands.) I would suggest you put it up for peer review before suggesting it for a featured article... even putting it up for a good article candidate would be more realiastic --- Paulley 19:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object – I can't figure out if this is an article or list. To answer your question, there's a lot that is needed. WP:WIAFA should answer that. Begin with references. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• The writing isn't too good...there aren't many transitions, so it doesn't read well. I'd have to agree with the above comments-too many bullet points. The charts are ok thoughOsbus 02:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Lead is too long, article contains almost no prose at all. Fieari 19:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object +Prose, -Lists, +References, and then you'll have a much more FA-style article. Staxringold 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object As a member of WP:PW, I have to admit this article is far from a featured article and there's more professional wrestling articles more deserving than this one. As said before, it's mostly a list of previous matches. --Oakster 17:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anakin Skywalker

The article 'Anakin Skywalker' is a master piece in terms of polished presentation, textual and pictorial support. The article is not cluttered, and the text is highly appropriate. It is an in depth, and yet focused summary of the life of this Star Wars character, and displays exemplary writing skills and editing skills. This article is an excellent display of what all wikipedia articles should strive for in terms of accuracy and presentation, and this is why I have nominated this article for the status of 'feature article'. --Paaerduag 07:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Other than noting what actor played him in each of the stages of his life, this reads more like an encyclopedia entry for him in the Star Wars universe, rather than an entry in our own. I suggest you look at the current FAs for other fictional characters, and see how those are laid out. You'll see a lot more information on the creator of the character, inspirations, portrayals in popular media and other works, and that sort of thing. The "plot summary" should not be the entire article. Fieari 07:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Counter-Object - But if we wanted to know about who portrayed Anakin Skywalker, we would look at the actor articles. This article is meant to deal with Anakin in the context of star wars, not real life. This is meant to be a factual article depicting a fictitious piece of filmography. --Paaerduag 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fictional subjects are per se not factual the way real life subjects are. It's absolutely imperative that articles on fictional characters don't read though they were normal biographies, because they aren't. They're figments of someone's imagination and should be treated like a form of cultural expression, not a real person. The Star Wars-universe is not real and in an encyclopedia it should be described primarily on how it affects the real world; fan guides are not encyclopedic and already exist in the thousands. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object I would want it to got through WP:PR first, and to have more than one reference. Like Fieari, I would be interested in knowing more about the development of the character: have there been any academic studies comparing the character to others from classical fiction?; what writers worked on the development of the characters?, and so on. I will say that I think the prose is very good. --BillC 10:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object for all reasons listed above. Also, having a spoiler warning in the lead (which is too short anyway) is probably not a good idea. Batmanand | Talk 15:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please describe our own universe, not George Lucas's. In other words, talk about Anakin Skywalker as a cultural artifact. Who created him? When? How did he develop over the films, novels, and comics? How do different authors portray him differently? How do different actors portray him differently? Who designed his costumes? What were George Lucas's influences? How has Anakin Skywalker influenced other creators? See User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction for more of what I'm talking about. — BrianSmithson 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. BrianSmithson makes an excellent point. Remember that we strive for comprehensiveness in all of our articles. The issue that many articles about people or things in fiction run into is that they are simply an outline of their relevancy in their own world and canon. A figure such as Anakin Skywalker certainly has had much influence on pop culture. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose.I agree with previous posters (especially about talking about Anakin Skywalker as a cultural artifact. For an example of how this is done, see Darth_Vader#Cultural_figure). In addition the lead is too short and the article needs references, especially for the POV statements like this one: "He is the central character of all six Star Wars films, despite the prominent role of his son, Luke Skywalker as the protagonist of the original trilogy, Episodes IV, V, and VI." That sounds like opinion unless you bring in references showing that the general critical consensus is that the statement is true.--Alabamaboy 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Wait a minute two articles on the same fictional character?Isn't that a bit much?I propose a redirect or at the very least one being a subarticle of the other.I see repetion of the same info.--Technosphere83 22:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply. Apparently, there's been a long discussion on that at Talk:Darth_Vader/Archive_5#RfC.2Fpoll:_Darth_Vader.2FAnakin_Skywalker_.E2.80.93_one_article_or_two_articles.3F. The result was no consensus with a majority wanting two separate articles. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well than there is a problem because this doesn't fit into wikiguidelines.--Technosphere83 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object per above objections. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- excessive use of fair use images. Also, really needs to clarify its division with Darth Vader if they are to remain separate articles (which itself doesn't make much sense in terms of existing WP standards like summary style); at the moment there is massive overlap between the two. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Fieari + lack of refs. Mikker ^(...) 03:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object & Withdraw you know, I have to agree with you. I did not make this article, but I was the one who nominated it. I shouldn't have. After revising my nomination, i think that this article does not deserve to be a feature article, despite adequate text. several flaws still plague it. therefore, i personally withdraw my nomination, because i no longer feel justified in keeping it here. --Paaerduag 10:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree: This is a good article. It should be featured.23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Go get a goddamned peer-review. Also, as to the two articles, that's messy, but It's correct. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why is this article still listed on its discussion page as a current featured article candidate? There hasn't been any real discussion about it in nearly three months, it hasn't had a peer review, the nominator withdrew it, and it's still awfully messy for real consideration. With the withdrawal, it shouldn't be listed as an FAC at all, or a failed FAC. - dharmabum 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

(discussion ends by 18 April to allow feature – if passed – on Main Page on 20 April)Precedent set at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/European Union

Sort of a self-nom, but not really, since I just fixed the formatting and refs, got sources, etc. It's an informative article on a controversial subject, and I think it's done a good job of being NPOV, citing sources, etc, which is hard for articles like this, and is ready to be an FA. --Rory096 04:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The Cannabis (drug)#Decriminalization section could still use more work to give it summary style of the topic, rather than direct cut and paste of a few lines from the main subarticle. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I rewrote that section. It was left over from when Marijuana Decriminalization was its own article- and that's basically all the article was, so there wasn't much to summarize. I think it's better now. --Rory096 06:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: needs to be more closely referenced; lacks important points; needs a copy-edit. Tony 05:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Which important points do you mean? As for a copyedit, I've had a couple people from #wikipedia going through it, making minor edits. As for references, I've been finding many, but some things are, as WP:OR puts it "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge," but as they are taken for granted by specialists, very few sources mention them at all, except for maybe amateur pro-cannabis bloggers. --Rory096 06:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It is not ready yet. Its interfaces to other articles needs work. The prohibition intro doesn't even mention Nixon, Reagan or Bush. The images need work. The health effects intro grossly misstates the schizophrenic correlation. Health issues and the effects of cannabis is much closer to being ready, but there is a bit of work there too. Also, before being FA, some work should be done on closely-linked articles as well. -SM 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why would the prohibition intro mention those presidents? They're just presidents of one country in which the drug is consumed- and none were even president when prohibition began. What's wrong with the images? The health effects intro cites sources for every claim it makes- can you cite sources refuting them? --Rory096 19:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The War on Drugs was created by Nixon. His anti-commie, anti-hippie, anti-gay and anti-semetic rationale for overriding the Shafer Commission and banning cannabis in the strictest terms are on the Watergate Tapes [10]. Reagan/Bush added the additional rationale of Just say no, DARE, and workplace drug testing. Bush-43 has extended this to the War on Terrorism, drug testing in schools, and a hard line on Medical marijuana. At each of these points, cannabis prohibition was in decline.
    • I am very familiar with the well-referenced, Health issues and the effects of cannabis, I helped write parts of it, but there is a bit of work to do there still, particularly a study on developing adolescents (unpublished?), cancer (unpublished?) and another published study I still need to read. Also, I want to revisit the issue of breaking out a Cannabis (pharmacology) section. -SM 02:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe that would fall under the scope of Medical marijuana. As for putting in those presidents, that would better work under War on Drugs. --Rory096 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, no. Medical marijuana is more about MMJ as a political/legal phenomenon. A compendium of theraputic claims, medical protocols, etc. with the extent of corroboration would be fantastic. The eventual structure would be Cannabis (therapeutic) which would complement Cannabis (health) a rename of Health issues and the effects of cannabis I've considered proposing in ths connection. However, Cannabis (pharmacology) would be specifically pharmacology and the main article into THC, Cannabidiol, HU-210, Cannabinoids, Cannabinoid receptor, SR-141716A, etc. The papers I mentioned are germane to HIATEOC. The Presidents I mentioned are essential to the brief history intro in Cannabis (drug). Yes, I should just sofixit. -SM 22:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I forgot to make this connection explicitly: it is the United States (with the UK) who have globalized cannabis prohibition and continue to reinforce it through diplomatic pressures. This is why these Presidents matter in a article on cannabis as a global phenomenon. -SM 17:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- There's too much of US specific information. The article must be on the drug and not delve into details of one country only. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: You should split up the article differently. First, is the basic info, such as the geography and cultivating techniques (also include early history here). Then effects of human consumption. Following that, the recent history up until now. Osbus 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. --Rory096 21:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Great...change my vote to support. -Osbus 22:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Very well written and comprehensive. --Phenz 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support -Manages to shy away from bias and POV, which is the best thing we can hope for in articles like this. -M^ask 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ummm... are you saying all this article needs to do before it can be promoted is adhere to WP:NPOV? If so, I suggest you read WP:WIAFA. The best we can hope for, in my opinion, is a great article. This one isn't. Mikker ^(...) 16:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm no expert on cannabis, but neither the History nor the Active ingredients, metabolism, and method of activity sections seem comprehensive. I'm still wondering why exactly Cannabis has the effect is does physiologically. Moreover, given that this is an illegal drug, far more information needs to be contained under Legality. Furthermore, there seems to be serious structural problems with the article: the layout is confusing and jumps rather incongruously from topic from topic. (why go from "History" to "Wild cannabis" for example?). Lastly, several sections are completely unreferenced (e.g. "Ancient history", "New breeding and cultivation techniques", "Spiritual use" and "Immediate effects of human consumption"). Mikker ^(...) 23:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I'm going to have to agree with Mikker. The information contained in this article seems to be fairly comprehensive, but it's not well-organized, and there are some claring holes citation-wise. A bit of tidying and dealing with these issues, though, and I'll reconsider. The Disco King 00:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Whilst the article itself is great, it is about a technical subject and thus should also deal with state of the art information. However the article as extensive as it may be in terms of history, and use and whatever hardly has any state of the art information how it works etc..

Other than that it would have my blessing. Slicky 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. A technical subject? How it works? Did you hit the right edit button? --Rory096 15:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

any1 with more wikixperience; feel free to edit my two cents. It is NOT legal for any farmer in Holland to grow marijuana. The goverment says it is "gedoogd" which means it IS illegal and considered bad BUT there is no active policy to punish such behaviour. Possesion of marijuana, growing it, smoking it; it is all illegal here. If you posses less than 5 grams of weed you will not be fined because Dutch police has better things to do. Coffeeshops that sell marijuana are also 'gedoogd' instead of legal. When a coffeeshop buys its marijuana that is an illegal transaction. As a user you are ment to smoke marijuana either at home or in certain designated places (coffeeshops). If you light a spliff, joint, stick or whatever you like to call it outside those places you are potentially in trouble. —This unsigned comment was added by 213.10.25.60 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, sorry about that, I was reformatting that sentence and left out the word where they had a "plan" to try to get it legalized. --Rory096 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak objection -- building off Mikker's objection, could we get more global scope for the legality section (and the subarticle)? Right now it appears to focus only on a few countries. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support well written. Computerjoe's talk 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• much of this article takes a bias approach, assuming that despite the side effects, marijuana is good and/or should be legalized. Although I personally agree with the opinion, it should not be expressed in a wikipedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.21.7.115 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Can you provide specific examples of bias? --Rory096_(block) 00:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ten-pin bowling

One of the fastest growing sports yet relatively in the shadows - it's making a major comeback. Looking at past featureed article this suits I think.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjorn (talk • contribs)

• Object The lead is too short- WP:WIAFA requires that the lead be a brief overview of the article. WP:LEAD provides that the article should have at least 2 paragraphs. There is only one reference/inline citation, which isn't cited properly according to WP:CITE, and a few external links strewn throughout the text. Please use   for the space between numbers and units of measurements- for example 10 pounds. Thanks, AndyZ _t 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object Very wordy, as if its been padded out to appear encyclopediac. The play sections needs to be seperated into subsections, something like, objective, equipment, method, scoring. Similar to the way you would teach someone new to the game. There needs to be more information on the surface types, preparation methods(oiling) etc. History section needs to show not just the sports initial creation period but also its expansion across the world. Theres more points but fixing these and User:AndyZ will probably rectify the others anyway. Gnangarra 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - a couple of more suggestions, the images need to include some back end shots, maybe the pin deck, or table while setting pines. The section UK governing bodies needs to go, or at least replaced with a generic section covering bodies world wide. Gnangarra 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Danaman5 has kindly rewritten "lead per FA nomination comments" 3.166231447 I just wanted to say thank you. Allot more had been doneon this article and I hope allot more will continue to be done and for additional comments, such as the above, will be made with suggestions for improvements. Thank you. User:Fjorn

• Object - The lead is short and the article has insufficient references with inconsistent formatting. The scoring section needs to be prose and not a list. The article uses both "ten-pin" and "ten pin". The diagram of the numbered positions should be moved up to where the article uses the numbers in discussion. Captions needs improvement, such as "US Air Force Chief James A. Martin bowling" -- why should I care that this is James Martin? Avoid second person (ex: If you score a Strike in frame 10 you will get 2 bonus balls). The article claims that the pins form an equilateral triangle, but I'm not sure that is correct. If the sides of the triagle are four feet as the article states, the distance from the 1 pin to the 7-10 line would be a little under 3.5 feet, but this site, if it is accurate, states that the 1 pin should be 2 feet 10 3/16ths inches from the pin. Also, there should be a picture of the ball that shows the holes. Pagrashtak 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object, as it lacks inline citations throughout. They would be particularily helpful in the Rules section. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Well, although it is far from complete I must thank all who have commented here, made suggestions and improved the article in general. Any more help you can offer, or put into the suggestions already noted above, it would be even more appreciated Thank you all! Fjorn 21:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe the comment made in the introduction that this is the biggest participation sport in the UK. I have never heard anyone say this before, whereas I have frequently heard that fishing is the biggest participation sport in the UK. Is this claim verifiable? GavinTillman 13:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mopane worm

This article has undergone a peer-review, and is the result of extensive research on the matter of mopane worms as a primary subject, and the industry that revolves around them as secondary matter. The article is lucid, well-thought out and pictorially informative without being cluttered. All pictures shown in the article are released into the public domain by their author.

I request that this article be Featured due to the points listed above.

Many thanks, Stuart Steedman 12:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No references. (Other stuff too but this on its own is enough for an oppose). Batmanand | Talk 14:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice work so far. However, as said before, this article needs referencing. In addition, I can't help but feel that the paragraphs could be fleshed out a little more. The worm is spread over "a fairly large geographical area." Where? It's a "multi-million dollar industry." That's a little vague – can you give a more concrete number? "Some areas once rich in mopane worms are now barren." Again, where? When you find more information to flesh out the article to, it'll simultaneously reduce the seemingly short and overly broken-up sections and give you references to boot. We want to try to avoid vague generalizations and what are called "weasel words." Best of luck! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

John Sculley

Peer review 1
1st nomination of this article for FA status. Referenced, well written and a good flow. I believe it meets the criteria, if there are any issues I'll try to address them. — Wackymacs 12:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Approve - I Second that notion. well written. only suggestion would be to add a spoken file. --Preschooler.at.heart 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment 3 references worries me; any chance of adding more? A good article to be sure, but maybe not yet up to featured status. Batmanand | Talk 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Those are general references, look at the footnotes section for specific references tied in with the context (there are 22 footnotes in total). — Wackymacs 16:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. "Background and personal life" does not list a source. The feud with Steve Jobs needs expansion. what about some words from Jobs about Sculley? has anyone else talked about Sculley who has had business dealings with him? any positive or negative quotes? un-redlink "pepsi generation" and describe it in this article. what was sculley's involvement with it exactly? the writing is not very good in the "scully at pepsi" section, jumping around in time and place, v. confusing, please have it copyedited. images lack detailed fairuse rationale. Zzzzz 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• A reference has been added to the background and personal life section, and fair use rationales have been added to the images. Other changes have also been made. — Wackymacs 10:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. Seens a little on the short side, and there seem to be many holes in the coverage. More pictures? And maybe a more recent salary? And of couse, all the above.--HereToHelp 20:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Would personally prefer a non-biography article after we've already done one. It's not that this article is bad; I just don't think it's the right time to choose it. (^'-')^ Covington 04:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dot-com

As a former participant of the dot-com bubble, I found the retrospective even-handed. It's also relevant now given recent TIME magazine article basically hyping Web 2.0. It also meets all criteria.--Philosophistry 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Unreferenced. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object for these reasons:
  • No references section.
  • Too few inline cites.
  • Does the List of well-known dot-coms really have to be here? And what makes these ones well-known. Perhaps there should be a link to list of dot-coms instead.
  • The lead is too short.
  • The article is quite short overall.
  • Much of the article focuses on the dot-com bubble rather than on dot-coms themselves.
• Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I think the article is justified in talking about the dot-com bubble (dot-coms notable enough to get wide mention can certainly take their own article anyway, but...
  • No significant references.
  • Only one picture. There has got to be more that can be added. Screenshots of dot-com ads?
  • Mind, I think this article can be a featured article with some work...it just isn't now.
• Skybunny 06:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object
  • Lack of references and pictures
  • Much too short an article for a major subject; lack of detail at key points e.g. Is the European 3G mobile licensing boom/bust really a "dot com" phenomenon? (it might be, but its not clear here how). Why did the AOL Time Warner merger fail to deliver on its promised synergy? At the moment, the article only suggests "boardroom disagreements".
  • Who were the key personalities in the dot com boom/bust? - no specific persons are mentioned. Key people would include Wall St analysts Henry Blodget, Mary Meeker, Jack Grubman, Frank Quattrone (the role of Wall St in the dot com boom is underemphasized at the moment);and also people associated with Wired magazine and The Industry Standard (which really needs an article...)
  • The sense of timeline is much too vague

Bwithh 09:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object The article could reasonably easily be made into an FA standard piece. It really needs to be renamed to the dot.com bubble, it needs a much better lead, and perhaps a picture of a dot.com site (or of something related to the article). References will be harder, although you menion a Time Magazine article. --Wisden17 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No pictures, no references, the lead does not conform to WP:LEAD & I doubt it is comprehensive. Mikker ^(...) 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. As per WP:WIAFA, all FA's require a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Convent School (Jamshedpur)

Sacred Heart Convent School in Jamshedpdur, is one of the most innovative and progreesive institutions in Jamshedpur and has contributed to the city's growth as well as its relation to TATA Steel. Graduates are typically well-educated young ladies who are able to thrive in a modern society and at college. Arundhati bakshi 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: This does not seem to meet any of the criteria. Please look at some of the recent FAs on subjects such as this, and then re-write. References are essential. Perhaps Wikipedia:Peer review or Wikipedia:Good articles would be a better place for this at the moment, although even "Good Article" requires reference too. Giano | talk 14:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is nowhere near ready to be posted on FAC.
  • No inline citations or reference section
  • Incorrect heading formatting
  • Tons of internal links that lead to redirects
  • Filled with POV and informal tone: "Mother" this and "Sister" that, "young ladies"
  • Grammar and spelling:
    • Sentences begun without capital letters
    • "ran" when it should be "run" (in the very first sentence)
    • "...the maintain the vision of education as the means to transform society." Huh?
  • Content
    • Why are we talking about the history of the school and all of a sudden there's one sentence about how it isn't air conditioned?
    • National Institute of Open Schooling section makes no sense at all

This is simply not ready for FAC. I suggest you work on the problems I've listed and then submit the article for a Peer Review before trying for Featured Article status. Good luck! Kafziel 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Thanks for the advice, but as for the naming of the ladies . . . the school is run by nuns, so I wouldn't be sure how else to address them. Nomination withdrawn. Arundhati bakshi 16:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Have a look at the Hopkins School FAC above to see what is needed for a great school article. Harro5 20:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Netherlands

First FAC

Self-nomination Fall Gelb : When the eyes of the world are directed at France, the war also rages in the Netherlands.A comprehensible,detailed and well-written article about a relatively unknown chapter of the second world war.The story of the heroic, yet futile struggle of a small country against the nazi juggernaut of 1940. Sander 20:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object It's a very nice article, and I'd be happy to support if/when the references are cleaned up. I see two pretty decent sized problems right now. First, only 3 sources is somewhat limited for a featured article, as it isn't providing a very wide range of opinions/information. Second, see Wikipedia:Inline Citation, as that's a necessity. Definetly fixable, and I'd easily change my vote. Staxringold 21:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object, for now. Needs some careful copy-editing and rewriting for clarity, more formal language, etc. Some examples of problems:

The first paragraph gives no years: "The battle lasted from 10 May until 17 May during..." and "The battle ended after the devastating bombing of Rotterdam...", i.e. bombing of Rotterdam in what year?

Passages such as: "The Netherlands had been neutral during World War I but — mainly because of the Boer Wars — at the time sympathies were clearly more on the German side, although the Dutch were shocked by the atrocities committed against the Belgian civilian population and sheltered more than a million refugees. In fact at the end of the war, when the German Kaiser Wilhelm II fled, he was given a castle called Huis ter Doorn in the Netherlands where he lived until his death in 1941." are unclear, with apparent non-sequiturs.

And phrases like: "The governments just didn't see it as 'such a big deal'" and "The Dutch equipment shortages were so bad it actually limited the number" are too informal, agrammatical and confusing ("governments" ? how many did the Netherlands have?). If these sorts of problems are fixed up it will be easier to judge what otherwise seems like a promising article. Pinkville 22:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fantastic article, but:

1. It lacks inline citations
2. The prose is not "brilliant" and isn't formal enough for an encyclopaedia.
3. There seems to be a NPOV problem in the "The Dutch forces" section (among others) - who, for example, thinks "the most obvious deficiency of the Dutch Army lay in its shortage of armour"? Statements like these need to be attributed to some authority, otherwise it's POV/OR.
4. The article peters out in the end - the last four sections seem to be afterthoughts.

Mikker ^(...) 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The lead is too small. There are stub sections - The first days, The last days. No inline citations. Also, a map of the combat (in addition to maps of pre-war positions) would be nice, as well as more photos.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Royal Albert Hall

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamale (talk • contribs) 09:03, 29 March 2006

• Oppose. No references, no internal photos. Batmanand | Talk 10:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for no refs/inline citation and lots of listed text (rather than prose). I'd love to see internal photos, but they aren't a requirement IMO. Staxringold 13:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Rather than having an "Introduction" section, think of incorporating this information into the lead section – after all, introducing the subject is what they're for. Also, more information on the architecture would be helpful – the second paragraph of the redundant Introduction section would be a good starting point. – HAM 14:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lack of references, lead does not comply with WP:LEAD, there are serious structural/organisational issues and it is certainly not comprehensive ("Now the hall is used as a live music venue."??) Mikker ^(...) 00:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mick Foley

is and excellent article,has images where needed and with good caption.

little to none grammatical errors. very indepth article and not too long. many references and external links. is very comprehensive. is neutral and factually accurate,very stable. has a good table of contents.

arguably one of the,if not the best,wrestler biography on Wikipedia. Lord revan 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Although this article is about as close as I've come to supporting a wrestling FAC, this one still falls short in a few ways. First, 8 refs is all right, but somewhat thin for this much text. Second, that huge trivia section has to go, try breaking the information apart into the appropriate sections (I had to do it for Cheers). Also, the article is 69kb long, which is pretty big. Finally, the images should be a little more evenly and cleanly distributed throughout the article, and at least one free image would be nice (though not key) for a bio. Staxringold 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Not too long? What articles have you been reading? :P And I see 4 pictures, 1 at the start, and all the others next to each other roughly 3/4 down the page. Highway 18:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Working on it,wouldnt mind if someone helped,as im not exactly the best editor on this page,took away some useless trivia,and took away the WCCW (Thats WCCW,not WCW) part because i think most people would want to know about hiss WWF/ECW years

i really dont know where to start trimming,hmm Lord revan 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Please remove the trivia section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support once trivia section is edited. Good article! --Liface 23:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- images need sourcing and fair use rationales. Jkelly 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment images are more equally spread now,and me and the others are working on trimming. EDIT : the trivia section is now heavily trimmed. Lord revan 18:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Aw, nuts. This article just fails as a Featured Article in so many ways. A problem (insurmountable?) with so many articles on wrestling figures is that there is difficulty in seperating the character from the preformer... for instance, shouldn't there be an article on The Undertaker and one on Mark Callaway? In reflection of pro-wrestling's reality skewing maleability, these elements are often combined in our articles, being less about the men and women that portray the fantastic and larger than life people, and more about the characters they play. This is seen in this article's structure: it is a littany of developments over Foley's character's career(s), more distressingly the stuff seen by most people (the WWE stuff). His pre-WWE years garner several choppy paragraphs seperated by brand, and then expands when he gets to ECW/WCW/WWE. Did foley spring into existance upon becomming a wrestler, or did he have, you know, a childhood? And its not like there is a dearth of information about Foley's past and pre-wrestling years: He wrote TWO very large, very clear, very well-written and comprehensive memoirs. There needs to be greater balance, and in its current state, there is no balance at all. There is almost nothing on his personal life, scant information on his non-wrestling career, and most distressing, one paragraph on his writing career. ONE PARAGRAPH? This is not just a man who is rightfully reveared as a hardcore legend, this is a man who has written two well-recieved, best selling memoirs, several children's books, and with his latest novels, is gaining increased respect and notability as a fiction author for adults. That just scratches the surface here - the article is poorly written, has no real references, too many damned links, too much cruft and not enough craft. And worse yet, this is probably one of our better pro-wrestling articles. Do NOT send to peer review, do NOT attempt to re-write or build, do NOT pass go or collect $200. Start from scratch. Do not look at it as a wrestling article, but an encyclopedia article. If there is anyone who deserves a featured article, and if there is anyone with enough information for one to be written, it is Foley. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This article recently had a lot of under-researched and sloppily-written passages and categories added to it. It needs a lot of cleanup before it should be considered for feature article status. Bcarlson33 18:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• well,i would add to it if had actually read his books,but think about how big it would be then,and size is already a problem. since it looks like you have read the books maybe you could help? Lord revan 09:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is the best wrestler-related Wikipedia article I have ever read. Don't listen to everyone saying you need to start from scratch, as it is fine as is.

DNA Resequencer (Stargate)

Self nomination As almost the sole contributor to this article, I have to say that it is 100% complete. It is probably the most thurough resoruce about the DNA resequencer in existance. It is well written, 100% factualy acruate, fully refrenced by both primary (episodes) and secondary (articles) sources. There is virtualy nothing more that can be added to this page. It is so good and complete that it can't be imporved any more. Also, it fits every FA requirement exactly. Nominate and Strong Support Tobyk777 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well-written article.--Zxcvbnm 01:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• oppose, its a small article by FA standards, the ONE pic doesnt have fair use rationale for this article, the references arent cited for date, autor, and such. and it only has one pic. but i also cant see this on the main page, its written as though its an actual machine, but its not. Vulcanstar6 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me address these objections one by one:
    • I found the pic on the commons. I didn't upload it. It seems fine to me. Also on Wikipedia:What is a Featured article? it states: "...including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article."
    • I just went through and cited the refs for date.
    • All of the refs are either from alternate wikis, meaning they have no one author; or the websites linked to do not indicate the author.
    • It is written as though it is an acutal machine in the stargate universe. It supposed to be an accurate descirption of the machine in the unviserse it's set in. Also this FA: TARDIS has been featured on the main page. The article TARDIS is about a fictional machine in a fictional universe, just like this one. If people can see TARDIS on the main page, why cant they see the DNA resequencer?
    • This article is long enough to be a FA.
    • I think that provides an explantion for all of the objections. Tobyk777 02:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• object I agree with Vulcanstar6, there is not enough discussion of the DNA Resequencer as a fictional object. TARDIS has an entire section on the real world development of the concept, as well as sections on merchandising and popular culture. This article needs something similar to be comprehensive (though I'm not familiar enough to know what, if any pop culture impact this device has had). Additionally, I believe that it using Wikipedia itself as a source is frowned upon; I would move ===Episodes=== out from under ==references== and into its own section to avoid confusion. - The Catfish 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything about the device is in the article. There is little impact on pop culture. (There may be some, there is just no information on it) If there were enough information for a whole section, there would be a section. There just isn't. Like I said, any information about the machine that exisits is in the article. The reason the episodes are in the refences section is that the main refrenced used for the article are the epidoes themselves. They are the primary source. Tobyk777 03:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • On the top of this page it clearly states: "If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed". Nothing can be done to fix every objection on here, except the one already fixed. (The date accessed) There is nothing that can be done to add information that doesn't exisit. Also, the article is on a fictional machine. Saying that it reads to much like an article on a fictional machine is a very silly objection, which also can't be fixed. Tobyk777 03:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object; no inline citations, and again, the quality of references isn't impressive at all. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There arn't any inline citations becuase the text makes it clear which episode the info is from. I am not sure what you mean when you say "quality of the refrences". Literaly every refrence to the DNA resequencer in existance is on there no matter how remote. I didn't filter the refs, I included them all. Tobyk777 05:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I see alot of "(Includes Data on the DNA resequencer)" in the references, making it tough to know what is referring to what. As for quality, it scares me to see us citing another wiki. Don't people write books on these things? Or magazines? Or anything on paper that has just a teeny bit of editorial validation? I don't mind some of the web references (tv.com strikes me as half-decent), but a wiki and fansites don't exactly inspire confidence. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• I like this one; I like the fact that the author is making it clear that there is nothing more to be written on the subject. Therefore comprehensiveness isn't a concern. You may want to try to improve the writing a bit; I spotted a typo in a section heading, and the intro is unusually short for an FA (although I don't expect you to include trivial stuff in the intro just to fluff it out; if there's nothing else to say there, leave it alone). Also, I'm a big fan of directly citing info in the text to the refs; this makes verifiability much easier. Everyking 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. Ill try and fix the typo. I have always found it difficult to find sources with inline citations. Therefore, in this article, I found it prudent to have the text indicate which source it was refering to, rather than putting notes. I think that that improves quality and usefulness even more. Ill now lengthen the lead. In a few minutes it will be fixed. Also, Everyking, do you support or oppose? Tobyk777 05:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose; This article shouldn't even exist. It's fancruft of the worst sort. It an obscure piece of hardware from a not very popular show. I say nominate it for merger with the Star Gate main article if its so important.--Mark 2000 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I take offense to this comment. Now if Stargate is so obscure, how could it be one of the top 50 shows in America and How could it be shown in more than 100 countries and how could it have more than 10 million viewers a week, and how could it sell more than 30 million DVDs? [11] Here at wikipedia we have A Portal and a Whole project just for Stargate. Lower down on this page another Stargate article is nominated right now. Wikipedia has hundereds of Stargate articles. Also, if it was so obscure how could we have this template:

• • • Ask the average person on the street what Stargate is. I doubt you'd find a fan after four hours worth of searching. A tiny fan base that operates as a vocal minority is not a case for widespread popularity. The show Firefly had only 10 episodes aired, yet has its own templates. In fact, the very fact that stargate fans are such an obnoxious presence is even more reason to not give them more power.
      • The show firefly had [episodes]. I look things up before I blindly state things. Stargate's SG-1 and Atlantis combined have more than 200 episodes. Stargate SG-1 is longer lasting than any Star Trek show. And Stargate fans are not obnoxious; they're loyal, entuhsiastic, and optimistic. And there are way more than you think. There are 38 member of the Stargate project. I personaly know more than 60 people who are avid fans of the show. And, as a matter of a fact, I have done your expirment. I went down the isle of a train asking every person. About 1 in 15 knew what it was. It is way bigger than you think. Here are it's stats: [12] Tobyk777 05:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I said "aired episodes". You do your research. Your statistics page barely impresses me at all. 10 million viewers in 100 countries? That's nothing. 10 Million people watch Leno every night in the US only. Lokk, no one is bashing you for liking your show, and popularity doesnt always mean good. I happen to like Firefly a lot, but I wouldn't even write an article on the planet "Miranda", let alone nominate it. Don't make mountains out of molehills.--Mark 2000 06:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not fancruft at all!!! Everything in this was taken from the show itself! There is no fancruft! In the show itself it is not an obscure device; in fact it is vital to many key plot points and is one of the key items associated with the shows central theme: Ascension. This is one of the most offensive things I have seen here in a long time. Tobyk777 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I could have told you right from the outset that you'd get at least one of these deletionist votes. Nothing kills enthusiasm like a deletionist. But you don't need to worry, because they're not actionable objections. Everyking 05:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I compeletly agree. I especialy hate it when the deletionist has totaly invalid reasons like this one. This vote was probably a from a guy who has some sort of bias agaisn't the show. Tobyk777 05:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Object The article clearly fails FAC criteria #1: It exemplifies our very best work. If you can find no references relating to the origin of the "device", some kind of written statement about the fictional thingamabob from the writers of the show, then it is certainly not worthy of featured article status. Why should we think it is important if it is not important enough to the producers to discuss it in the press? Also, in-line citations are very important. I don't care if you list episodes of the show at the end. Without in-line citations how do I know which episode refers to which fact? When you respond, please do not whine and nash your teeth. It will not help you get this named as a featured article. And it can be one if you actually try. Look at spoo] for tips. --Jayzel 06:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the above you said: "Without in-line citations how do I know which episode refers to which fact? " I have already answered this sevral times. The text tells the reader which episode it is refering to. The reason why there is nothing about it in real life is because the prop was computer generated. They had someone standing on a pepdestal then put a computer image over it. It's as simple as that. This device is massively important to sevral key plotlines in Stargate. In the real world however it has not caused much controversey, thats why the article is about the fictional world.
  • You say the devise is computer generated. How do you know? That's what this article needs. It needs background information about the DNA Resequencer. Where did the writers and producers get the idea for the thing? The article just needs to be fleshed out more. If you can't find anything more about it, if there are absolutely no references to it in the media somewhere, then it has no business being a featured article. Many people here spend months, not hours, doing research and re-writing their articles only to fail FAC. It would be insulting to them if a brief article with no historical or modern pop culture significance with only other Wikipedia articles as references was named a FA. --Jayzel 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• I have looked at the article spoo sevral times. The only advantage it has over this article is humor. Do you want me to insert jokes into this article?
• What you called whineing is me educaating a misinformed, misguided, and clearly wrong user. He has no idea what he is talking about. He has posted offensive comments in sevral places. His one piece of constuctive critisicm is probabaly the most ilogical thing ever posted on WP. If there is a whole project of people working on a subject, its notable enough not to be deleted. Tobyk777 07:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you are whining. Your nomination is going down in flames. You're getting a lot of suggestions and you are rationalizing them all away. If you have to answer a question multiple times it may not be answered reasonably. The difference between your article and "spoo" is that spoo has HUGE amounts of behind the scene information. Spoo, also like this article, comforms to WP:FICT in that its creator has made it a cross show phenominon not just a b5 thing. Thats why i would support it as an article (if not featured) and would rather yours didn't exist.--Mark 2000 08:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. please rewrite as per User:BrianSmithson/Writing_about_fiction. Zzzzz 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons for opposition given at great length above. Anville 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Since it's clearly impossible for this article to meet the standards layed out by the people here I withdraw the nomination Tobyk777 17:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Deus Caritas Est

This is essentially a self-nom, put together just under two months ago when Benedict XVI published the subject matter of the article, his first encyclical. It is rather short, but I think it meets the criteria.

It was peer reviewed, in which the main comments were that (a) not enough time had passed since it was published for a full appreciation of its impact (not much I can do about that, apart from waiting for a few years!); and (b) it is a bit dense, and the theological concepts could be unpacked a little (but I hope the wikilined articles - e.g. agape, eros, logos - do that already as that). Comments and criticism are entirely welcome :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. One definite complaint is that the quotes from the encyclical's text should be clearly cited, probably using the paragraph numbers given in the encyclical. Also, when those passages quote the Bible or various theologians, make it clear what is quoted and where the quotations are coming from. That's my biggest complaint. Also, I think a bit more analysis of the historical significance of Deus Caritas Est would be useful; the paragraph mentioning Nygren, Barth, and Tillich is very nice, but the article could use a bit more in terms of references to previous papal encyclicals and other promulgations from the Church. It's a new encyclical, of course, but I don't think there's any reason to object to it solely on those grounds--the text of the encyclical is out there, and it isn't going to change. Kevin M Marshall 15:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work! Brisvegas 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nothing much to say besides support, a very educational article. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Enormous improvements over the pre-peer reviewed version. Well referenced and well written, and laid out in a way that it is accessible to readers with little knowledge of many concepts mentioned in the article. One tiny note – in the lead, should "was the first encyclical" instead read "is the first encyclical?" Other articles for papal encyclicals switch between "is/was," and most of our articles for, say literature, read "is." So apparently I'm pedantic and OCD, but is there any standard we should have for encyclicals? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Was" makes no sense in that context, I've changed it. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is promotable as it is, but it's really on the weak side now. The structure biases toward quotations from the text, and I feel like we have two Roman numerals of an outline without a third. I. History of the encyclical. II. Key passages. And? You see what I mean? Something else needs to be present. What I've recommended elsewhere is a section giving some context of reception. I know that the uninformed talking heads only wanted to say, "Gosh, it's not what we expected," but I don't mean them. Has this enyclical at this point actually signalled a change in direction? Has it, for example, actually marked a softening of Ratzinger's stance on Liberation theology (to which he was most vehemently opposed, as he was the one who dressed down Bishop Ramirez)? The encyclical seems to take a much softer tone toward the issue than Ratzinger's previous announcements, when he was in charge of orthodoxy for JP II. Has this encyclical been a shaping force in the new announcements about gay seminarians? Have dissident RCC theologians reacted? Something...anything...to go from "this is how it came out and here are some words from it" to "and this is the world's view" or "and this is how it affected the church's later actions" would be more than welcome. Again, it's not a crippling structural flaw, but it's sure noticeable. Geogre 04:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the further comments, Geogre. I agree that the article would be better for some discussion and reaction, but I am not aware of there being much yet. I would be very happy if someone can point me towards the published views of Catholic theologians (there are lots of blog posts, of course) but I think it is simply far to early to talk about changes in approach, or softening of tone. The encyclical does not mention homosexuality at all, and conforms with the church's view that the only valid form of sexual expression comes in the form of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. It seems a bit odd to ban gay people from seminaries, and say "God is love" at the same time, but there we are. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: While much of the article is well-written, well-sourced, and well-organized, it contains (IMO) an overly-extensive (and therefore unencyclopedic) section of quotes from the encyclical. Brief quotes can be illustrative, but when they become this extensive they are editorializing. This makes a big part of the article, in my opinion, into what is essentially a List. So I am in the odd position of suggesting that an article would be improved by the removal of information, but so it goes. -- Gnetwerker 00:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments and compliments. As it happens, the quotations section is not my work and I am not entirely happy with it either (see the talk page). Would you be happier with a shorter, more succinct, selection of "key" quotes? The whole text is subject to copyright, which the Vatican has recently decided to assert for papal writings, and so cannot be copied to Wikisource; there are links to the full text, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't know the text was copyright, that makes the problem worse, but in any case the solution is the same: the text needs to be much, much briefer, highlighting only key quotes that (also) can be argued to be "fair use". -- Gnetwerker 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The image Image:Popebenedettoencyclical.jpg is tagged as "fair use". However, it is not discussed in the article, it is not particularly informative on its own, and it is only tangentally related to the subject of the article, so it shouldn't be used. --Carnildo 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the image shows the pope signing the thing, which is mentioned in the text. I have made the caption more explicit, to tie the article and the image together more strongly - it this sufficient? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How is a picture of the Pope signing it neccessary for understanding? What information does it contain that can't be conveyed by text? --Carnildo 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Of course it is completely fair and legal to use to use it here. Why on earth do you imagine the Vatican permitted the photograph to be taken if it was not to publicise "Deus Caritas Est". Therefore it is completely fair to use it here in what is intended to be an educational, non-profit making account of "Deus Caritas Est" Giano | talk 14:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Possibly in the legal sense of "fair use", but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for fair use. --Carnildo 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am not arguing with you Carnildo. It is fair use believe me! Giano | talk 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I believe this legitimate fair use. If we take arguments such as "what information does it contain that can't be conveyed by text" to the extremes which some users appear to be advocating, then there would be no fair use images on Wikipedia at all. Every image can, to some extent, be described in text. For example, the Mona Lisa is, obviously, a "picture of a woman". This photo is relevant to and adds value to the article without devaluing the market value of the original work; as such it is proper fair use. TreveX^talk 23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support: Seems to be a fair and unbiased account to me Giano | talk 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - can we please remove the reference citations from the lead and shift them into the main article body? I say this because the lead is only a very general summary of the most salient main points of the article — as no info should be in the lead that isn't dealt with further in the main article there is no need for references. The point of the lead is not to introduce specific facts: it is to be almost like an executive summary of the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Object There is a fair bit of interesting basic info here, but many major questions were left unanswered. I'm neither a follower nor even particularly aware of the working of the Catholic church, and I left this article with more questions than when I began.

• Basic impact of the encyclical not summarized or described I imagine a new Pope's first major pronouncement must send a lot of signals about his direction, yet nowhere did I find a simple analysis of how this fit or what it might mean to the Church itself, and to the world at large. There is no political context.
• The general theme of the encyclical is not clearly explained The translation of the title to "God is Love" gives me some indication of what this is about, but the whole of eros-agape-logos bit leaves me confused. There are clues that I can maybe work out to some sense, but the article really doesn't make it clear what all of this is about. Is this about charity, the Church's role, free sex, what? In plain words, what is being addressed, what is the purpose and intent?
• In the Summary section, the genesis and structure of the encyclical is not made clear There is discussion of the "first half" and "second half", one being more philosophical, the other based on a report, mention of a "Paragraph 39" and other such detail, but no context for this is given. Are encyclicals all like this, with first halves and second halfes? Are they usually report-based? Is this a particularly long one, or a short one? Is this "typical"?
• The "ongoing debate" about eros and agape is mentiioned but not clearly summarized or even explained The first paragraph of the Summary section left me entirely confused. "Anders Nygren, a Lutheran bishop, in his mid-20th century book Eros and Agape" is mentioned without explanation, as is the statement, "The encyclical is closer to the "Caritas tradition" in catholic theology as opposed to the Nygren position". Are these common knowledge, things I should know about? I get the idea that maybe the encyclical is about internal debates about eros and agape, but...what? Since the general real-world context of this encyclical hasn't been explained either, I'm not clear about what's going on.
• The mass of quotes in "Some key passages" (50% of the article), is hard to decipher, and doesn't seem to summarize things - why all of these uncommented quotes? These quotes aren't easy reading, more like legalese, fine print, their meaning is not always easily evident. And, since the section has no introduction, I'm not even sure why these are "key passages". Are the other passages unimportant, or do they build up to these, which are conclusions? How were they selected and by whom? Why are some phrases emphasized with italics? This seems like a condensed version of the encyclical, but not a summary.
• The references seem slim: are newspaper articles and press releases the best analysis available? Even at only two months old, surely more "experts" have reviewed and discussed this encyclical than reporters at the Times, the Telegraph, the Chicago Sun-Times? Not only do these sound like fairly lightweight analysts for the infallible words of the Pope/God, but ironically the titles of some of the news stories actually summarize more than this article does — Pope's first encyclical on love and sex is lost in translation, Vatican 'cashes in' by putting price on the Pope's copyright — bringing up aspects not clearly discussed here. The article says there was a two-day conference in January to discuss the encyclical, what did they have to say?
• What is the final section, "Other events", about? What does it mean? Was the publication an "event" and there were other related events? There is mention of discussion conference, and then the "feast" on which the encyclical was published. I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is. Maybe it's just the title...

Overall, I really didn't feel very informed about the subject after reading the article, and I did feel required to do a lot of reading, side reading, and deciphering just to arrive at that point. These seem to be fundamental problems with comprehensiveness and summary style. This is more like one particular description of the encyclical itself, with little context or analysis: a "condensed version"... --Tsavage 17:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your usual thorough and thought-provoking review. I'm sorry that you didn't feel very informed after reading the article - I'll see what I can do to address your concerns. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Goldfish

I felt this article was a great; neutral point of view, very informative, and aesthetically appealing. EKN 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)EKN

• Object:
  • Very few references and no in-line references
  • Some of the writing is inappropriate for an encyclopedia e.g. "For many goldfish owners, the discovery that their cute little fishy will eventually grow into a giant carp can come as a bit of a surprise."
  • Some sections e.g. "Starting Aquarium" sound like they were copied out of a goldfish owner's guidebook.
  • Poor wikification - some sections without wikilinks altogether.
  • Suggest submission to peer review

Bwithh 22:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The user who opened this FAC has opened a Peer Review, so I suggest closing this FAC until that finishes. Joe D (t) 04:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object for the reasons I listed on Wikipedia:Peer review/Goldfish/archive1, I'm closing this nomination per Joe D because the article has been nominated to peer review. AndyZ _t 13:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hero of the Russian Federation

I sent this artilce to peer review twice in 2005, mostly had issues about grammar. They have been resolved overtime by various editors. While this is shorter than Hero of Belarus or Hero of Ukraine, but this article does not depend on listing many people who achieved the title or even much graphics (had about 3, now down to one). I just hope it is concise and NPOV, since I touched on some awardings that were given due to fraud and also to people who have been charged by outside groups for war crimes, such as Rasman Kadyrov (son of slain Chechen leader, Ahkmad). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too short. Everyking 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Too short" is not an actionable comment. Unless you give advice as to what specifically should be lengthened, this isn't really grounds for failure. The Disco King 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The sections "Creation" and "Criteria" are too short and the writing is strange in some areas. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not well enough written (2a) and not comprehensive (2c). Where does the award stand in relation to other awards in Russia? More social and political context, please. Tony 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment
• Weak Object An excellent article, but not really the best we've got.I agree with Tony above, needs more context on how it fits in on the social grounds. —This unsigned comment was added by Dee man 45 (talk • contribs) .
• A few photos of the most famous heroes in the text would probably be a good idea (and expand the article a little bit).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Tatum

Self-Nom I been working in this article and expanded it gravely, added refs, etc in the last few days. Tatum is considered as one of the best safeties of all-time. Note that no one commented in the peer review and also that I basiclly ran out of information to put so the article is a bit small, 15-20 KB max so I will use this as a kind of peer review as well. Hopefully this article gets promoted to FA. I don't think that size is a critera also Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I just got under 10k for the total length. Maybe a little bit about early life would be good, not to be trite or anything but it is kind of useful to just have a blurb. Also a bit more about opinions of sportswriters and other observers on him, fan opinions, etc. All of this could be useful if done in a non-POV manner with citations. Not really much to peer review though since it seems like a stellar job has been done with the citations so far, I couldn't find any POV claims that didn't have a source. I want to support, but I feel like it is just a bit short of truly covering all the bases. --W.marsh 19:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Jaranda and others have adressed some of my concerns, and other improvements have been made. Still needs a bit about fan and commentator's opinions of him but we were both having trouble finding any good sources, so it's not like there isn't effort being made. --W.marsh 21:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know anything about FAC's but, um... I kinda helped on this one. — Apr. 2, '06 [21:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Support. I also don't know too much about FAC's, but I also helped out, and in my biased opinion, it looks good.--Shanel 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• You waited less than a day for a response on Peer review before posting here, saying 'no one commented' is simply not fair. Anyway, object - I simply don't believe that the article is comprehensive. It's pretty shiny as it is at the moment, I just don't think you've done adequate research, google alone isn't good enough. As a whistlestop tour of the guy's sports career it seems fine, though at times somewhat non sequitur. --zippedmartin 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I placed it in FAC before anyone commented in it, honestly I checked 100 pages though google and his first 2 books are impossible to get and I checked amazon and the local libary and the third book is too expensive for my tastes and not in the library nither. This is as comprehensive as it can possibly be and I done as much research possible. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This article looks good. Let's get another person to copyedit. I went through and fixed a few grammatical errors and put periods at the end of the sentences (they were usually after the reference tags). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfuadam (talk • contribs)
• First, an object. Article is a Cliff's Note version of his life -- nice but incomplete.
  • The college section, for example, explains all the awards he won but doesn't say why he won a single award. Why was he Player of the Year? What made him so special to be All-American? He won the awards, but no explanation as to what made him better than his teammates.
  • The article needs a copyedit. I found sentences without periods (i.e., the last paragraph of "College Career" and the second paragraph of NFL career) and other grammar mistakes regarding punctuation.
  • The article summarizes too much in a single sentence. Like, "In 1997, Tatum asked the National Football League Player's Association if they could give him a catastrophic injury pension for having to live though the Stingley incident but the league declined". Why? Also, the quote right before it from Tatum needs to be referenced -- there's no source for it.
  • There should be dates for his books. The article only lists the first date.
  • Also, in regards to Zippedmartin's comment, I agree that more research is needed. A visit to the library should be able to locate his three books even if they have to order it from another branch. They should possibly even have Sports Illustrated's from the 1970s. There are also Sports and Football Encyclopedia's which should at least have an article about him.
  • Finally, a Comment You put the peer review up in the morning of April 2, and had it on here that evening stating no one responded yet to the peer review? Normally, a peer review could take, at a minimum, a week for a proper set of responses. Although it's probably an honest mistake, peer reviews can be very helpful, and you shouldn't overlook this option in the future.--Ataricodfish 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I added some info to the college section, I don't know if that is what you wanted
2. I'm not a good copyeditior and asking for help in that section
3. Done and the quote is from the same ref, the 13th ref, don't know how to add the same extrnal link as a refenence to a article.
4. Book dates done
5. Same problem, first two books are in no libarys in the Miami-Dade area as I checked the main frame computer that list and the third book is in two librarys that are too far from my house. I could get the first book and third books in amazon but it's selling too high for me especially the second one which is in the 50 dollar range. Football encyclopedias normally have a paragraph or two on the player max and I don't think thats any help, and there is one known sports illustrated cover with Tatum on it but the problem is where to find it as magazines from that area is hard to get. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Needs a copy-edit. Try consistently spelling out numbers less than 10. Doesn't look comprehensive to me. Tony 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS Excellent use of piped links for simple years; this are rare examples of useful (i.e., focused) chronological links.
• Object: Image copyright status seems to be a mess. The fair use rationale for the second pic is virtually just a "this is why we need a fair use pic" rather than "this is why fair use applies" - there is a distinction. Wikipedia certainly doesn't just grab images off BBC or CNN news to illustrate news stories, yet the same rationale as given here would equally "justify" using "borrowed" BBC photos. The first pic is way off - it's not obviously a promo pic from a press pack, it's far more likely to be a commercial autographed print, especially given the source information (which doesn't list the copyrighter, which it should, but instead lists it as a defunct "product" on a website). TheGrappler 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• The first image I did not do myself but that's the most common image of Tatum outthere, and there are no PD or free use images of Jack Tatum out-there, so it qualifies for fair-use on that basic. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not always the case there is a fair use image. Sometimes an article has to make do without an image. Just because an image is common, doesn't make it fair use, even in the absence of other images. It may be an iconic image, but even then, its use should be restricted to critical commentary on the image, not as a sneaky way of finding an image to illustrate the subject. TheGrappler 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- Too short to be encyclopedic, does not cover subject's entire life, does not sufficiently place accomplishments in broader context (other players, etc), contains too many references to autobiographical material by player and/or team, and needs copyediting due to several grammar errors. -- Gnetwerker 02:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• This is the maximum length that the article can be created, and if contains too many references to autobiographical material by player/team comment is just silly, without it it will be a small stub and it is valid info --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

PlayStation 3

• Self-nomination This article has improved a lot and does receives a nomination because it provides everything from the games that'll be released to the hardware. Mastermind 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - information is always changing about the PS3. Plus, some of it could do with some more citing. Think it'll be better once all the details are gathered (ie, when it is released) and then maybe it could be a candidate. --Thorpe | talk 18:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Object, this has a big gallery of (questionable) fair-use images. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, another thing that will have to be dealt with in order to have this featured. --Thorpe | talk 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Authors are overly optimistic about PS3 and interpret release information likewise. For example the first available date was a debacle, until Sony made it unquestionable. Optimistic authors are trying to do the same with information related to product cost and pricing. Daniel.Cardenas 21:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Remove my opposition since pricing range has been announced, so there isn't much debate on that subject. Daniel.Cardenas 03:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The price is yet to be confirmed. Maybe you were looking at the vandalised version. --Thorpe | talk 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the above. Sony still hasn't even priced the unit or given an exact date, and I don't think any featured article should be on a topic that could change so drastically at a moments' notice. Example: What about the chance the system is more expensive than hoped? The page would need lots of content added to deal with the contraversy, and entire sections would undergo upheaval with the attraction of vandals. In addition to fair-use and POV concerns, this article is just a bad candidate until we have much more information. Gspawn 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have not looked to see if anyone had changed the beginning of this article in order to make it funny, but in its current form this article is not of high quality. It says Sony "lied" in its projected release date --this in part because the company expects to "do a good job" this time. Also the article jests that buying a PS3 would even break Bill Gate's bank.

You were reading vandalism that was quickly reverted. Daniel.Cardenas 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article suffers information inclusion overload, and most of the work that has gone into it simply tries to ensure that included information isn't downright incorrect or skewed. Most of the article is just lists of specifications that most readers cannot interpret nor would likely care about. What small portions are not have questionable text and scope. Furthermore, as already mentioned, there isn't enough information on this thing for it to BE much of an article yet, what shreds of information are available usually are surrounded by speculation, and even the hard facts that can be reported change on a weekly basis. No, this thing is far from FA quality. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-24 15:40Z

Singapore

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 2, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 3

This article had three previous nominations, the last one dating over a year ago. The article has gone through extensive revision, copyediting and improvement since then, and I think it has achieved that degree of integrated completeness, and it is a perfect example of good usage of Wikipedia:Summary. I think it is an excellent candidate. Possible objections I anticipate is the need for more references or footnotes, but that can be quickly brought over from the subpages if needed, I don't see this as a major problem. Since peer review wasn't extensive as hoped, I at least hope that pushing for FAC will put us in a proper direction. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- You should add the {{IndicText}} template. Also, the large pic at the bottom is covering up a box. --Osbus 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Done! For placement of {{IndicText}} template, I placed it under the main infobox, as per precedent set by Tamil language. --Vsion 02:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A well-written article, and is comprehensive in information on various aspects of the subject-country including history, culture, transport, etc. It has improved considerably and certainly deserves a FA-status. --Vsion 02:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - There are so few references. joturner 03:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object For the following reasons:

Weak support. My suggestions have been addressed. This is a well written article, but I do feel that it can still use some tweaking. Getting rid of trivial wiki links is one area that the authors may want to look into (eg. wiki links for electronics, manufacturing, fishing, village, confidence, island, etc. should probably be deleted.) Otherwise, good effort. AreJay 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• • There needs to be some consistancy wrt the referencing format in this article. It looks like you've used <ref> which is fine, but needs to be followed consistantly in the article. For example, references in the Politics and government section have direct link embeds.
  • I would like to see more references in the article. An article that is close to 50kb should have more than 5 inline citations.
  • Also, you might want to separate your references into Notes and References, per WP:CITE.
  • Spelling needs to follow a consistant style. I have noticed a few words with American spelling (eg. "colonized" in the lead) and some with British spelling (eg. "recognise" in History).
  • Appropriate citation is required for the section that deals with criticism of the government and its policies.
  • Most of my objections are minor. I like the article, but I feel that it can benefit from a good round of copyediting. AreJay 03:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Points 1,3,4 are addressed (correctly, I hope). The remaining concern is about the few number of references. Part of the reason is because most of the material was written before the "ref" element was "invented". I will try to find and add references, especially for the politics and government section as suggested. It can be done. Cheers. --Vsion 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Many references have been added, please re-evaluate. Thanks! --Vsion 22:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Definately better. However you will need to dig a little deeper wrt the references. The History and Demographics sections are for the most part bereft of in line citations. Although quantity is certainly no guarantee of quality, I would expect to see in-line citations numbering between 30-40 in an article of this size. It would be illogical for me to hold you to that range; however I do feel that the article could use more in-line citations. Also, not to nitpick, but per WP:FOOTNOTE, the format for in-line citations is text → punctuation (if needed) → reference. (eg. some text.^[1]). Some of your in-line citations have a space between the period and the in-line reference. Sorry, I know that's being really being nitpicky, but I think these things are ultimately important in a featured article.

2. Also, please remove wikilinks for orphaned years and months per WP:MOSDATE. Only specific dates (such as October 1, 2005) should be wikified. AreJay 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

These items have been addressed. Please take another look. --Vsion 11:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Better. However, I attempted to go through the article to see if any minor copyediting might be required, and it appears to me now that this article needs a considerable amount of copyediting. The Tourism section contains considerable POV statements — I wouldn't want to list them here since I think a general copyedit of the article will be able to bring those statements to light. That whole section on babies in Demographics reads funny. In History, it says Singapore was expelled from the federation, but dosen't say why. Many of these issues can be remediated through proof-reading and copy-editing the article. A fresh pair of eyes may be able to catch these errors, can you request someone to look over the article and perhaps proof-read/copy-edit it for you? AreJay 04:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

For the history part, the full details are clarified in the subarticle. Also, the reason for expulsion is implied: "after heated ideological conflict, Singapore was expelled from the Federation"....I think that is reason enough. Of course, the precise, detailed reason is that the Tunku called a parliament meeting in Kuala Lumpur on August 9, in order to put Singapore's expulsion to the vote, which was approved unanimously because of Tunku's speech that Singapore had not shown a single element of loyalty to the central govermment (see history of Singapore). How does the section on babies read funny? After all, other developed Asian societies - South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong et al. are concerned about their birth rate too, and similar language was used in the Straits Times. In what way should it be corrected? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough on History. The babies statement appears to have been corrected. At the time of my objection it read something along the lines of "30,000 babies are produced each year..." or something to that effect. In light of the changes, I will give the article another read-through and make minor copyediting changes where needed. If the article looks okay, you'll have my vote. AreJay 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, good article. --Terence Ong 08:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Poorly written (Criterion 2a). Let's look at every sentence in the second para of the lead.

"The site of several ancient port cities and a possession of several empires in its history, Singapore was a Malay fishing village when it was colonised by the United Kingdom in the 19th century."

Why does "in its history" apply to "several empires", but not to colonisation in the 19th century?

"It was further occupied by the Japanese Empire in World War II, and was later part of the merger which formed the Federation of Malaysia."

Remove "further", since you haven't discussed any prior occupation, as such. Remove "the merger which formed".

"When Singapore acquired independence, it was originally sociopolitically volatile and economically undeveloped, and had few natural resources."

Remove "originally". Do you mean that S's "natural resources" somehow materialised after independence?

"Foreign investment and rapid government-led industrialisation has since created an economy which relies on exports of electronics and manufacturing from its port."

"relies on the export of" would be better. Consider removing "from its port"; I'm sure S's export performance occurs in a number of modes, including financial services on the Internet.

"More than 90 percent of Singapore's population lives in housing estates constructed by the Housing Development Board and nearly half use the public transport system daily."

Awkward mixture of percentage and fraction.

"As a result of public transport and environmental initiatives by government ministries, Singapore's pollution is mostly isolated from heavy industry on Jurong Island."

The last clause is ambiguous: is it the pollution or the heavy industry that is isolated on Jurong Island? Or perhaps pollution and heavy industry are isolated from each other, but only on JI?

"Politically, Singapore is a representative democratic socialist country that has adopted a welfare system, although de facto, it has a dominant-party system."

"Politically" is falsely contrasted with "de facto". A lot of readers will probably gag at the democratic socialist bit. This is dangerously like POV, and is not referenced or justified. Better to treat this in more detail in the body of the article rather than at the top.

"The government of Singapore has attracted controversy for some policies it has taken to achieve its development."

What, the government's development? Even if you mean Singapore's development, it smells a bit POV to me, especially as a bald statement in the lead.

Tony 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of interpolating responses (in brown) to Vsion's rejoinder below. (Tony)

Thanks for the feedback. I am still confused at seeing how it is poorly written. Perhaps there are some misinterpretations, which I will be glad to fix but don't see how the suggestions clarify it. (In most cases, they should make the prose crystal clear. These are only examples from the opening; I was demonstrating that the whole text needs this intensity of editing. Can you find someone who's not close to the writing of the text to run through it carefully? I'd offer, but I'm very busy until the start of May.) It is a well-established fact that there is controversy, especially with it being called authoritarian or politically repressive, and then a debate whether it is or not. (So instead, let's examine the controversy in greater detail in the body of the text; at the top, there's no room for the detail that is required to contextualise these assertions.)

The Jurong Island thing I have attempted to clarify. I do not think mixing percentage and fractions makes it poorly written, but that is minor. (Agreed) Singapore has been called democratic socialist and this is a widespread label because the PAP undertook a democratic socialist policy, and this is evident in much of its subsidy programs. (The devil is in the detail; what kind of subsidies? Whose interests are served? It's just too thorny an issue to treat explicitly at the top.) Singapore's port is the most dominant form of export - other forms of export, such as rail, or by road, or even by air, is minor. (Goods come in from Johor, usually not towards Johor.) (OK.)

Anyway about the empires issue, the British Empire is included. Does it somehow imply that the British Empire was excluded? The intention was the fact that Singapore was a possession of several empires before it was reduced to a fishiing village, and become part of several empires again after it was reduced to a fishing village. (How it became reduced to a fishing village is not historically clear as there are few records between the razing by the Portugese and 1819.) (My point was: remove "in its history" as redundant, which will solve the problem of referring to only some empires as historical.) I also am confused about why to remove "further" from occupations, as "further occupations" include being possessed by the other empires, does it not? (You haven't explicitly referred to colonisation and inclusion in empires as "occupations", and strictly speaking, they may be different conditions. Remove "further" to avoid fuzziness.) Also, Malaysia is called Malaysia today because of Singapore's entry, if not for its merger, there wouldn't need to be for an entry of Sabah and Sarawak to balance the added Chinese population (rationale at the time0 - debatable of course, but it had a major role in forming the merger; otherwise without "formed" it looks like it joined an existing Federation for a few years, then left, akin to joining a party then realising one dislikes it and leaving, an impression which was definitely not the case. I have addressed the "originally" issue. (The merge thing is redundant; remove it and the language is simpler and stronger. This goes for the whole article; there are many other instances of redundancy.) I have rewritten and I hope that the appropriate portions are satisfied but as to some other points I do not know whether it is an actual problem to address.

The original lead section was five paragraphs long, so I had to compress it to about three small paragraphs, which may have resulted in some language discrepancy, but I do not think that means it is "poorly written". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the items have been addressed or explained. Regarding concerns of POV, I'm not sure if the accuracy of those concerned sentences are actually disputed, althought they raise some eyebrows. Presenting various viewpoints have helped to keep the article balanced and unbiased overall. This is the approach we adopt and it works well for articles such as this. --Vsion 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will take those suggestions into criticism, except the part of the merger, which I feel is exceedingly critical to portrayal of the situation. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see your angle, but it's not encyclopedic, where neutrality is a strong requirement. The solution is to avoid raising eyebrows at the top, where the level of detail must be restrained; deal with these politically charged issues where you can explore both sides of the argument. Considerable work is still needed on the language of this article. BTW, there is a lot of good about the article, even if it doesn't pass on 2a. Tony 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some sections have been summarized, so I hope being concise improves the readibility and reduces the redundancy you mentioned. However, please understand that the word "merger" is important because it is commonly used to describe the forming of Federation of Malaysia and has become synonymous with that historic event. Some publications even use it as a pronoun as "the Merger". Removing the phrase you mentioned would affect the meaning of the sentence and could be misleading as explained by Natalina. --Vsion 13:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment IMHO the paragraphs in general could be longer - they arn't too offending as is but I think it would help the structure if they were merged/expanded a bit. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- This is not completely written in summary style. =transport=, =Culture=, =Politics=, =Economy= and =Demographics= can be further summarised. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Those sections are now summarized. Please re-evaluate, thanks! --Vsion 13:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• I've reviewed and I still think matter can be cut from this article (ie move it to the main article of the section). In =Demographics= the para on ethnic harmony can be removed since the same could be said for a lot of other countries. The last paragraph on babies reads like there is a factory that mass produces babies. :) Reduce it to one sentence saying that the death rate exceeds the birthrate by x and the government is trying to encourage couple have additional kids. Merge this with para 1. In =transport= remove excess matter on Sing. Airlines. The last three paragraphs can be summarised down to 4 sentences. Talk about: road transport system; private transport and the discouraging of it, and the MRT. The =Tourism= section can be removed completely from this page to reduce the article size. Tourism is often a subjective addition and elements of it can be merged with culture. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, d'accord for most of the suggestions, except that some part of the racial harmony element must remain, given the race riots in 1960's and the existence of a racial harmony day. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it better for "tourism" to merge into "Economy" section? The culture section is already lengthy. --Vsion 21:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The tourism section is merged into the "Economy" section, and the other items are also addressed. While racial tension exists in most other countries, racial issues are especially important in Singapore because being a city-state with a short history of nationhood and situated in Southeast Asia, racial conflict threatens national security with dire consequences. In fact, that was what led to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965; and the socio-political situation of the region have not changed much since then. --Vsion 23:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's better, but the sections are still long. I've just summarised a few sections in Kolkata removing excess details and thereby reducing it by 5 kb. (old) (current) Please take a look and emulate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Where is the human rights section? Neutrality^talk 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, why do we need a human rights section? Human rights is not a required part of the main article of a country AFAIK — Singapore hasn't committed any coup d'etats, violent mass murders, and there have been no clear-cut human rights violations, it's not a police state, and political rights is an issue, not human rights. A human rights section should not be a required provision much like any other Western nation does not, I don't think it's part of the standard assortment of sections for countries anyway. I respect Neutrality, but I don't think this objection is a suitable one. If this is because of capital punishment in Singapore, or any such issue for that matter, the execution of Nguyen, or off drug dealers, is way too trivial to warrant any such "human rights section". Furthermore, the United States article only has human rights as part of a subsection of the politics section, and that article is already way too large. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely it would be one of the things most people consulting an encylopedia article on Singapore would be looking for. Surely it's of more international interest/importance than transport. By my count there are nearly 550 words for transport, but less than 300 words on human rights or international criticism (that's a liberal count). Neutrality^talk 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. See People's Republic of China#Human rights. And in the intro: what exactly is a "reduced democracy"? I've heard of illiberal democracy and procedural democracy, but not "reduced democracy." Neutrality^talk 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

But to include it would reflect bias: Singapore has no major human rights problems. We have capital punishment in Singapore, and that's already covered as part of law of Singapore and politics of Singapore, and the various topics concerning rights in general is already covered. Why do we need a human rights section? Is the execution of drug traffickers (who are murderers in their own right) who choose run their routes towards a city-state which so values the health of its skilled workers, its only natural resource, as prime so atrocious and vile that we must dedicate a whole section on it? Doing so would definitely violate the undue weight clause of Wikipedia:neutral point of view. After all, unlike the PRC, Singapore is not a police state. Unlike the United States, we don't attack other countries, take random civilians and imprison them in labour camps located in some bay in Cuba. How exactly is the human rights section warranted? Again, we discuss rights and capital punishment, and smashing of political dissent in the respective sections, but we don't need a whole section on it. The PRC article I see only has a subsection, and that's usually not a requirement for FAC. I move to strike this objection. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The user doth protest too much. I am not looking to hold a debate, but human rightd are a very important part of Singapore and its international significance. Neutrality^talk 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Singapore holds controversy for some of its laws, and allegations of authoritarianism and gerrymandering. However, human rights is not part of its "international significance". I do protest here. When I go overseas, the first thing foreigners ask me is perhaps about chewing gum, or spitting on sidewalks, but not about human rights. Going from third world to first is significant; questionable ethics in the political scene is significant; having an entire section on human rights is not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To restate again, just because some activist groups think that execution by hanging, or executing someone for drug trafficking is barbaric doesn't mean it is an actual human rights abuse. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, depriving someone of their right to live isn't a human rights abuse :P Imposition of the death penalty is a human rights abuse wherever it happens. - FrancisTyers 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but many countries practice it. I do believe some U.S. states still have gas chambers...the death penalty being widespread, Nguyen was really a minor case in the history of Singapore: there was no rioting, no innocents got killed, no political dissidents were arrested. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm definately not saying that there should be a human rights section in the article — for the fourth or fifth time :P — the UK doesn't have one, and many other countries don't have them in their articles. I'm just saying that "executing someone for drug trafficking is barbaric doesn't mean it is an actual human rights abuse" is very blasé. It is a human rights abuse, all applications of the death penalty are. I would have thought you'd have realised that by now. The US regularly violates human rights, as do many countries, this does not mean that it should appear on their article page. -

FrancisTyers 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The human rights section at the PRC area has been integrated as a part of measures to save its FA status, so I think Neutrality's point is moot? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, very informative. Deserves to be FA Leidiot 11:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object:

Politics and government section:

• Law/justice system - common law? Civil law? Case law? Judges appointed or elected? Appeals? Juries? The judicial branch is only mentioned in passing when discussing the role of the president.

The subarticle states that it is an English common law system that has abolished juries..."The Ordinance VI of 1873 marked the passage of the English Criminal Law in favour of the Indian. The Ordinance did away with indictments and instituted charges for all criminal offences; it abolished the Grand Jury and Special and Common Juries." Is this a vital detail that must be included in the main Singapore aritcle? Should the section be expanded considerably? A lot of these were removed in past FACs which desired a short summary. Who are we to please?

• "Critics have called," "Critics claim," "They consider"—Weasel words.

The opposition parties, specifically, such as Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party, Jeyaratnam, as well as the Workers' Party...I will note their inclusion. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Despite these political issues, Singapore has what its government considers to be a highly successful and transparent market economy."–obviously the government of every nation claims it has a "highly successful and transparent" economy. Quantify and cite. The Economist will do.

Transparency International doesn't count? Statistics are already cited in economy of Singapore further below. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Although dominant in its activities"—What does "dominant" mean. This is ambiguous.
• "The government has a clean, corruption-free image."— Unsourced.

Not unsourced. "Singapore has consistently been rated as the least-corrupt country in Asia and amongst the top ten cleanest in the world by Transparency International.[10]" Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified"—Specifically, what statements are prohibited?

Isn't this covered in the subarticle? To elaborate detail would make the article excessively large. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Most recently, the PAP has relaxed some of its socially conservative policies and encouraged entrepreneurship."—Unsourced.

This is covered in Culture of Singapore, IIRC, (I think, if it wasn't moved already) a piece about removing restrictions from bungee jumping and bartop dancing. I will dig up sources. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

• Official languages are explained, but we need a breakdown by percent of native speakers.

That's in the subarticle. I do not think it should be elaborated here, as that would again make it excessively large. The languages are associated by race, with some overlap, and the identification of the major groups are in the section. Specific numbers would be covered in the subarticle, would it not? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

National symbols

• Put national symbols in a sidebar as in the India article.

D'accord. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

--Neutrality^talk 22:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. No media and communication section. 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I must question why that is such a vital content area as to warrant an objection. I'm just frustrated because people object for both having too much detail or too little detail at the same time. What the necessary sections? We are asked to merge the education section but branch out a communications section? Isn't education a more important section anyway? (Both hav been argued considered subsections of culture and economy respectively.) I can bring content in from the respective subarticle if you'd like, but I worry that will just bring in yet another objection from someone else for including it in the first place. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I was going to object because of some choppy prose, but I just went ahead and did a copyedit - would have taken me the same amount of time to list the things that needed fixing (scare quotes, inconsistent date style, Yoda speak, repetitive sentence structure, run on sentences, etc). I must object to the unsigned objection above ; media and communication are a part of culture and need not have separate sections. --mav 23:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Objection. Quick breakdown of parliament seats by party is needed. Neutrality^talk 23:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Er - just add to your objection above. Only one vote per person please. --mav
    • FAC is not a vote, and I want to make sure the nominator sees the comment. Neutrality^talk 00:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but that is a distortion. It just happens to not operate by simple majority or even supermajority in the strict sense but by consensus (with the aid of votes that MUST be backed up by actionable points if in the negative). So while not a vote itself, the FAC process does use voting. By having TWO bold 'objects' you are in effect vote-stuffing for anybody skimming the balance of bold supports vs objects. Just list all your objections in the same place like everybody else. --mav 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you add this yourself - there's information at Parliament of Singapore. My exasperation is up to this point because I am not sure what is trying to be accomplished here, pardon. Why do you need a breakdown of party seats? Heck, the next general election is going to be held pretty soon. It's not vital information to the article - however, the fact that the opposition holds a couple of seats while the PAP holds the rest I will be willing to add/clarify. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't had the time to look through the entire prose again, but I think a second-level subheadings may help accomodate longer prose, as well as some of the objections. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - I'm very sorry, but in my time here, I've seen the article deteriorate from good to bad. The ultra-condensed dry-as-formula-milk format is very reader-unfriendly. The lesson here is: You can't please everyone. You don't tweak an article by discarding the baby with the bathwater. Unless the article stops reading like a 1960 pedantic textbook where the author sounds awfully uninterested in the subject involved, I doubt I will support any nominations. Even browsing this gives me a headache. Mandel 08:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, what is wrong with the tone? I don't see where it looks like uninterest. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Mandel, please be more specific. Many editors are interested in different subjects about Singapore, we can't accommodate everything in a single article; transfering less important content to more focused articles is a continuous effort; with or without this FAC. --Vsion 19:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • When I say "condensed milk" I mean the article is squeezing too much info in as little space as possible, and this makes for bad reading. Good prose has flow, connection and style. This article reads like an essay written for an examination: it contains plenty of good info, but written in a way which makes for "information overload". How many will like this if they know nothing about Singapore? Look at Para 3 of the lead. Everything is crammed in without any tying theme. I don't know who did this but it reads like an answer by a GCE 'A' Level candidate. Possibly he/she will score well for Geography, but for an encyclopedia, we are trying as far as possible to move away from the overly technical. Ironically this seems like a typical Singaporean work: highly efficent, but totally devoid of any grace or style. Look at what was there 1 year ago and the prose is considerably more relaxed and inviting. Mandel 08:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • When I wrote that I did have a tying theme - ie. steps taken after independence, what Singapore did to develop. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support A well written article with lots of references and links. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The media section and human rights sections are not a necessity as per Wikipedia:WikiProject countries. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment make stubs or remove the two redlinks and i'll vote YAY! :) - FrancisTyers 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed. One of the red link is Baweans, the people of Bawean Island in Java Sea, where many Malays in Singapore originated from during the 19th century [13]. I learned something today :D --Vsion 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment what should we do with the four bolded votes by Neutrality, can we strike out the extra votes? --Vsion 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Weak Object (for now) 1)Still has red links, create them first. 2) Not need to have a separate section for national symbols; most other featured country pages have them as a template, which should also reduce space requirements (if placed on the right). 3)The culture section is too big, should be reduced by 40%, the images of water taxi or Trishaw should go to Transport section. Please make these corrections. Thanks. --Ragib 20:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  More comments: The header section has top much wikilinking. There is frankly no reason to wikilink words like "port", "Empires", "Export", "Manufacturing", "Electronics", "housing estates", "controversy", etc. Similarly, throughout the rest of the article, too many words are redundantly and needlessly wikilinked. This makes reading the article difficult, because almost every sentence has some wikilinked word like "island", "urban", "fresh water", "humidity", "recession", "armed forces", "Metro". Amazingly, the article wikilinks the word "Ticket"!!! All these redudnant wikilinks need to be removed before I can support this FA. Thanks. --Ragib 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The water taxi and trishaw is part of cultural heritage — they are not a vital part of Singapore's transport system. It is an industry that caters to tourists (although I did take a ride in it as part of National Education). As National Education is a government programme meant to teach culture and heritage (and history), I don't think it should be moved. Can you amend your objections please.

As for excessive wikilinking, I disagree. Having lots of blue links I think is the style of the wiki (makes it prettier, in fact) - no one complains on WP:ITN. Since people of all ages, all backgrounds, or who have English as a second language are bound to read this, (for example when I go to the French Wikipedia I am glad they link relatively simple words), I don't think it detracts from "featured" criteria. Economic recession is a concept that is not always obvious in terms of definition and should stay linked; neither is "housing estate" - people who have stayed in private suburban housing all their lives might not have a clue what a housing estate entails - humidity is a scientific concept and deserves to be linked; so some of the links you mentioned that are so called "needless" do have some need. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with the first issue of trishaws being part of the culture. But I totally disagree with the assertion that we need to wikilink everything ... I do not at all see why the following words need wikilinking: "Export", "Manufacturing", "Electronics", "controversy", "island", "urban", "fresh water", "humidity", "recession", "armed forces", "Metro". Otherwise, We will need to link every word, which is not at at all a good idea. I would like to see these excessive, redundant wikilinks removed before this article gets up to FA status. Please fix that. Thanks. --Ragib 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that is an inappropriate analogy. We are not linking "every word", we are linking "concepts". Links to concepts like "housing estate" helps assert a greater concept, in this case, the city-state of Singapore and its urban planning policy. For example, the majority of the population being housed in HDB housing estates, and a housing estate being a non-trivial concept, that should be linked. Armed forces is also a rather major concept, and should also be linked. Will the majority of readers need to click on it? Not necessarily, and neither for many other links. However, what "armed forces" entails is also distinctive, because of the nature of "total defence" — not all elements of the defence are armed. Note that "Singapore" is a very general article about a country, and that general articles might have links that can be perceived as trivial. Should we delink "atom" from some science articles because nearly everybody knows what it is? Some people have never been on a metro. Some people just happen not to know the difference between a rail system and a metro system (sum of human knowledge for all people in the English language). Some other concepts may be de-linked, but I only think half of what you listed should. Again, I don't think that having a line almost entirely in blue detracts from aesthetics either. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Some items in Ragib's list are addressed. The red links are removed, and the =symbols= section transfered. The =culture= section is difficult to condense further, its current form is a result of combining several sections that existed previously include language, religion, architecture. I feel it is necessary for sections of History and Culture to be longer than other sections because of their importance and coverage. The appropriate density of wikilinks is a subjective judgement and I hope more leeway on this be given to the writers. Nonetheless, many wikilinks have been removed in the last few days. --Vsion 06:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making the corrections/modifications. I still think the article has too many unnecessary wikilinks, unlike other country pages (see the FAs India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.). Thanks. --Ragib 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that serious as to warrant an objection? I think it would be better to link than not to link, as long as they are not frivolous like dates. Controversy can be unlinked, but I do not think armed forces should be unlinked as it is part of what defines the scope. Besides, the aesthetics is rather subjective — I for one like the blue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick, but wikilinking words like "island", "urban", "fresh water", "humidity", "recession", "ticket" does seem redundant. I changed my vote to weak objection as the other issues seem to have been resolved. Again, I don't see any justification of wikilinking these words. Thanks. --Ragib 05:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well "recession" is a rigourously defined term, as is humidity. I think any rigourously defined concepts should be linked, even if they seem trivial. Non-rigourous concepts can be unlinked, but I also note the Water resources article has detail, so the explanation of a concept (water resource issues) deserves to be linked as this is something that people can find out more about why Singapore is in a particular situation. (These terms though seemingly trivial can turn up in a six point question in geography examination in a specialised context so hence my apprehension to delink them.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, I think there're too many wikilinks. Excessive linking makes for headache reading, and I have a serious headache just looking at this article. Well, don't protest too much - this is just my honest opinion. Mandel 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked all the wikilinks and removed some that are irrelevant and duplicated. The remaining ones are relevant to some degree. It makes sense that in the Geography section, there are links to topics such as "fresh water", "humidity" etc. Similarly, in Education section, there are links to general topics such as primary education, secondary education, etc. These are just tools to facilitate readers to navigate through these article quickly. I understand that it is very subjective, and some wikipedia's "norms" are puzzling to me such as wikifying dates, which I hardly use and the date-articles aren't particularly useful. As for causing headache, I would suggest changing the user setting so that the links are not underlined so that they are less distracting, or just simply increase the display font size which will help tremendously. --Vsion 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks slightly better, but I'd like to reiterate: when a wikilink is linked once already, you need not link it a second time. It's still overdone. In the lead, there's no need to link port, empires, fishing, village, occupied (occupied by Japanese empire should be linked), its port, environmental, controversy. Otherwise you might as well do it for every word. I will delink them, see whether it's acceptable. Mandel 18:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I accepted most of the changes but I relinked several terms which I feel are very useful in explaining Singapore's situation (things like entrepot and value added, given that Singapore has no natural resources) ... Port of Singapore should be linked, and headscarf, as it is really a ban on the tudung. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think some relinks are unnecessary eg. port, exports, humidity etc. These are very generic terms which a dictionary definition would suffice for understanding the article. Also, "entrepot" seems to have been wikilinked a number of times. Like I say, you can actually wikilink almost every term in the article, but the trick is to do it judiciously. Mandel 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Greatly informative and detailed article that covers many facets of Singapore. Deserves featured status Ivirivi00 23:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Question: This FAC seems to be archived, it doesn't appear in the main FAC page anymore. Is that by mistake, or has a decision been reached for it? Thanks. --Ragib 20:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Computer

I, Vulcanstar6, am withdrawing my nomination. However, i will be creating a to-do list for the article and will continue to help expland the article.

Computers are one of the most infulential parts of everyones life. We wouldn't have WP if not for computers. Everyone has used one at one point or another. And the wealthiest man living made his fortune off of computers. I believe this meets the criteria for a FA, and so i nominate it.Vulcanstar6 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) *Comment no fairuse rationale for film screenshot? Zzzzz 22:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectComment Please add author, publication date, and access date to all web references when available. You may want to use {{cite web}} for this. Move all footnotes after puncuation marks and don't use two commas just because there are two footnotes. Add fair use rationale to the film screenshot. This article needs more references. In particular, I would expect an article on a subject like this to include more book references. The book reference that is currently there is missing some information, such as the publisher and date. It would be nice if the appropriate page number was given also. Pagrashtak 22:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• The film screenshot already has fair use rationale on its page. as for the references, i'll get on that.Vulcanstar6 22:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you're confusing licensing information with fair use rationale. Read the "to the uploader:" text in the licensing information box on the image page. Pagrashtak 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, im kinda new at this. i'll read that. and then i may need help with some other things you pointed out. Vulcanstar6 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • So would this be fiar use rationale: "fair use because it's just a part of the frame and is used to illustrate the development of CGI (research/education) and has no commercial effect on the film" (paranoid put this on the pictures page)Vulcanstar6 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• you need to explicity describe why its fairuse in the Computer article specifically. Zzzzz 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This sounds awfully noob, but, where in the article.Vulcanstar6 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• not in the article, on the image page. have a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. as a guide you could look at the images on Hong Kong action cinema. Zzzzz 23:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kindness, and help. I have added a fair use summary to the pictures page. Vulcanstar6 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have fix the punctuation problems with the footnotes, and removed the comma between the footnotes. Vulcanstar6 23:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Minor object. Good article, which would probably pass a year ago, but our (my?) standards are higher now. 1) Add a picture to the lead and merge the first tiny sentence into other para (or expand into a proper para). 2) only 10 inline citations? 3) too many see alsos. My rule of thumb: a) see alsos should be incorporated into main body or removed as irrelevant b) if something is in main body it should not be in see also c) good articles have tiny or no see also section. 4) only one relevant external link? 5) and only one book in references?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • im going to find a pic for the lead right now, and incorporate the first sentance. i'll get to the others soon... Vulcanstar6 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone else added the pic to the lead, i made the first sentance a "not to be confused". as that was its intention. Also, the "see also"'s are large in number becuase "computer" is a broad subject. there are many branchs from it.Vulcanstar6 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object: The article confuses the specifics of how particular modern day computers work with the general, abstract concept of what a computer is. This is a 'big subject' article - it needs to steer clear of the small specifics and distill out the essence of what a computer is. Where is the discussion of Turing completeness - there is a throw-away mention of the Church-Turing thesis...these are really the key matters. For example (although there are many), the article states that the ALU, I/O and memory are connected with "a bundle of wires" - well, that hasn't been true for a very long time now - and even when it was true, it wasn't NECESSARILY true. A computer can be made from gears and pushrods - or from pneumatics or it might have an optical bus or it the parts might be connected with radio links - or it might be made of DNA or Qbits in a quantum computer. Diving into the detailed specifics of the workings of a circa 1980's desktop machine is completely inappropriate here. Even in an actual, practical computer - it's been a long time since memory and I/O were on the same bus in (for example) a PC. Practical computers such as the SGI ONYX range have hierarchies of busses connecting multiple CPU's to multiple memory banks. Then we have statements that an ALU can perform two classes of operations - arithmetic and comparisons. This is screwy. A comparison is typically just a subtract followed by examination of the status bits...what about LOGICAL operations - AND, OR, XOR, SHIFT ? Plus, it's perfectly possible to design a functional computer that passes the Church Turing test without being able to do any kind of arithmetic whatever (I know - I've designed one). Then the article spirals out of control - talking about things like the Internet which actually have very little to do with computers. In my opinion, this article is the kind of thing you get when you don't have a clear concept of what the ESSENCE of a computer is. SteveBaker 03:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Per Steve's comments; he gave enough details. I've personally written a computer-related FA, and Computer just isn't nearly there yet. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-07 03:41Z
  • Thanks for agreeing with me! I took my detailed objections to the Talk:Computer page - there I picked a section from the article at random and examined each sentence in turn. I found good reasons to discount the claims of every single sentence. I'm pretty sure one could do this for almost any section of the article. SteveBaker 03:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

====Nomination Withdrawn==== SqlPac

I am nominating this article because its quality has been greatly improved since its previous review, thanks to the thorough and exhaustive efforts of the community of contributors. It is well-sourced, re-formatted, re-organized, re-edited and all images have had Fair Use rationales added. It will make an excellent starting point for any research projects into the life of the highly controversial and popular subject of the article, rapper Tupac Amaru Shakur. Notes: I am a contributor to the Tupac Shakur article and a prior version of this article was submitted as a featured article candidate. SqlPac 01:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

*Weak Object Good article, but the gallery of album covers has to be removed as fair use doesn't count in that case --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support concern is met, good article, but I do agree with Tuf-Kat on the referncing sections. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed gallery of album covers.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object paragraphs too short and the album covers need to go. Not part of my objection, but I think the table about the albums/stuff released after his death is excessive. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Album covers gone. Combined paragraphs to make them longer.SqlPac

He did release more than twice as much material after death than before death, so any complete discography will reflect a large number of items. I have combined all "while living" and "posthumous" listings into single listings that do not differentiate.SqlPac 20:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done, it looks like a pretty decent article now. Take care of TUF-KAT's criticisms and you'll have my support as well. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object
  1. The gallery has got to go. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free content encyclopedia; large groups of gratuitous non-free images don't further that goal.

Gallery gone.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1. The album covers scattered throughout the article should be removed. There's no discussion of any of the covers, and decorative use of non-free images is not permitted under Wikipedia's fair use policy.

The 2 - 3 album covers scattered throughtout the article were being used as a reference to the albums that were being discussed in the sections in which they appeared. They are now removed.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Either Image:2Pac2.jpg or Image:2pac-diamond.jpeg needs to be removed. There's no reason to use two non-free images of someone when one will do.

Removed 2pac-diamond.jpeg publicity photo.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1. The image Image:2pac-diamond.jpeg has no source information.

Removed.SqlPac 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• --Carnildo 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object, though it's shaping up fairly nicely.
  • More inline citations. "Style and influences" is completely without them; "Legacy" needs more, anything that purports to know Shakur's mind needs a citation (e.g. "Post-prison")
  • Trim the TOC considerably (splitting discog. into living and posthumous is not necessary, I think, and if the notable features are so notable, they should be in the body of the article and if not, link to a subarticle like List of Tupac Shakur collaborations).

Some of the notable features were mentioned in the body of the article, though not all of them. The Notable Features section has been removed. Living and posthumous splitting of discography, etc., has been eliminated. The listings do not now differentiate between material released while living and that released after his death.SqlPac 20:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks better. Tuf-Kat 20:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• • For a subject like Tupac, I'd really like to see some more scholarly sources. Almost all of the sources appear to be web articles, mostly newspapers and the like. The only two print sources are one biography and one of what appears to be a tell-all about his murder. This isn't enough to place such a major figure in his historical and social context -- for some performers, it might be adequate, but Tupac needs more.

So that other readers of this don't misunderstand and automatically believe we sourced a bunch of "fan sites", I'd like to list some of the online sources used in the article here: 1) The BBC News website, 2) The Harvard Gazette, 3) U.C.-Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism online paper, 4) BET website, 5) MTV2 website, 6) AOL Music website, 7) 2PacLegacy (the official TASF website). Additionally, the following print sources were used: 1) The New York Times, 2) The San Francisco Chronicle, 3) Tupac:Resurrection, 4) LAbyrinth. The "tell-all" about his murder was used as a source for information about ... well, his murder. In addition, Tupac interviews with renowned hip-hop reporter Davey D were used. SqlPac 20:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tuf-Kat 18:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is not that the current references are bad, just that they are insufficient. The article does not adequately place Tupac in a historical and social context, and I don't think that can be remedied using the current array of sources. Find some scholarly works on hip hop, American pop culture, etc and incorporate their thoughts on Tupac. Tuf-Kat 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your comments and point of view. The contributors to the Tupac Shakur article discussed the Harvard Conference, and some of the dozen or so scholars and professors in attendance who placed Tupac in a historical and social context. Using the article as a starting point for research into Tupac will lead those interested in the scholarly aspects of his life to purchase those academic papers. I would propose that a full academic treatment of Tupac Shakur which speculates on the proper historical and social context of his life and work would consume an entire article unto itself, and would expand an article discussing the simple facts of his life and work (like this one) to at least double its current size. In fact, looking at previous edits of the article, one can see that there was an expanded summary of the works put forth at the Harvard Conference alone which exploded the article to nearly 50% larger than its current 40+ KB size. SqlPac 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tupac's of sufficient importance he could and probably should have subarticle(s). The Harvard Conference is insufficient -- this article needs to explain in what ways Emmett Price believes Tupac is a "trickster", for example, and please define or link "organic intellectual". The sentence "Still other renowned academics spoke of Shakur's impact on entertainment, race relations, politics and the "hero/martyr" status to which he was elevated by fans after his death." is far too vague and begs the question of how the reader could learn something about this topic. Tuf-Kat 01:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a bunch of stuff. At this point I'd prefer to just withdraw the nomination. What's the procedure for that? SqlPac 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Viking

Support - Great article, I'm quite impressed with the look and the other nominations it had. I definitely give a vote for making it featured on the Main Page. Mastermind 12:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This should not be a featured article yet - A featured article is expected to meet several criteria, and this one doesn't. Before we should consider it a worthy candidate for featured article, it needs a good overhaul to among others get all facts straight, as well as a review of some information that seem a bit ambigious. /Magore 10:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"I think you need a better picture of a boat" Mr. Unknown

We Belong Together

The last two nominations had failed (both are documented in the same project page), and this time I am really striving to have this article become a featured article, something I am more than convinced it has finally reached. The writing's good, images are used where appropriate, and the notes and references may have gone a bit over-board, yet more is always best when it comes to nomination time. Please provide any suggestions, comments and criticism, and please remember to sign your name with four tildes (~~~~)! Thanks! Let's begin this process.

Raul654 had delisted the original third nomination on the grounds that it had been too soon to renominate it. If my addition is accurate, I believe I have waited a further two weeks and would like to point out that this is the final FAC I participate in concerning this article. Hopefully, it will succeed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support because: the chart trajectory image should be a scatterplot, to be accurate. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't own Microsoft Excel and had to ask another to create the graph. Does this scatterplot feature come with the same program? Or perhaps another? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that Microsoft Excel, Quattro Pro, etc. can do it. I'm not sure though. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 16:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I do not possess access to any of these programs. Your input is appreciated, of course, and I thank you for your support, however weak or strong it may be. :) —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Changed vote to full support -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- too many nominations too fast, also fancruft. -- Gnetwerker 19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Too many nominations too fast is not an objectionable ground, and may be ignored. However, what do you believe contains fancruft? I will try and remove all of the content that you believe is classified as this. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe I removed the fancruft. Could you comment? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object per the grounds I used on the previous three nominations, the graph is distracting and inaccurate. The song was never in posistion 3.6, or 4.7, but the graph shows it was. Also, it's too soon. That is actionable. Wait a month. Problem solved. Non-objectionable opposes are along the lines of 'I think Carey sucks and we shouldn't have this featured.' -M^ask 19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain where it presents positions 3.6 or 4.7? I don't see such a rank. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think what the person is saying is that the chart, having continuous lines and broad scales, appears to show the song ranking at non-integral positions. I agree with AKMask that the chart is of poor quality. However, since the chart (I hope) was based on the integral values in the tables provided below the chart, the article reader should look at the chart as showing the trends, and look at the data tables to see specific values. joturner 21:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The image is gone. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object The actionable items (especially the ones listed by User:Tsavage) from the last nomination have not been addressed. Simply renominating an article without improving it hoping it'll slip by is just too hollow. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Poor, poor hollow then. What are your objections? We are supposed to have a very good article here, and this article is certainly more than good. It will never be perfect, which is a shame, but then, not one article will ever be perfect. Do you have any specific objections to point out? I need to see them here so I can address them according to what you dislike and do like. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, people don't have to use up their wiki time repeating the same objections ad nauseam if the reason they give is that certain specified objections weren't addressed in the first place. If you're interested in getting a worthy FA, rather than one that is bullied and forced through the process, what you should do in the face of such an objection as Malber's here is not to demand yet another exhaustive and exhausting list of specifics; it's to go look up the last discussion and find the unaddressed objections and criticisms in it. That's your job, as nominator; it's not Malber's. Tip: when you do, look especially for the signature Tsavage, since Malber mentions that specifically. You see how it's done? Please stop demanding that the objectors do your job. What makes you think they should take the time to read through and make a précis of previous nominations, to save you reading them? Please be more reasonable. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
      • You need to stop bothering me. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • That is an incredibly rude response. The user is correcting some appalling behavior here from you. Articles are not assumed to be featured quality untill shown otherwise, they are assumed to be less then that and it is up to you to prove that it is worthy. That means finding all the old opposes and seeing if you've fixed the concerns raised. Your behavior shows a massive misunderstanding on the way the FA process works, and the way our community at large works. -M^ask 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • No, it is not a rude response. While on this website, I am completing encyclopedia articles, not brushing up on my perfectionism. You cannot tell me that I have brought the article here when it is not ready because that is incredibly POV; if I nominated it, then of course I am going to assume that it is ready. I have personally brought all of the old objections and brought them here to complete. I know precisely how the FAC process works, and I believe that some users are expecting too much out of an article about a song. I know what I am doing. In addition, Bishonen... I can't even comment. I'll just keep quiet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question Where are the nomination archives? I see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together/Archive 1, but shouldn't there be others? At least two more? joturner 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There are two previous FACs, both of which are both in one archive. The third one was removed altogether because it was delisted. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Objectionable content that must be addressed:

• Cut down the fancruft, as per the fancruft guidelines.
• Tsavage believes that the lead section requires work. Although I believe this has been corrected, I will conduct a quick copy-edit.
• Tsavage believes that the critical reception needs to be more comprehensive. This is being debated.

• I believe this has been addressed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tsavage believes that the musical discussion is awkward and needs to be corrected to allow a flow and reads well.
• Tsavage believes that the chart performance section is overemphasized. This has been trimmed excessively and has been completed, I think.

• This has been addressed significantly. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tsavage believes that the sheet music image should be removed. It is gone.

• Completed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tsavage believes that the free downloads controversy could do with trimming. This has been completed.

• Trimmed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tsavage believes that the remixes should be expanded upon. This is being debated further.

• Object For the same reason I objected last time. I just don't think the writing in the article is featured article status. I also think this is way too soon since the last candidacy was delisted. You should wait at least a month or two. HeyNow10029 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson.
    Could you please point out a line or two that you do not consider "brilliant" prose? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What are you suggesting, Eternal? HeyNow10029 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I am suggesting that you bring to my attention some of the writing that you do not believe qualifies as "featured article status". Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not what I was referring to. What are you suggesting with this sentence, Eternal? It should be noted that HeyNow10029 and myself are currently experiencing an edit war at Talk:Kelly Clarkson. HeyNow10029 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I would appreciate it if you borught to my attention what you think is not brilliant writing. I placed that message there because I have an intution that tells me you are objecting because of our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, similar to last time. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Excuse me? What discussion are you talking about that happened "last time" that makes you believe I voted oppose on any grounds other then the quality of the article? I don't like where you're going with this Eternal. I don't care what your intuition tells you but should keep it to yourself because those are some heavy allegations you're throwing around. You're being very rude and frankly, I don't appreciate it. HeyNow10029 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
              • All right, if it is not based on our discussion at Kelly Clarkson, please provide a few sentences which you believe are not featured article writing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Please refrain from making allegations about people, Eternal_Equinox. And as per my objection, see my previous post in the last candidacy page, I'm not going to go back and fish it out, that's your job. HeyNow10029 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • They were not allegations, so please refrain from making me look like I did something wrong. Intution is not shameful. Anyway, I did fish out your previous objections, and the ones concerning the images has been taken care of, since they are no longer here. However, your other objection is: "the writing lacks flavour, kathputz" (I'm not sure what you exactly wrote, but it was something like that). One problem: "kathputz" is not written at Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Therefore, I don't believe from my opinion that this vote is any longer objectionable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • This is your M.O. on the FAC, you pick and pick at people who object until they give in and change their vote. I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but I don't think the writing in the article is featured article worthy. I'm done with responding to you because this has gotten way too personal and out of hand. (Like most things to, when you're involved.) And please don't quote me unless you plan on actually re-writing my quote, word for word. You misspelled chutzpah and I don't spell flavor with a u. . HeyNow10029 01:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • I did not intend to quote you word-for-word. Anyway, I can't improve the writing further if you believe it is lacking chutzpah because no such guideline is written at WP:WIAFA?. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made changes. What should be removed/added? Please comment. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Well done --darkliight^[πalk] 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object, poor quality of scholarship. For instance, one of the broadest claims in the article, that WBT has become Carey's signture song, is referenced to 411hype.com, which is simply not an acceptable source for this sort of claim. It is not a reputable source of music scholarship. Similarly, the genre tags at Yahoo Music are not an acceptable source for a list of genres and music styles that the song employs. Yahoo Music is not a reputable source of music scholarship. The fact that the nomination has been relisted without any genuine attempt to remedy the previously addressed problems is also a mark against the nominator's integrity. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from making such comments as "genuine attempt" because it is POV. How do you know this? Can you read my mind? I am doing my best to address all concerns. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Some of the writing is just plain weird and reads like someone resorting to a thesaurus to try to find more "intelligent" sounding words instead of just stating what they mean. For example: "an elongated discussion," "solicited to radio" and other such phrasing that has me going, "huh?" Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I couldn't acquiesce more exceedingly. Those are the words I paramountly wanted to emancipate from my computer keyboard, but I was having vexation conveying them. HeyNow10029 04:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Solicited to radio" is a term frequently used when a song is sent to radio. The other sentence I have changed. You could have said it yourself, HeyNow, but I see that you didn't. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Is it a frequently used phrase? There's only 10 distinct (of 50 total) Google hits for that phrase (and 4 for "Solicit to radio") and most, if not all, seem to be mirrors of this and another Wikipedia article you worked on. It certainly does not seem to be a commonly used phrase. I appreciate the effort you are making but sections of the writing are just too bizarre for me to support it as a FAC. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support. The writing is a bit patchy in spots, but holds overall. RyanGerbil10 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Don't use words like summer (for obvious reasons), even though it says it spent the summer at the top of the US charts, be more specific. Cvene64 04:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused. What do you mean? —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think Cvene is suggesting you shouldn't use seasons to specify a period of time because they are ambiguous. The period of summer is different in different countries, so you should try to be more specific. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment and Object I've been reading this page for months, I find it interesting to see what people see as the qualities a feature article needs. This article is good but not well written enough per users above. Also, the user that keeps putting this article up for nomination has got to be one of the most annoying on wikipedia. He actually tried to get posters to switch their votes, saying Please reconsider voting "object". Once people have objected, let it stand. I really don't like the aggressive aproach about these articles. It's just wikipedia and it's not worth making yourself look like an idiot and alienating half of the users, especially good ones like Bishonen who has done great work here. But all these discussions are pretty entertaining I will give you that, EE. Bremen 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So... besides insulting me, is there anything besides the writing that you find needs improvement? And no, I am becoming rather irritated with all of the ganging up on me. I am trying my best here, and it appears that everybody else finds Bishonen did something right; she's merely ganging up on myself as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the writing is the main problem. But I did say it was a good article...just not ready yet. I still think you're pushy but you are trying hard that's for sure. By the way it looks like there isn't enough support for featured status yet. If I were you I'd take the next month to work on it or so and see what happens. Bremen 21:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support. I have concerns about this article (mainly that I wish it was longer, and some parts are too weak on referencing), but ultimately I feel like I have to vote to support it simply to counter the horrible reasons given by some of the objectors here ("fancruft", nominating too soon, nominator "aggressive" or "annoying", and worst of all the notion that previous objections—which are essential but shall not be repeated!—were not addressed: I have encountered that old trick before, and it is one of the most obnoxious tactics people use in this whole process). Everyking 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Noting Everyking's comments above - How often do people have to keep stating their objections before this sinks in. The page is not good enough. Sarah Ewart makes some erudite objections, as does HeyNow10029 and Christopher Parham. I objected in the original nomination too. This user is attempting to have this page FAd not by significantly improving it, but by browbeating and wearing down the opposition. I for one am sick to death of seeing this page here, throw it out, and lets never see or hear of it again. Giano | talk 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence at all that the user is trying to wear down the opposition. On the contrary, the user is always engaging the opposition and making concessions, some of which I believe are in fact harmful. And moreover it is absurd to say that FAC efforts on an article should cease just because you are tired of seeing it here. Everyking 07:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment by nominator: Please reconsider voting "object" because this article has spent a lot of time at FAC. Other articles came back consistently and were not removed because of their presence on FAC. Why should this article be treated differently? Just a thought. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This goes way beyond what I've seen from other nominators...really pushing people to see things his way. Bremen 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's a perfectly sound argument, written rather politely. Everyking 08:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we see things differently. By the way I didn't mean to object to the article because the nominator is annoying, I did because of other reasons which I stated. I just felt I had to mention what I felt were bad tactics and rude behaviour. Bremen 08:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am becoming more and more frustrated with each user who is consistently blaming and/or insulting me for bringing this page back to FAC every few weeks. I believe that it is ready, and I am absolutely not attempting to sway users to change their votes. I have addressed nearly all of Tsavage's complaints to the best of my ability and myself and Journalist and have our best to improve the writing as well as we could! Everyone should read up on Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility; as it stands, I did not insult people or refer to them as "annoying" or Bishonen as a good user for whatever reason it may be. The writing is supposed to be incredibly good in an article, and at this point, I believe as per my opinion that everyone is expecting perfection. I will not edit this article any further following this FAC. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the following objections: the fancruft (to the best of my ability), the graph which is now a scatterplot, a good majority of Tsavage's complaints, and a few other nit-picky edits. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)