Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2004

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log

This is an archive of discussions about articles that were promoted to featured status. This archive covers articles from June 2004. Warning: discussions are incompletely organized in reverse chronological order.

June 2004

edit

Margaret Thatcher

edit

This article seems well-written. John Major is featured, and it's shorter than Thatcher's article... cryptfiend64 00:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, leaning towards oppose. Couldn't the cabinets be split off or something? They make the article unnecessarily long. Johnleemk 02:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. There are a lot of words that could/should be hyperlinked, particularly for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with Maggie (hard though it is to believe, as a late-20s Brit, plenty such people do exist ;o) — I'll prolly go through and do some of these later this evening. A copy of the (rather famous) photo of her leaving Downing Street, with tears in her eyes, seems notable by its absence, though; there must be one that doesn't present copyright issues, surely? I'm inclined to agree with Johnleemk about the Cabinet lists, though. I think they should be split off to another page. I could be convinced on these last two points, though; I definitely will support this being FA at some point soon. — OwenBlacker 19:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Right, I've done that (and read it through even more carefully as a result). I'll support this once there's another image or two to break up the copy a little. I'd suggest a photo from the aftermath of the [{Brighton Bomb]] and Maggie crying in the car, leaving Downing Street, as they're both memorable sets of images, one of any of her Conference speeches at the podium would prolly suffice, if that's the best anyone can do... ;o) — OwenBlacker 21:27, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • I added another photo. Changing back to no objections. →Raul654 05:54, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • The Brighton bomb and the Maggie leaving Downing Street were unique events with considerable historic and educational value. Thus they are ideal candidates for a fair use of photos from one of the various news sources. The argument for a podium speech photo is harder to justify. I like the article. Pcb21| Pete 22:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • The new photo is great, but I really do think it needs at least one of her leaving Downing Street or the Brighton Bomb. Definitely an improvement (thanks, Raul), but I think I continue to object until at least one of these two events is pictures on the article; the new photo is just a little too nondescript... OwenBlacker 12:14, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - TOC is too long (see guidelines). I suggest moving all the cabinet stuff to a separate daughter article. --mav 06:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Cabinets spun off. TOC is about 40% smaller now. →Raul654 06:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Much better, thanks. --mav
        • Some of us are worried about butchering articles just so the remainder looks neat enough to satisfy the whims of the FAC process. It seems a backwards way to do things. Although layout is important, content is king. See Talk:Margaret Thatcher.
  • Support. — Matt 14:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Brilliant. +sj+ 06:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. TreyHarris 15:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The article is well written, but the introduction is poor. One has to read several screens of text before learning anything about her role as one of the most important political figures of 20th century. The article should have an introduction fit to be put on the front page. Zocky 18:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Titles

edit

It seems to me that this article has to meet the same fate as Ian McKellen, as it refers to "Thatcher," just as Ian McKellen refers to "McKellen." So if that article gets disqualified as an FA for that usage, this one has to be, too. --TreyHarris 01:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thatcher is a baroness. Peers are referred to by just their last names. And for the period before she became a peer, there's certainly not a problem. john k 06:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is our policy to refer to her as "Lady Thatcher" or "Baroness Thatcher"? I think that "Lady" might be more appropriate for references after the first (if even that is used, instead of just "Thatcher"). It's like referring to a Countess as "the Countess of X" first and "Lady X" or "X" thereafter. -- Emsworth 17:10, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm not all that bothered about the use of titles either way, as long as the article is internally consistent, I think Wikipedia-wide consistency is merely a nice-to-have. — OwenBlacker 19:49, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm hereby declaring that peerage titles should not be used in the article, and that this objection is moot. →Raul654 06:00, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree that titles need not be used when referring to the period during which the Lady Thatcher was not a Baroness. For the period she was a Baroness, however, I think that "Margaret Thatcher" would be innapropriate. Better would be "Lady Thatcher" or just "Thatcher." That being said, I agree that this objection is not germane. -- Emsworth 22:24, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Article One of the United States Constitution

edit

Self-nomination. I think that some might object to the article's overall length. The length, however, is caused by the inclusion of the text, which was desired when the First Amendment article was nominated. The remainder of the article, I think, is of appropriate length (about 30K). -- Emsworth 18:29, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • The length is no problem. Neutral for now, leaning towards object. These are really good legal histories--they would make fantastic sections of an eventual article. What's missing is some kind of overview approach, something that speaks to the general relevance of Article 1 beyond the narrowly legal. Am I being clear? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You are indeed being clear. I presume you want an expansion of the material within the first paragraph of the lead section? -- Emsworth 18:52, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, the lead is quite good--concise, yet informative. Maybe another section detailing the broader impact, or just material within the other sections explaining what effects this has had on the country as a whole. Hope this helps, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:31, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I've added material in certain sections: Congress, House of Representatives, Senate, Elections and Meetings, Bills. Feel free to inform me if more, in your opinion, is necessary. -- Emsworth 20:32, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • Much better--those were really interesting. Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. TOC is too long (see Wikipedia:What is a featured article), and article is too long (see Wikipedia:Page size) because of the inclusion of the source text (see Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources). The source text should be moved to Wikisource and a link provided. That should take care of all the issues I have with the article (which is rather good). --mav 21:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Done -- Emsworth 22:13, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • I withdraw my objection and change to accept. --mav 03:13, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Sean Curtin 07:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. One image is not credited, and two of the other images are only believed to be in the public domain. Jeronimo 09:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The issue of the Senate picture is addressed above in the Separation of powers section. The others are not just "believed" to be PD according to the summaries, which simply give the source and state "public domain." -- Emsworth 13:05, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, but if you follow these links ([1] and [2]), it reads "Images of American Political History. All images are believed to be in the public domain.". There is no source stated, and no evidence that these images are really in the PD. As for the Senate image: see my comment at Separation of Powers. Jeronimo 11:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lovely! Support, pending confirmation of status of Senate picture. +sj+ 05:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Billboard (advertising)

edit

This article is fantastically detailed, interesting, well-written, good use of images...it's got it all. I've done a little work on it, but not much--User:Jkeiser gets the credit. Meelar 20:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support. Neutral. Some of the external links seem to be duplicated; e.g. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/drf168-00.asp is linked both inline and in the "External links" section. Also, apart from the link to the Scottish study, the article really only discusses billboards in the US; I think it could do with some information on billboards in other countries to be well-rounded.. I found the article interesting, though. — Matt 22:14, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) ...There's now some mention of Athens and London billboards, which I think helps. — Matt 19:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: 1. Metric measurements should be provided, in conjunction with Imperial ones, if not alone. 2. The article does not use words where appropriate ("Modern billboards sport technology that can show 3 different messages in succession.") 3. The section "Advertising style" includes a misuse of the word "hopefully." 4. The article uses first person. 5. The article uses second person. 6. "Reasons" is bolded for no apparent reason. 7. The article is Americo-centric. -- Emsworth 22:59, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
"Hopefully" is virtually never used today in the definition I assume you are saying is not misuse, i.e. "in a hopeful manner." Rather, it is almost always used, like other adverbial modifiers like frankly or mercifully or thankfully, as a sentence adverb. The disdain of this latter usage as "incorrect" or "misuse" has become shibboleth among grammar conservatives, who do not deny that sentence adverbs are a useful part of the language, but merely contend that this one word hopefully does not get to participate in that construction.
Let's compare the sentence as it was:
Billboard advertisements are designed to catch a person's attention and leave a memorable impression very quickly, hopefully leaving the reader thinking about the advertisement after they have driven past it.
to how it now reads:
Billboard advertisements are designed to catch a person's attention and leave a memorable impression very quickly, and leave the reader thinking about the advertisement after they have driven past it.
Is it now conclusively better? I think not (even putting aside the awkwardness of the serial use of and leave). Whereas before, it linked the two clauses, designed feature to hoped effect, it now flattens the sentence into three clauses, all subordinate to designed to. You've lost information, all in the name of avoiding a taboo word.
Perhaps to some grammar conservatives' dismay, there is no English Language Academy. English is as English is used. "Hopefully" is overwhelmingly used as a sentence modifier. (There's another sentence modifier there. Would you prefer I said it was "used as a sentence modifier in overwhelming frequency?") There is little or no ambiguity in that usage. It serves in a way that no other substitute does. The idea that there are thoughts that simply cannot be expressed in English because someone finds the construction objectionable is absurd.--TreyHarris 01:36, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and fixed the objections and nitpicks from above, except: 1. Amero-centricism. The article is definitely focused towards the U.S., mostly due to the availability of U.S. sources. I will understand if that is a disqualifying factor. 2. I could not find any first person and second person in the article. 3. I left the billboard measurements in feet since they are intrinsic to the billboard itself (it would be a bit like saying my 6L engine is a 6.34013 Quart engine). Jkeiser 23:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My objection to the units of measurement used is withdrawn. I have addressed the first and second person issues (in the section "What do we put on billboards"). -- Emsworth 00:20, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
Then you object to the article still, but only on the grounds that The article is Americo-centric? --TreyHarris 01:36, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would withdraw the objection if some information on billboards outside the US is added. I would not continue to object if the article merely concentrates more on American billboards. Currently, however, there is almost no information on billboards elsewhere. -- Emsworth 13:13, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
I will search around today. I found some interesting information on Athens, billboards and the Olympic Games, but as for base statistics, given how hard it was to find information on the number of billboards in the U.S., I am not particularly optimistic that I will find this sort of information for other countries. Jkeiser 16:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have found data about billboards in Britain and Greece and added them to the article. Jkeiser 06:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Now that the article does not contain solely American material, I withdraw the objection. -- Emsworth 19:05, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Multiple images are simply taken from other websites. anthony (see warning)
    • All of them were taken from websites: all authors have been emailed. Most have given permission. This is fair use, however, at least from what I am told in the IRC channel. --Jkeiser 06:11, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • It may or may not be fair use, but I think we should take our own pictures rather than taking them from other websites. In the cases where permission under the GFDL has been given this should be noted on the image pages and is acceptable. These so called "fair use" images are easily replacible by more free images and this should be done before this article is featured. anthony (see warning)
        • I'm inclined to agree with Anthony in this case - the fair-use merit of those images is debatable, and (in this case) I don't think it would be hard to replace them. →Raul654 15:14, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
          • I've removed some of the images, and replaced one of them with a GFDL-equivalent. The article now has slightly fewer images, but still, IMO, warrants featured status. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:24, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • Note that Image:Wall Drug Sign.jpg is probably still reliant on fair use/fair dealing, as it includes the presumably copyrighted billboard, but this kind of incidental fair use I won't object to as it is quite likely to be reusable, even in a commercial encyclopedia. As of the current revision I remove my objection. anthony (see warning) 10:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
              • It was my understanding that a personal photo of a corporate logo (a Wall Drug sign or Golden Arch) could still be licenced under the GFDL, and not be fair use. Is this wrong? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Normandy

edit

This article has expanded a lot the latest days, and has become a really good article. It has a good intro, much background, a thorough body and lots of diagrams and images. ✏ Sverdrup 12:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Chancemill 10:34, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, although I think the article could do with more maps. Cabalamat 21:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -Pedro 22:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - Too many sections = overwhelming TOC (see Wikipedia:What is a featured article). I suggest an easy fix: Combine all sub-sections under ===Landings=== into one H3 section except for ====German reaction==== which should be promoted to an H3 and eventually expanded a bit. Also, nix the ==Historical significance== section and move that sentence to the end of the lead section (single paragraph sections are bad enough - single sentence ones are horrid). --mav 00:59, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I just spent about 20 minutes resectioning. I think you'll agree it's now reasonable. →Raul654 18:38, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • Much better. But I see that the page size warning has hit 32KB now but since at least 7KB of the article is markup or in lists, I think that is OK. --mav
  • Support, with some reservations. I agree with the esteemed mav that ===Landings=== has too many sub-sections, but disagree on the solution. I'd keep the five D-Day beaches as sub-sections, edit the three parachute landings sections into two (north/south, Brit/US -- roughly) and move the ====Mulberry harbours==== content to ===Special preparations=== earlier in the article. That still leaves seven sub-sections, but I do seriously believe all five beaches and all the major parachute landing sites deserve their own sections; the names of those beaches especially are national icons. Having done recent non-minor editing on ==Historical significance== I agree it should be moved, there's not enough there. However, it is a two sentence para. ;) Finally, as one of the recent contributors to the article, I'm really glad to see it nominated and will try to keep working to make it better. See Talk:Battle of Normandy for further discussion! - Madmagic 08:44, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Just because something is a national icon does not mean that it must be in the TOC. There is no need to have the string of stub sub-sections and expanding each into a proper section would overburden this article with too much detail. Simply summarize the entire landing and put the detail in a set of separate articles on each landing (such as the beach articles that already exist). --mav 02:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. American and British English are inconsistently used: "memorialize" and "characterised." Note that if American spelling is decided upon, periods should be used in abbreviations such as "U.S.," as is customary in American English. 2. Wikipedia policy is that double quotation marks be used, instead of single ones, in all cases. The single quotation marks in the article need, therefore, to be replaced. 3. Section 1, "The battle," is blank. 4. Em dashes are rendered as "--". One would prefer if "—" is used. 5. Some articles are linked to multiple times. "Eisenhower" links thrice, for example. I think that a link at the first mention should suffice. -- Emsworth 21:14, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • The manual of style explicetely says that US is preferred over U.S. Also, the empty section "The Battle" was my doing when I resectioned it. I have now fixed that. →Raul654 22:34, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • The manual of style explicitly says that U.S. is preferred over US. Use Canadian English. The 'z' is not wrong - it's just mass ignorance on the part of the British. --Jiang 04:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It is true that the Manual of Style prefers "U.S." Furthermore, I do not dispute that "ize" is correct, but the article uses both "ise" (characterise) and "ize" (memorialize). -- Emsworth 10:46, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
          • I've standardised the article to British "-ise" spelling (except Operation Totalize), based on the earliest version of the article I could find. — Matt 15:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I changed 5 instances of single quotes (') to double (") ✏ Sverdrup 11:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Full support - great article. --mav 05:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - but just so people are aware, we are considering moving this to Invasion of Normandy or somewhere similar to leave Battle of Normandy as an article about operations in Normandy including and after the landings. That was what the article was intended to be originally, but the bits on the first 24 hrs got so big they deseve their own article. DJ Clayworth 14:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

History of computing hardware

edit

A concise article, very readably written, guiding the reader through the story and always pointing out the important points. Only problem: It only covers the west, mentioning that computing hardware in communist countries evolved quite different and points History of computer hardware in communist countries. Would be nice if the latter were more than just a stub. Simon A. 09:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • support. Pedro 22:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • In the section "First generation of modern digital computers 1940s", two paragraphs refer to the ABC. They are seperated, but seem as if they should be adjacent. (I'd resolve this myself, but I'm not sure what the last sentence of the second ABC paragraph refers to). — Matt 01:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Resolved. ABC info now in one paragraph. - Bevo 20:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. →Raul654 02:51, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object Neutral until it gets a real better lead section. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. --mav 05:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Lead section added, see no need to make two paras on ABC adjacent; they are separated by only a few paras as is. Denni☯ 04:13, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • Now it needs to be wikified. But I withdraw my objection. --mav 05:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - Bevo 14:37, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

edit

This is a self-nomination. I extended the previous article by adding Supreme Court decisions and the like. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find good images, so I included those of two Supreme Court Justices. -- Emsworth 21:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll support, but I think something needs to be said about school vouchers, and I'm not sure exactly what the Supreme Court has said on that--I know that they're acceptable, but not the precise rationale or restrictions. Oh, and I added an image of the Constitution. Meelar 16:38, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't read the article in depth, but from my glossary reading it looks quite good. →Raul654 22:19, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd support -- it's a damn good article -- but, as a non-US reader, it'd be nice for it to include the text. I didn't know much apart from the First Amendment covering freedom of speech; I'd certainly like to see the annotated text (like in Fourteenth Amendment), as I'm not even remotely acquainted with the actual words. OwenBlacker 12:04, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • The text has been added. I'm not sure, however, if it should be placed at the top or bottom. -- Emsworth 00:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • The top (where it is now) is nice. Sam [Spade] 17:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I won't oppose, but I think the opening paragraphs assume far too much knowledge about the United States government. A bigger history section (right now the history is essentially limited to the second paragraph) and fewer mundane details (or at least hiding the mundane details at the bottom) would be better. Basically, instead of a legalistic description, I'd like to see an article on what the First Amendment really means to the United States. What separates it from protections in other countries? Why was it created (besides the tautological statement in the first paragraph)? anthony (see warning)
    • I'll second anthony's comments; as a UK reader, I find it slightly inpenetrable. This may be as much my fault as the article's, and I can't make any concrete recommendations in that regard. I also agree that it focuses too much on how the text has been interpreted legally. Some history / context of why and how the ammendment came to be would be an improvement. — Matt 00:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see the concentration on legal history as a demerit; in fact, I think that the meaning of the amendment should be the primary concern of the article. I had intended to write articles on the various Amendments and Articles (I've finished Articles One to Seven and Amendments One to Four). It was my intention to have the history of the first ten Amendments together at Bill of Rights. Furthermore, all of the articles are to form a part of a series (see Template:USConstitution). -- Emsworth 00:38, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • True, but you don't want to have readers have to go through a whole series. I think a nice short section touching on the historical roots and implications (possibly involving links to separation of church and state and American exceptionalism) would go well. Meelar 13:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't have a problem with an article which is concentrated on legal history, I just think something featured on the front page should have a broader appeal. anthony (see warning) 21:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • oppose. Obscure. Zw 07:07, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • not a legitimate reason. Few people know about James Bulger murder case. and even if legitimate, it is not obscure. --Jiang 08:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I object to regularly featuring articles which are completely obscure and irrelevant to people who are not from the USA. Zw 08:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • To quote myself from the talk page "If people want to lodge...erm, "silly" complaints then I reserve the right to disregard them.". I believe that observation applies in this case. I do not intend give this objection any heed when promoting. →Raul654 04:25, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with Jiang on both counts. Anti-Americanism is not a reason to object to an article. --mav 09:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see how it's anti-American to not want articles which are completely irrelevant to people not from the USA featured on the front page. This is essentially the reasons behind my not-quite-opposition. anthony (see warning) 12:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Agree with User:Jiang: "obscurity" isn't a criterion, as far as I'm aware. We already have History of the English penny, Heavy metal umlaut and All your base are belong to us featured. — Matt 13:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Further, the notion that this is only relevant to the US is misguided. This was the acknowledged precedent of a similar measure in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Similar influence can probably be found in dozens, if not hundreds, of other national constitutions. -- Jmabel 04:18, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The photograph of the Bill of Rights is not attributed. How do we know that it's not a copyright violation? --TreyHarris 08:38, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • the Bill of Rights are over 200 years old...it's attributed now.
      • Thank you for attributing it, but you misunderstand my objection. I wasn't claiming the Bill of Rights was copyrighted! I was saying that the photograph of same might be, and how could we know since it wasn't attributed? Since the photograph was in color, it was likely to be copyrighted if not explicitly dedicated to the public domain. Now that we know the photograph (as well as the document in the photograph) is from the U.S. government, I withdraw my objection. --TreyHarris 09:01, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Having read the article carefully after seeing the prior criticisms of Amero-centrism, I'm forced to renew my objection on different grounds. While the idea brought up by some that the topic is too Amero-centric is laughable (and should not disqualify the article in any case, if we're serious about the philosophy that any article can gained featured status given enough effort), my disagreement of that idea does lead to my objection—namely, that the effect of the First Amendment on world political philosophy is not discussed at all in this article. Americans are taught from as soon as they can read that the First Amendment is the shining example to the world of political freedom. Is it? If so, where's the discussion of the impact it's had on the world? If not, what is the difference between First Amendment rights and analogous rights in other countries? This is a serious objection and a hard one to answer, I know, but I think it needs to be addressed to make the article complete.--TreyHarris 19:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a serious objection. The idea that the first amendment to the US constitution is of great importance for the rest of the world is rather peculiar. If it needs to be dealt with at all, a mention of some of the earlier discussions and examples of the concept is all that is needed. Markalexander100 03:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Neutral on article, but I disagree sharply with what Markalexander100 says here. The First Amendment is as important for its international influence as for its role in US law, and the article should certainly engage the issue. -- Jmabel 04:22, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • I think this says more about the US education system than about the first amendment. Lucky we non-Americans have Americans to tell us what we think is important. ;-) Markalexander100 05:25, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I don't think it would be appropriate to speak in gushing tones about the First Amendment's international influence. I think that perhaps it might be more appropriate for there to be a comparison with foreign jurisdictions. -- Emsworth 16:58, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • Do a search on Amazon for books just whose title includes "First Amendment". (That, incidentally, destroys any claim that the First Amendment is obscure, with over 435 books in print written on the topic.) Click on a few of the histories that have "look inside the book" and take a look at the tables of contents. The impact of the First Amendment on political thinkers outside the United States is always at least a chapter. --TreyHarris 04:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It’s pretty uninteresting. I never thought to made an article about Amendments... As a curiosity, it is socially important... an Amendment? Maybe Americans are interested in that. And some featured articles are also only interesting to American. There's even a nomination to a soap opera that showed for decades that I never heard of. And as far as I saw it was pretty boring. If that were in here (Portugal) I would sign a motion to take it off from TV. But maybe some people think that was fabulous. -Pedro 03:22, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Importance. Well, let's see. The first written guarantee by a government to its people of freedom of speech, religion, etc. What would be a more important matter in the history of written constitutions? -- Jmabel 04:24, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • Not to criticize the article, which looks excellent from my limited skimming, but the Declaration of the Rights of Man was promulgated before the Bill of Rights (which only went into effect in 1791). Furthermore, some of the rights in the First Amendment were, I believe, already present in the English Bill of Rights. john k 05:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I believe the sequence is
          1. Bill of Rights drafted (along with two other amendments that were not ratified)
          2. Declaration of the Rights of Man drafted and almost immediately approved
          3. Two years later, Bill of Rights finally gets the state ratifications it needed to take effect.
        But please correct me if this was a misimpression on my part. As for the "English Bill of Rights", it granted the freedom of speech only in Parliament. The only general right it granted that is generally associated with the First Amendment was the right of petition. -- Jmabel 18:15, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Being interesting is not a criteria - only how well written and comprehensive it is. Everyone has different interests. Those interested in constitutional law will be interested here, those interested in sensationalist media stories will be interested in the James Bulger murder case. I could care less who James Bulger did. How is he important? --Jiang 06:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree, since the standard of "interest" would be highly arbitrary. -- Emsworth 16:39, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • A new section has been added comparing the First Amendment's protections to certain other countries. -- Emsworth 20:17, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not bad, but does the first amendment really guarantee religious freedom? I thought the point of it was to protect the state establishments of religion from the federal government. anthony (see warning)
      • While Clarence Thomas took the same view in the recent case involving Michael Newdow, one cannot say that the First Amendment does not protect religious freedom. It explicitly precludes Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The state establishment-protection theory has not been clearly proven, I believe. Nevertheless, the theory became moot when the First Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth. -- Emsworth 12:58, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection. Thank you, Emsworth. --TreyHarris 06:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The opening paragraph mentions five rights, and we seem not to cover two of them at all: "the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances (i.e. protest)." — Matt 14:39, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've added a section on the topic. -- Emsworth 15:47, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Academia

edit

This was the article of the week from May 27. Has improved dramatically in that time, and I think it's the first article of the week now good enough for to be nominated as a featured article. (Sort-of a self nomination as I've help organise article of the week) Tom- 22:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Fredrik (talk) 18:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Acegikmo1 21:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Object (sorry!). It's great that this article has improved so rapidly. (But...) Apologies if I missed something (quite possible), but the article starts by saying that sociologists list four basic types of academia; the article seems to only list three, missing out "academic societies". Could something be mentioned about these?Also, the section on "Practice and Theory" lists some criticisms of academics being Ivory Tower-types; this could do with some rebuttal from the academic-POV for neutrality. Also, there's no discussion of academic conferences and workshops. — Matt 21:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This comment was copied to the talk page and discussed. Many people have subsuquently tried to address these issues. →Raul654 03:00, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • These objections have been mostly answered. Because I think Featured Articles should have no obvious gaps in their coverage, I'll maintain an "objection" because I agree we need some of information on academic regalia and ceremony (gowns, mortar boards and strange PhD bonnets) as pointed out by User:Isomorphic; see also Web information. I also think that the recently-added "academic-balance-POV sentence" is a little hard to understand: "It just means that taking the reality or perception of academic insularity into account may increase the value of the academian's studies and or opinion when discussing or offering criticism of a practitioner or a practice in general." — Matt 12:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Ok, reworked that sentence for clarity. Hows the new one? And also I'd say that to be NPOV a valid criticism doesn't necesarily need a rebuttal anyway, just an acknowledgement. - Taxman 16:23, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • This isn't exactly an objection, but I'd really like to see a little bit about academic traditions and culture, especially academic regalia. Isomorphic 02:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Isomorphic, I've expanded the regalia section with an attempt to cover US and UK tradition, but it's a little scanty on the origins of the cap and gown (the origins are a bit murky, as far as I know). Does it address some of your quasi-objection? :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:09, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fermi paradox

edit

I just came across this article. Rather long, well written and quite concise. It's connected to the also quite nice article on the Drake equation. What do you think? Simon A. 15:38, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support! I added an image of a radio telescope, as I couldn't think of anything better. Meelar 20:35, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! Support! Support! Good, impartial scientific approach. Meeler: the radio telescope image is just fine. And that's one more reason why the article merit featuring. -Pedro 21:49, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! Jeff8765 01:47, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support!!! cbraga 02:32, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely support. Johnleemk 04:54, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Although it was me who suggested it: There's two things missing which we might want to add before featuring it: (a) Trivia: The whole idea came up in dinner conversation among Fermi and other eminent scientists, with Fermi quite suddenly exclaiming "Where is everybody?!". I'll look up how the story went. (b) IIRC, the original main argument was not the Drake equation, but the obviously exponential growth of any space-faring civilisation, and Fermi wondering, why they haven't flooded the Milky Way yet. Are we the first, although or Galaxy is so old? This should be elaborated. Simon A. 09:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • A very good article. A very small objection: perhaps we should have some more see-alsos, and some references. ✏ Sverdrup 09:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is quite good. Acegikmo1 05:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a long time since I read such a good article. Superb. Mandel 19:48, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent article, perhaps more see also references are needed though. - Aaron Hill 06:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow - this is all very flattering since I'm the person who wrote most of this article (although some rearrangements have messed up the diff to show that). As a matter of fact my original draft was based on an email I sent to a friend that I wrote off the cuff after reading The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in 8 Easy Steps ISBN 0-9633914-8-8 a few times (no kidding - it is an actual plan to do that!) . This article was also my first serious stab at writing from an NPOV (my POV is very much in line with the Fermi principle but I tried to present the subject fairly) and also one of the first articles I created at all. I'll add that reference and look for some good further reading and external links on the subject. --mav
  • Support. Great article. Thanks mav and all the other contributors. Long and concise...that sounds like a "paradox" but it really does describe this article. anthony (see warning)
  • Lovely. Support. James F. (talk) 01:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A fun read. --Menchi 10:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've just expanded one section with further details about the inevitable self-destructive tendencies of intelligent life. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. - jredmond 19:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Emacs

edit

Includes history of Emacs, description, and external links. --FePe 23:15, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - it lacks a picture. →Raul654 22:36, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - vi rules!
    • Actually, there is a vi mode in Emacs which simulates almost all the behavior of vi.169.207.115.28 03:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Disregard the above comment - it is unsigned and has no merit. And btw, Vi sucks) →Raul654 20:03, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • Neutral. Nothing special about this article. But I agree with Raul. that comment has no merit.-Pedro 19:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, even though the picture is of XEmacs. I heart emacs. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:24, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • For the record: it is not of XEmacs (see the fine-print). GNU Emacs has learned some graphics in the newest releases. --J.Rohrer 23:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support cbraga 02:39, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support --J.Rohrer 23:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transit of Venus

edit

Great article, and topical. anthony (see warning) 00:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • support. Great info. Important to feature in the comming days. Improove GUI (wikify). -Pedro 01:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Would like to see definitions of first contact - fourth contact, but don't delay featuring just for that! Must be up by 8th of June which is the first transit since 1882! Securiger 11:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctatly support. The article is a bit short for my tastes, but it has several very good, informative pictures. →Raul654 22:08, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but the article would benefit from some editing. cbraga 02:43, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Zeppelin

edit

That's a darn fine article, if you ask me. War zepplin = coolest phrase ever. jengod 03:17, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Bryce Canyon National Park (16 Jun)

edit

Self nom. OK, what else needs to be done? If it's good enough for featured already, then so be it. :) --mav 08:03, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article has good pictures, enough references and comprehensive information. But I have just a minor reservation: since much of the article gives measurement in both the U.S. and metric systems—"50 miles (80 km)"—the format should be applied throughout. The lead and "Creation of the park" sections, as far as I can see, are the only ones that do not give metric equivalents in parantheses. -- Emsworth 10:43, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Fixed. --mav
I withdraw the objection, and support the article. -- Emsworth 18:24, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Yummmm. Bryce Canyon. Definitely a topic and photos worthy of a featured article. It needs some copyediting (e.g., in the Geology section, perhaps other places). Also, I heard that it wasn't a "dandy" place to use a cow, but a "helluva" place to lose a cow [3][4][5]. I think you may want to redo some of the Geology section, which contains lots of material about the region outside the park, but not much about the park itself. For example, you may want to mention that the Claron formation is Paleocene. Saying more about the Claron lake would be interesting, and about the erosive processes to make hoodoos. From my memory (and double checking with Halka Chronic), there isn't any Dakota Sandstone or Tropic Shale in the park -- it is all lower down and to the east in the Paria Amphitheatre and over at Kodachrome Basin. I would drop those. Also, the Laramide orogeny doesn't have much to do with the park proper.
Your photos are nice. It looks like you went on a overcast day, and took the photos mid-day. Notice that the NPS photo is much redder --- photographers tend to take photos near dawn, to bring out the contrast and the redness of the rock. Would you consider substituting more NPS photos for the article, if they are more dramatic? Don't know if more are available. (No offense intended: your photos are fine, just trying to maximize the goodness of the article).
Overall, looks good -- just a little tweaking will make this a great article. -- hike395 04:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh, a couple of more things I noticed: I think the horseback riding photo is kind of generic and just takes up space. I also don't belive that the park has the darkest sky in North America --- the arctic wastes of Canada are probably extremely dark. -- hike395 05:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. I amde some medium edits and it is now polished. Great article. Neutrality 05:03, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. :) I'll work on those points. However, I strongly feel that the geology section should have a more regional focus. Let me explain: While some formations you mention are not found in the park, they are found nearby and we know that they did at one time overlay the area of the park - the fact that they eroded away should at the very least be mentioned. Also, a the intro to Hoodoos and the Claron lake system is at Geology of the Bryce Canyon area, but a few more sentences at the park article wouldn't hurt. I can increase the contrast and redness of my photos and add other NPS ones (I lost about half my Bryce Canyon photos due to a bad memory stick). The dark sky bit was direct from the NPS, but I agree it does sound a bit odd and should be researched more and qualified as needed. --mav 05:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
OK - pretty much all your points addressed except for the regional focus. --mav 10:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support: informative and well-illustrated. A minor comment is that the first part of the article seems a little crowded, layout-wise, with two photo thumbnails, an infobox and a table of contents competing for space. Not sure how this could be improved, though. — Matt 23:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Support. Great article. Very informative. -- Decumanus 13:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ian McKellen

edit

This is a superb example of a pithy contemporary biography. It hits the high points without lingering on inanities (length does not necessarily equal quality), and the quotes bring the subject to life. My only quibble—and it's a minor one—is the forced quality of the final paragraph of the lead. --TreyHarris 09:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm a fan of Sir Ian, but while it's interesting, this article needs a little work yet. Contractions need to be repaired (not "wasn't," but "was not"), the writing needs tweaking in some areas, and some information needs fleshing out (for example, why was his portrayal of King Edward controversial?). It's also a bit strange that halfway through the article the noun changes from 'homosexual' to 'gay' (and gay is the preferred word, according to Wikipedia's relevant manual of style). I think this could be a FA, but perhaps not quite yet. Exploding Boy 09:36, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
These objections have been dealt with except for "writing needs tweaking in some areas." Will you define that objection actionably, please? --TreyHarris 17:13, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Since the remaining objection is not actionable, I'm moving this back to articles without objection. --TreyHarris 17:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It really needs a picture of Sir McKellen as Gandalf. (Not a vote against.) Fredrik (talk) 15:01, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It now has one (thanks to Lupin). --TreyHarris 17:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. First, the lead's too short (honesty: This is my fault, I've moved a paragraph out of the lead section into the early life section, because it wasn't very lead-section-like. I do think we need a better lead section, though.) Secondly, a comment, and not technically an objection (because it won't be "actionable"), I get the impression that the article is a little short on information — TreyHarris commends the article for this ("without lingering on inanities"), and to an extent I agree, but I think it might be on the sparse side, fact-wise. I don't know much about McKellen (except Gandalf), but glancing through some Google biographies, I see details there that we don't include; if Wikipedia is to be a decent reference resource, I think we should try to be relatively complete (without going to extremes of detail and making it boring). The only "actionable" detail in this regard is a discussion of his role in Richard III, which is mentioned here and there in other online biographies, even "mini-biographies". — Matt 22:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the intro by a sentence and have added a paragraph on his American-release film roles, including Richard III. But honestly I think the great amount of detail lavished on Richard III in many of the bios online is slightly bizarre. It was a good role, but I don't see any reason to "discuss" it, per se, beyond what I've done in the article. It wasn't anything earth-shattering for him—he'd done plenty of Shakespeare on stage and screen before. --TreyHarris 07:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'Sir Ian' or 'McKellen'?

edit
  • The article refers to Sir Ian McKellan as "McKellan," but should not references be instead to "Sir Ian," as is perhaps appropriate for knights? -- Emsworth 18:10, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think "McKellen" is correct. Looking within Wikipedia, I've been unable to find a biography of a knighted person that consistently refers to "Sir" or "Dame", instead preferring last name. Most news articles in a Google News search of "Ian McKellen" (including most non-British ones, and virtually all non-Commonwealth ones) refer to him only as "McKellen". Of the remaining, most used "Sir Ian" once or twice, and then switched to "McKellen".--TreyHarris 09:00, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's usual British practice to refer to knights as "Sir Firstname" after the first reference (on the BBC News website, for instance, he's always "Sir Ian McKellen" then "Sir Ian"). It's only natural that people in countries without knighthoods don't know how to use them in referring to people. That doesn't mean their practices are more correct than those within countries with knighthoods. Proteus (Talk) 10:26, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
According to the Manual of Style, we go with British usage on this--I'll change it. Meelar 16:01, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing in the Manual of Style about references to knighted individuals, I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you're saying that "standard British usage is Sir Ian, therefore since this article is about a British subject the Manual of Style says we should use British usage," you're making an assumption?that 'Sir Ian' is a standard British usage. Take a look at this Telegraph article, for instance?where the headline contains 'Sir Ian', but none of the editorial writing does.
Or better yet, just look at this?the Google News listing of all news articles from UK sources. For this purpose, we should be looking only at editorial usage, not usage in quotations. At the moment I write this, there are 25 articles listed. Of those (referring only to second and following references in editorial content rather than quotations):
My point is, I'm not claiming that American usage should win the day?I'm saying that British usage isn't consistent here. The assumption that we need to change "McKellen" to "Sir Ian" en masse needs to be reconsidered, I think. Don't be so quick to see something "broken" that needs "fixing." --TreyHarris 03:31, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, you're lucky Wikipedia crashed before I could get to it ;) Meelar 05:40, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that "It's usual British practice to refer to knights as "Sir Firstname" after the first reference". It looks very cheesy to me. Please leave it! Markalexander100 06:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Umm, whut? Whether or not you think it flows neatly, the correct semi-informal salutation is "Sir Ian", not "McKellan", nor "Ian", nor "Mr. Beardie", yes? And we at Wikipedia strive to be correct in all things, now don't we? ;-)
James F. (talk) 09:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand. Where do you get that it's "correct"? See my statistics above? if you're saying that "Sir Ian" rather than "McKellen" is "correct", you need to explain why the British press is "incorrect", seven to one. --TreyHarris 15:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Correct form (in the UK at least) is not determined by popularity, and the British press are absolutely incapable of getting it right most of the time. (The most respectable paper, The Times, consistently refers to Knights as "Sir Firstname" in its articles.) If you want evidence, I suggest you look at Debrett's Correct Form rather than a survey of Google News. Proteus (Talk) 16:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Proteus on the British press. I'm sure that a survey would show that many use absurd styles such as "Prince Charles" or "Baroness Helena Kennedy." -- Emsworth 20:35, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
"Debrett's Correct Form" has something of an interest in perpetuating cheesy class distinctions. The idea that the Times must be right because Proteus considers it respectable is... interesting. Markalexander100 00:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the second time in the discussion, you call the honours system 'cheesy' with nothing other than your assertion that it's either a bad thing for us to use it or that it not doing so would be a good thing. Wikipedia isn't the place to push a republican POV, really; the Crown's decisions as to protocol are, in a way, POV, yes, but they are 'higher', more neutral, POV than others. It's a bit like the SI's definition of the metre being a 'higher' POV that the US government's (were they to disagree). I fully agree with Proteus, Emsworth, FWIW.
01:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My point was just that in the absence of any authority, there's no reason not to use the most common British usage. The idea that the Crown's POV on questions of nobility is NPOV because you like it is POV. ;-) What any of this has to do with this being a featured article I don't know. :-( Is anyone actually worried enough about this to object to the article being featured in its current state? If not, we can talk about something less trivial. Markalexander100 03:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Firstly, what newspapers do, or formal usage, is not necessarily what wikipedia should do. Sir Robert Peel, for instance, is always referred to as "Peel". His ministry is always "Peel's ministry", and never "Sir Robert's ministry". I'd say this is true for just about every knight or baronet who's ever been in government. If this is true for 19th century figures, then it seems silly to be more formal for a contemporary actor like Ian McKellen. On the other hand, I'd note that the formal styles and titles of nobility are not "the Crown's POV". Noble titles and so forth are regulated by law. It's not just that the crown says one thing, and people say another. There are formal rules about it. But I don't think that's a reason to use "Sir Ian" in an encyclopedia article. See Columbia's articles on Peel, Walpole, Campbell-Bannerman. I've never seen a historical write up that refers to these people as "Sir Robert," "Sir Robert," and "Sir Henry." john k 04:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1911 Britannica: Sir Robert Peel, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The articles refer to "Sir Robert" and "Sir Henry" for the time the individual in question held the baronetcy or knighthood. -- Emsworth 10:34, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
But 1911 also refers to everyone as "Mr. Lastname." I think this reinforces my point that "Sir Firstname" is the equivalent not of "Lastname" but of "Mr. Lastname", which Wikipedia does not use. john k 21:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Consider Stephen Grover Cleveland -- Emsworth 22:02, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...so perhaps the use of "Mr." is confined to Brits... At any rate, I don't see why we should follow the style guidelines of an encyclopedia from 1911. john k 02:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let me add that "Sir Ian" is equivalent to "Mr. McKellan" (if he were not a knight), and not to use of the last name only, which is used for both knights and non-knights. If we were the New York Times, I'd be all for "Sir Ian", but we are not. john k 04:09, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Noble titles and so forth are regulated by law. Are you saying that there's a law on the British statute book that says how a knight must be referred to? If so, I would find that surprising. If not, I don't see the relevance. Markalexander100 05:04, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
One must point out that British law is not composed just of statutes. One must also note common law, the Royal prerogative, custom and tradition. Now, it has been suggested that referring to knights as "Sir X" is POV. This assertion is completely without basis: the individual in question is a knight, insofarasmuch as the law is concerned, and in legal documents would be referred to as "Sir X." -- Emsworth 21:59, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
in legal documents would be referred to as "Sir X." I very much doubt that any legal document would be so imprecise. It's also completely irrelevant: an encyclopedia is not a legal document, legal terminology is almost by definition not the usual terminology, etc. etc. So until we end up drunk in a pub together, when we might want to continue this fascinating discussion, Is anyone actually worried enough about this to object to the article being featured in its current state? If not, we can talk about something less trivial. Markalexander100 01:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Then what, pray, would you suggest for a legal document, if Sir X is insufficient? -- Emsworth 10:24, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
My answer is both obvious and correct, but it's not relevant to this discussion, so I'll tell you in the pub. Markalexander100 01:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Noble titles are certainly regulated by law. The Duke of Westminster is the Duke of Westminster legally - it is not an affectation which can be disputed as "the Royal POV." I believe that much of the rest of it is also regulated by law - that sons of Dukes and Marquesses can preface their names with "Lord," that daughters of Dukes, Marquesses, and Earls with "Lady," and so forth. Certainly these people get passports, and other official documents, under such names. Some of it is not, of course, a matter regulated by law, but it is no more POV to say that there is a correct and an incorrect way of referring to people than it is to insist on correct spelling, or something like that. Just because the media is too lazy to get it right doesn't meant that there isn't a correct way to refer to people. But, at any rate, I don't think this applies to the question at hand. You would not refer to Ian McKellen as "Mr. McKellen." That would be incorrect - if you wished to do that, you should call him "Sir Ian" instead. But calling him "McKellen" is perfectly correct, and is just like calling somebody who is not a knight (or baronet) by their last name, which is done all the time. john k 06:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Portuguese language

edit

Self-nomination. Mostly done by Portuguese and Brazilians, soo it maybe need some corrections. It is possible to cut the article to become shorter. -Pedro 15:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. An excellent article. Superbly written, excellent use of tables and illustrations, clearly laid out. One could almost learn Portugese from this :) (I would not recommend cutting it - it is always better to have too much information than too little, and that's what TOCs are for.) Denni 19:22, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
  • Object, for now. I really wish there were a lot more sound files: ideally one for each example, and some longer clips so I could hear the difference between a Portugese accent and a Brasilian one (and the others, if possible). And either a long clip of, or an exlink to a long clip of, someone considered to be a really great speaker of the language (whatever the equivalent of a Martin Luther King or a Winston Churchill speech would be). Few wikipedia articles really call for much in the way of sound, but this one does. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add Instituto Camoes sounds, using external links. With all main dialects, including African. Wait a sec. -Pedro 22:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have made several minor corrections to the article, such as grammar and wording, after learning about it's nomination. I have added no new information to the article. It is a superbly written atricle. The fact that it was written by people whose first language is not English makes it all the more impressive. -JCarriker 01:01, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - though I would like a bit more about the historical phonology of the language, and it needs to be gone over carefully for minor spelling mistakes. Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you talking about the transformation of Spoken Latin into Portuguese? Or the language during the expansion into Brazil and Africa and comparing to nowadays (creation of the Brazilian and African dialects,etc...)? -Pedro 15:08, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added info about the evolution of Portuguese. See: From Latin to Portuguese.-Pedro 00:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the sort of information I wanted. After French, the changes in the Portuguese phonology are the next most thorough from Vulgar Latin. I'm still a bit vague on when the sound written s becomes /S/ in pronunciation, though. Smerdis of Tlön 20:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • that's a modern transformation, I believe. Brazilian (except Rio), African (except younger people), Central Portugal dialects and Portuguese creoles, dont present that characteristic. I really dont know why we do that sound... The answer is possibly in Lisbon or Coimbra. arabic influence? I'll investigate.--Pedro 23:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • I couldnt find nothing. But that is not important, because it is a regional variation, ending "-s" are written as "s" and not as "sh". I pronunce ending "-s" has /j/ -e.g. The classes: "as aulas" (sound: aj aulaS) or /S/ -e.g. the houses: "as casas" (sound: aS casaS) ( and rarely /z/ - e.g. but is: "mas é" (maz E), has you can see it varies a lot, even in a single person/dialect, but that is not very noticed by the speakers, because all these sounds are very similar and they deppend if followed by a vowel or consonant, but the tendency is to pronunce it as "sh" (/S/) because of Standard Portuguese. I've added some info in sounds about the complexity of the Portuguese sounds.--Pedro 10:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. jengod 22:07, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Linus Pauling

edit

What can I say, I liked it. Gentgeen 13:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs a longer lead section. Fredrik 13:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read it now and it seems fairly comprehensive. I did a few minor edits along the way. One thing that confuses me is the part about his education where it is said that he was "becoming one of the founders of the new science of quantum chemistry" at OAC and was later "becoming one of the first scientists in the field of quantum chemistry" when in Europe. Ideally one of these should be removed, but I'm not sure which. I also got the feeling that I wasn't reading "brilliant prose" in some other parts of the article – some paragraphs not being as fluently constructed as they could be – but I won't object on that ground. Neutral. Fredrik 22:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Question: where in Wikipedia might this fact go? James Watson got Pauling's book as a present from Francis Crick, during their search for the structure of DNA Ancheta Wis 09:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2004&oldid=224146411"