Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Collaboration/Nominations

< Wikipedia:WikiProject United States | Collaboration
(Redirected from Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW nominations)
Shortcut

Accepted Nominations

edit

Nov 1st : Indian reservation

edit

Currently a nomination for the overall Collaboration of the Week, but may be more appropriate here and isn't likely to be chosen there in the next couple weeks.

Comments:

Nov 22nd : 42nd Street

edit

Long overdue for expansion. [we were overdue for the next nomination, too]

  • I vote for this epic street (but where is the nominator's sig?)--Pharos 09:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • PedanticallySpeaking 15:25, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • +sj+ 06:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments: I nominated it, but at first voted for boundary waters instead. +sj+

January 2, 2006- History of New Jersey

edit
Renominated [December 28, 2005]

Support:

  1. AndyZ 14:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZeWrestler Talk 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Alansohn 18:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC) - A tremendous job has been done in the collaboration on the History of New Jersey, a major hole in the outstanding tasks as part of Wikiproject New Jersey. This collaborative work should be recognized.[reply]

Comments:

  • As major (and virtually sole) contributor to this article, it would be great to have more editors vamp up this article. (See Todo). AndyZ 14:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article should be withdrawn from USCOTW since it doesn't fit the requirements for COTWs in general: This project aims to fill holes in Wikipedia, so only non-existent articles, or stubs may be nominated. This article, at 49kb, is neither a stub or non-existent. AndyZ 21:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rule that only stubs or nonexistent articles can be nominated here has been eliminated in August. Any article can be nominated, unless it is locked or already featured. On the contrary, the article is perfect for US:COTW, because it has a good chance of reaching featured quality soon. --Fenice 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

January 16, 2006- West Virginia

edit
Nominated [January 16, 2006]

Support:

  1. Caponer 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BrianW456 07:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Youngamerican 13:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ScottyBoy900Q∞ 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jhohenzollern 18:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Malepheasant 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tenebrae 23:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. the1physicist 01:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. FPAtl 02:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. TwilaStar 03:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nboggs 08:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The state of West Virginia is often overlooked or worse yet mistaken as still belonging to Virginia. I think it is most imperative that we bring the West Virginia article up to par with the rest of the U.S. state articles, especially in light of the 2006 Sago Mine disaster that put West Virginia in the national and international spotlights. --Caponer 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being from West Virginia myself, I totally agree with Caponer. --BrianW456 08:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This state possesses many unique human and environmental characteristics, including a unique culture and language (Elizabethian English), many interesting geological features, and a turbulent history (Civil War, the Mine Wars, etc). Would be an excellent choice for a collab. Youngamerican 13:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is amazing how North and South Carolina and Dakota are separate in people's minds, but not West Virginia. We would be educating educated people who frequently get this wrong. I agree with Youngamerican that this state is amazingly beautiful and oddball. It's the only one both above and below the Mason-Dixon line. It's the only one considered a Mid-Atlantic state (for the Eastern panhandle that reaches so close to Washington, D.C., Senators and pundits keep weekend homes), a Southern state (for its Applachian bulk, though it was a free state and fought for the Union), and a Midwestern state (for the Northern panhandle between Ohio and Penn., which reaches north as far as the hardly-Dixie Pittsburgh). I've heard the above geographical weirdness makes it the only state containing every kind of U.S. climate, from desert to tundra. Plus, the Mine Wars, about which John Sayles made the movie Matewan, was as bloody as the Johnson County War, and had bigger repercussions, in terms of unionization. John Brown, who led a Civil War-era sessionist movement (for a new country?) made his stand at Harper's Ferry. The PRT in Morgantown is the only one like it in the world. And it's the only state whose borders like entirely within the Appalachian region, whose culture, like African-American and Native-American, is one of the only indigenous, wholly American cultures. (Granted, clog dancing isn't for everyone, but the dulcimer is an Applachian creation, and possibly the steel guitar as well.) You've got Chuck Yeager, Jerry West, Don Knotts, Ann Magnuson, Mary Lou Retton and Mylan Pharmaceuticals all from there — and also the Greenbrier Resort, where presidents have stayed, and where there's a bomb-proof bunker for Congress. Oh, yeah, and that nifty women's prison.... — Tenebrae 23:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a collaboration per all the reasons above. Despite living in the state for most of my life, I know surprisingly little about it, so my contributions will be mostly minor.the1physicist 01:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, don't forget about Walter Reuther.
  • I don't live in West Virginia myself, but I'm up for that. I support it. -- FPAtl 02:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only lived in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle for a few years and with the exception of the Panhandle I know little to nothing about the history and culture of the remainder of the state. I moved here (Bolivar) primarily because of the area's rich colonial and Civil War history and also because of the amazing architecture that remains here from the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. I feel as if people do not understand, as Tenebrae explained above, how diverse each region and area in West Virginia is and how different each is from the others. The main article as it exists today does not give any hint as to how fabulous the state of West Virginia truly is. --TwilaStar 03:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 30, 2006- Transportation in New York City

edit
Nominated [January 16, 2006]

Support:

  1. Alansohn 01:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Quasipalm 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Amazins490 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jleon 13:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. mfk91 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pacific Coast Highway 22:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I Am Ri¢h! 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pharos 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. wv235 11:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. MrCalifornia 06:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Larry V 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SNIyer12 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Howrealisreal 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Thorri 11:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. WhosAsking 13:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Omnibus 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Tevi 18:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. JPM 18:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Krashlandon (e) 23:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Chris 04:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -Aude (talk |contribs) 03:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Scrabbleship 23:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --Kevin Hanse (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • As interesting a story as New York City is in its own right, Transportation in new York City tells a fascinating story by itself. From the design of New York City's Street / Avenue grid almost 200 years ago, to its yellow cabs, subways, bridges, highways and even aerial tramway, there's much to learn. The article has gone through some major expansion and improvement on a collaborative basis over the past few weeks and can use the recognition, participation and expansion.
  • this article has been transformed in the last few weeks from an uninteresting list to a compelling and fleshed out piece. It keeps getting better and better. Has lots of momentum & is getting to feature status. Alansohn got it right: this article has a fascinating story to tell. A collective effort could put the final spit and polish on it
  • ALMOST FEATURE STATUS!
  • Hmmmm. I was asked to come here and vote for this. Well, OK, but you may not like what I've got to say. I think it's a terrible article. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a public relations puff piece. It tells a one-sided story of how wonderful NYC transit is. It completely ignores the fact that the subways are crowded, noisy, often dirty, and sometimes dangerous. The outer boroughs are poorly served (especially if your goal is to go anywhere except into Manhattan). We've only recently managed to get any kind of rail service to JFK, and it's still not a single seat ride, and there's still nothing to LaGuardia. They've been promising to build the 2nd Ave subway all my life, and still no progress (yes, I know about the most recent promises, but when I say progress, I'm talking holes in the ground, not words on a page). The pictures, while fine examples of artistic photography, show a carefully selected view of the cleanest, newest, and spiffiest. The Taxi section paints an idealistic view of things as well -- real NYC taxis tend to be run-down, furnished inside with bullet-proof partitions and a decor which is best described as "industrial", and regardless of the rules, the drivers often refuse fares to sections of the city they don't want to go to.
Yeah, I know, it's not all quite as horrible as I make it out in the above paragraph, but neither is it the fantasy land this article makes it out to be. The entreatment to come here and vote said, It tells a fascinating story, and I think that hits the problem right on the head. This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to provide information, not tell a story. I think the authors of this article got so caught up in telling a good story (which they have), that they lost sight of the fact that they're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article needs to be more factual, discuss your thoughts in the article's discussion page. This is a collaboration, after all.
RoySmith, too bad you'd rather tear apart other people's work than endorse an improvement campaign with your vote. Mfk91 22:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore your complaining is puzzling. Your evidence that everything is actually third-world and unbearable: There's rail service from JFK, but it's not "one seat." The subway is the biggest in the world, but it's "dirty". What was the other thing? Oh, taxis are "industrial." Perhaps these things are of paramount importance to New York aesthetes. But let's compare them with the standard of the rest of America: No rail service from JFK-sized airports at all. No dirty subway, because there are no subways to speak of. Regarding taxis, believe it or not, the T&LC's regulations are so stringent that New York taxis must be replaced about every three years. The old ones go to Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, and every other city with sizeable taxi fleets. Should it be noted that they are all "industrial", or simply that they are taxis? Conclusion: Of course everything can always be more shiny and cleaner and newer and better, but the transit infrastructure in the US in general is old and in need of some TLC. What readers want to learn from the article is what's interesting and unique about NYC's transit infrastructure, not all the ways it's the same as everywhere else. Anyway, why not vote for the USCOTW nomination and add your contribution under "What's wrong with transportation in NYC" Mfk91 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is important because it discusses what is arguably the most important public infrastructure in the world. Certainly the most complex transportation infrastructure in the US and the backbone of the nation's largest city. A deserving topic for these reasons alone.

February 13, 2006- Rhode Island

edit
Nominated [January 03]; needs 22 votes by [March 14] (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. 64.65.194.71 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Logophile 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 152.163.100.204 03:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Arthur Wellesley 20:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blackcats 08:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Demonesque 10:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. User:Broc 10:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Phantombantam 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cmadler 16:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Enter@ 13:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mania123 13:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Piranhaex 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Youngamerican 02:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 71.224.12.181 03:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Drek528 23:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Ajs555 02:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) User has 1 edit[reply]
  17. H2O 18:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. BevinT 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. DMurphy 20:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Diceman 14:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SNIyer12 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 66.181.228.203 21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Afrosheen 07:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. ProvidenceSkank 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) User has 1 edit[reply]
  25. NewportNeuce 21:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC) User has 1 edit[reply]
  26. Daniel Blanchette 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Roger Williams 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. RogerWill 01:42, 5 February 2006 (EST)
  29. 70.49.126.200 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 138.16.30.171 17:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Swampyank 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Questor101 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I would have to agree. I am from Pawtucket, and what I've found is that a lot of information regarding the Ocean State is lacking. This is also apparent in other RI-related articles. First instance, take a look at the WSBE article. There was none before I created it, and even then there's still a lot of information that needs to be included. Among the information needed is how the Rhode Island Public Telecommunications Authority runs, for instance. This could be an interesting project to nominate. To whoever stated the "is it a part of NY?" comment, great job in mentioning it. Wherever I go, whenever I mention that I'm from Rhode Island, I always get info on how people have relatives in New Jersey! So now I say I'm from "near the Boston area]], and then they listen. However, if you go to Quebec and mention that you're from Rhode Island, they know where you are and they ask if you're related to a M. this or a Mlle. that, because a lot of the Québeçois have relatives here. In addition, for the longest time possible, most of the best players on Mt. Saint Charles Academy's hockey team were in fact Québeçois, not Rhode Islanders. So yes, this needs to be worked up a bit. If we can get a Rhode Island portal up and running, then it would be great. -Daniel Blanchette 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 27, 2006- Music of the United States

edit

20 votes

Nominated [December 28, 2005]; needs 20 votes by [March 8, 2006] (minimum 2 votes per week)
Nomination originally made by Durova on Talk page

Support:

  1. Nomination originally made by Durova on Talk page
  2. M@$+@ Ju 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fenice 06:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cmadler 12:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AndyZ 21:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 21:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Caponer 02:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. TwilaStar 05:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jhohenzollern 06:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Youngamerican 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FJR58 15:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rokafela 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. R'son-W 22:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. SpandX 07:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Vineviz 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Skurrkrow 08:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Afrosheen 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Kevin Hanse (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Jules 23:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. AreJay 03:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Some TLC could make this a featured article. Someone put a lot of love into this about six months ago and didn't finish the project. It's heavily referenced but leaves out important genres such as blues and jazz. Durova 07:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's important to document our culture correctly. While exhibiting an article on Rhode Island or the transportation of New York is very interesting, this article specifically teaches us something about ourselves as a whole. The articles informs Americans about something that Americans have in common, which is quite a feat for a nation that prides itself on diversity. Not everyone can go and look at Mount Rushmore, nor will it be all that different five years from now. Music changes constantly, and it is available to all people, American or not. Catalogue these sorts of things, raise awareness for them, it's important. Currently this country is very divided and this division is a great source of strife amongst our people. I don't think it'd be a bad idea to push such a uniting concept into the foreground of a very featured site.FJR58 15:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arts of the United States series is in weak shape generally, which is sad because this country has the most Wikipedia editors. This article comes the closest to being something where we can really take pride. Music is a subject where everyone can contribute. Durova 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 13, 2006- Mount Rushmore

edit

17 votes

Support

  1. Fenice 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 72.136.49.4 15:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. MONGO 05:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Durantalk  19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Caponer 19:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TwilaStar 01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jhohenzollern 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutralitytalk 05:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Gflores Talk 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SNIyer12 (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rokafela 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SpandX 07:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Skurrkrow 08:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Akhenaton06 09:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. AndyZ 12:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Avala 16:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. PDXblazers 05:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Mount Rushmore, the iconic and monumental American sculpture, is one of the most instantly recognizable works of the 20th century and honors four important American presidents. Moreover, the national memorial protects flora, fauna and geology representative of the Black Hills of South Dakota, an area of exceptional natural beauty.

March 27, 2006- Omaha, Nebraska

edit

20 votes

Nominated [January 18, 2006]

Support:

  1. Swid 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Dan | talk 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PentawingTalk 08:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 04:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SkerHawx 03:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Transnomad 20:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Joelwnelson 05:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vertigo700 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Christy747 06:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rayc 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Jeff Lipschultz 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. omega025 02:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Equinox137 09:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Un sogno modesto 09:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Thisisskip 00:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --MONGO 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ryogathepenguin 15:18, 20 March 2006
  19. Cyrruss 14:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I nominated this article a while back over at the Article Improvment Drive, but it didn't get very far there. As it stands, far too much of the article is composed of bulleted lists and it is in dire need of a wholesale reorganization/expansion. –Swid 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got around to cleaning up the formatting, though the content does need some work, especially in verifiability. PentawingTalk 08:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 10, 2006- Denver, Colorado

edit
Nominated [January 24, 2006]

Support:

  1. Vertigo700 17:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Editor19841 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MattWright (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 144.35.254.12 00:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caffeine_induced78 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC) User only has three edits, one being this page[reply]
  6. LittleJohnny 20:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC) User's only edits on this page[reply]
  7. SNIyer12 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. timclare 01.33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. TwasBrillig 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC) User only has two edits, one being this page[reply]
  10. Taterbill 14:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Webdinger 07:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Vanka5 01:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Doovinator 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ambyent 07:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. dancgreer 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Samjapan06 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC) User's only edit[reply]
  17. Bensperr 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC) User's only edit[reply]
  18. California Freeway 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Rick Block (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Pyrorunner 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC) User only has two edits, one being this page[reply]
  22. Cperko 12:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Throughthelens 19:29 MST, 19 March 2006
  24.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Ginkgo100 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Mproud 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. TheAngryPanda 20:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Suspicious vote[reply]
  28. Patrick 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. 206.124.7.134 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I don't think it's fair to get rid of uses that have had a few edits. Certainly, the ones that have only one edit, but 2-3 just means they are beginning users (unless of course its all from the same ISP address). I think you should put those back. Vertigo700 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would agree, if it weren't for the fact that most of the users there either have only done one edit, or haven't edited for a month at least. None of those users have any hint of activity any more, so they would either be meat puppets or possible sock puppets. AndyZ 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is no reason those users should be excluded because of the number of contributions they have made to date. Unless these editors have not made any edits since voting, their votes should be counted! Editor19841 00:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but browse through their contributions. Most of them have only made at most edits to 2 pages. Some of those have not been active for over a month. They are probably either sockpuppets or meatpuppets then. AndyZ 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 24, 2006- Washington, D.C.

edit
Nominated [March 2]; needs 26 votes by [June 1] (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Caponer 18:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AndyZ 23:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Warner 15:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 05:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fightindaman 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Zernhelt 19:58, 6 March 2006
  7. Duran 19:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Markles 12:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sholom 21:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Zak.l 00:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. David618 15:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Luneraako 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mikejmu 04:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. DividedByNegativeZero 06:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Joe Jarvis (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strothra 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Awiseman 17:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. jareha (comments) 21:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Bpiereck 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. JakeNichols 17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ClarkBHM 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. IstNW 10 April 2006
  24. Yarnalgo 02:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Avala 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. G Clark | Talk 16:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Black and WhiteUSERTALKCONTRIBS  22:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:


May 8, 2006- Kentucky Derby

edit
Nominated April 30; needs 12 votes by June 11 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 19:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    24.148.167.232 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jcembree 02:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Manufracture 18:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Esperantinc 17:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. mcshadypl 04:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NoseNuggets 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. JellyFish72 20:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    169.229.13.71 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. PoloShot 21:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Slu2008 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dickclarkfan1 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    67.186.62.121 23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Dgrim85 07:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

May 22, 2006- George Washington

edit
Nominated April 22; needs 17 votes by June 17 (minimum 3 votes per week)

17 votes

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 05:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AndyZ t 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. πᎠᏢ462090λ 02:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shannonc77 16:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Davpronk 14:44, 30 April 2006 {UTC}
  5. Brand 15:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    24.34.92.63 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Litith 22:58, 30 April 2006 (PST)
  7. Steve 20:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Coby2 21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Adamc714 13:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Iuio 22:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Civil Engineer III 16:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Caponer 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. AjaxSmack 02:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hezzy 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nelro May 17, 429 PM
  16. HereToHelp 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    67.172.27.129 02:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC) coolio[reply]
  17. Peter 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Yes, the father of his country should be a featured article, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, James K. Polk, and Gerald Ford, but why not Washington. Coby2 21:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 5, 2006- Native Americans in the United States

edit
Nominated April 27; needs 24 votes by July 6 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AndyZ 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vertigo700 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. General Eisenhower 00:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. πᎠᏢ462090λ 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 04:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prodigious 07:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Robin.rueth 3 May 2006
  8. Mictanteot 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wedge 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Caponer 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Chaos bob 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Knightblazer 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 14:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    216.78.122.87 21:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    152.163.100.74 14:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  14. SumGuy 17:45, 15 May 2006. (Sorry Eisenhower, don't know if I've screwed up something of yours or not...)
  15. UnDeadGoat 00:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Edward Lalone 19:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Grhs126student 21:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Wars 06:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Iuio 20:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. plange 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 11kowrom 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • (renomination) This article is very pertinent to the history of the US, considering as the Native Americans inhabitated the US about 17000 years in the past. It failed to pass through WP:FAC due to issues of POV and inline citations, of which the latter has already been completed. More expansion needs to be done to this article- certain of the sections, namely religion and culture, need to be expanded to represent a larger view of the Native Americans. AndyZ 01:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Eisenhower, voting twice? Lame . . . I have messed with the second, so that's why the vote totals may go down. UnDeadGoat 00:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 19, 2006- Statue of Liberty

edit
Nominated April 29; needs 24 votes by July 3 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AndyZ t 17:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Brand 11:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Coby2 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)+[reply]
  5. PDXblazers 04:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Caponer 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Adamc714 23:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hezzy 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Chrisaltmann5 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tvh2k 11:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Eym0111 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Dwp49423 00:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    68.198.48.71 13:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Scott Mingus 16:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Wars 06:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Lincher 20:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Jmlk17 08:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Jort227 21:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Duran 03:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Crna Gora 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

July 3, 2006- Arlington County, Virginia

edit
Nominated May 7; needs 18 votes by July 9 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Caponer 01:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AjaxSmack 02:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DividedByNegativeZero 03:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Va girl2468 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Thesmothete 03:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. drumguy8800 - speak 06:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --JohnPomeranz 15:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FRCP11 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Anlace 07:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bpiereck 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Hezzy 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Enano275 21:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. GreatKhan 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sfahey 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Patricknoddy 2:26pm June 29, 2006 (EDT)

Comments:

  • I realise that we are nearing the completion of Washington, D.C.'s term as USCOTW, but I was just going over the article for Arlington County, Virginia and I was stunned at how disheveled it is. With a little help it can also easily become a featured article! The following facts make it an interesting candidate: it is a county that contains unincorporated "urban villages" which have all undergone massive gentrification in the past decade, home to the largest national military cemetery in the US, site of The Pentagon complex along as numerous other offices of government agencies, site of Robert E. Lee's Arlington House, and is the smallest county in the 48 contiguous United States. Those that have visited Arlington know that it deserves a much better article than the one it currently has. --Caponer 01:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arlington is more than a national tourist attraction, it is an award-winning national model for smart growth and urban planning. Thesmothete 03:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While it is officially a county, the article and templates should be treated as if it were a city. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck... --Caponer 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it operates more like a city than a typical county -- moreso because in Virginia, cities and counties do not overlap in jurisdiction. A person is either in a city OR a county, but never both at the same time -- so they perform very similar functions. Thesmothete 07:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a 5+year resident of Arlington County, I can say that it is, for all intents and purposes, a single jurisdiction and if it wasn't for the requirement that cities are independent jurisdictions it could have been or would be considered a city, similar to the way the City of Alexandria was broken off from the county back near the start of the 20th century. Arlington County even provides a number of services for the smallest city in the United States, the neighboring City of Falls Church. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 23, 2006- Mount Rushmore

edit
Nominated 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by September 28, 2006 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Tenusplayor 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tenusplayor1 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

October 8, 2006- North Carolina

edit
Nominated 12:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by October 8 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Morphh 12:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nimur 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ineffable3000 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Awbeal 13:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ncsupimaster 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AceKingQueenJack 16:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Iuio 22:51, 24 September 2006

Comments:

December 19, 2006- Ohio River flood of 1937

edit
Nominated 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by October 18 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Bedford 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chris24 04:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ᎠᏢ462090 02:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SNIyer12 01:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (Iuio 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comments:

January 11, 2007- Maine

edit
Nominated 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by 19 December 2006 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Shardsofmetal  02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Morphh (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This is one of the most ignored US state articles on Wikipedia. It definitely needs to be brought up to standards. This article is a classic example of a subject that has bounteous amounts of information on it, yet still remains in disrepair. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 26, 2007- Muhammad Ali

edit
Nominated 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC); needs 2 votes by 24 January 2007 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Soldan 16:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Acdixon 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Andman8 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Whitesoxfanatic 04:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Spacini 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

March 15, 2007- Shreveport, Louisiana

edit
Nominated 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by 23 December 2006 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. 71.158.160.66 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Justin 23:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Morphh (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

April 6, 2007 - Junior State of America

edit
Nominated 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC); needs 2 votes by 15 January 2007 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Agent 86 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • While I'm not American, I have come across this organization in the past and it seemed to be quite a large and successful organization. It certainly seems to have some notability in the United States. The article certainly could use more hands to bring it to a higher standard. Agent 86 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 26, 2007 - United States at the 2007 Pan American Games

edit
Nominated 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC); needs 2 votes by August 2, 2007 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Loukinho 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I know that the Wikiproject United States has been "inactive" for a while however I believe that this article deserves our attention since it's a current event and it's constantly changing. More than that, the event will end in just a few days and some extra effort would be perfect. Loukinho 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 14, 2007 - United States

edit
Nominated 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC); needs 2 votes by July 15 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The definitive article in WikiProject:United States. In desperate need of attention. The article needs to be more concise while still covering all the bases of what this country is. We need to all get together and trim some fat from this article, establish guidelines on the talk page to avoid future edit wars, and get this article to FA status. This is more than improving Wikipedia, this is proving to those maple-syrup drinking freaks to the north that we too can make a Featured article out of our country's page! Please not that the last sentence was for comedic purposes only. But in all seriousness, I presume that a lot of the editors of this page are American, so show some damn pride in your country and your country's Wikipedia page! -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (8 votes, stays until April 16) is collaboration for February 2011

edit
Nominated 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC); needs 1 votes by April 16 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. cmadler (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SMP0328. (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (Iuio (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  5. Pnm (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tomwsulcer --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. JayJasper (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

George Washington (9 votes, stays until April 17) is the collaboration for March 2011

edit
Nominated 03:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 17 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. Spongie555 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Shearonink (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Purplebackpack89 21:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Arctic Night 02:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the sort of article these collaborations were designed to punt into GA or FA territory. It is iconic yet should be more manageable than some other big articles I can't think of as I am writing this but will surely pop into my head in the next hour or so...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (Iuio (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  9. --Aude (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Good Article status is a good waypoint along the way to Featured Article candidacy, and generally results in a pretty rigorous review. I strongly recommend it, especially for larger articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Here are a few comments that may help in the improvement of George's article. Major improvements have been made to this article in recent weeks and I think we are pretty close to getting it to at least GA level.
  • The article just went through a GA review (it failed in September 2010) so there are some good advice for improvements to the article there. After spending the better part of 2 hours reading the suggestions and reviewinng the history of the article most have been addressed. Mostly by the same three editors. I recommend we contact them to help with the article as well. For one they have already done a lot of the work on the article thus far and would probably appreciate assistance and secondly they might be a little irritated at us pulling the carpet out from under them so to speak after they have done so much work on it.
  • The lede is a bit too long and needs to be shortened
  • The lede should not contain any inline citations. It is a summery of the article so the citations should already be in the article with references
  • We need to fix the bunching problem in the beginning.
  • The article doesn't flow chronologically like it should. I jumps around grouping things Like personal life together rather than flowing in order of occurance. I think this needs to be cleaned up.
  • There are a few places that still need inline citations.
  • Too many images on the right. We need to spread them out a bit more
  • Again we need to standardize the dates. there are 2 or 3 different formats used in the article
  • Didn't George write a few things? I think we need to add a works section to list at least some of them
  • There is a whole separate article for George Washington bibliography. Do we really need this. Seems kinda unencyclopedic and maybe we should roll it into the article. --Kumioko (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesapeake Bay (8 votes, stays until April 1) is the collaboration for April 2011

edit
Nominated 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC); needs 2 more vote by April 1 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. Bardobro (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, I think this one could work well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (Iuio (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  4. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. cmadler (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Aude (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- DanielKlotz (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:


Wall Street (4 votes, stays until March 14) for May 2011

edit
Nominated 08:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC); needs 2 more votes by March 14 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kumioko (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC). I'm gonna go with this one too.[reply]
  4. (Iuio (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comments:

Review:

I hope its ok to post this here but if not feel free to move it to the articles talk page. I was looking through the Wall street article and it is a massive improvement over the pre Collaboration version. I fixed a few things already but here are a few things that could use some improvement in the article. I am going to work on some of these as well. I think that we are pretty close to getting this to GA quality and wether it actually makes it to collaboration article of the month I think we should try and work on it too as we find the time of course.
  • I think we should notify the other WikiProjects that might be interested in helping with this. New york, New York City, Economics, etc
  • Inline citations shouldn't be in the lede
  • lede needs to be expanded a little. Its a bit short
  • Needs a little prose and grammer work. There are some choppy sentances, run-on sentances and things of that nature.
  • I think there are too many images on the right and I think it would look better if we shift them around a little more
  • There are still a couple places that need a reference such as the section titled Wall Street versus Main Street, some of the items in the Wall Street in popular culture section and the Transportation section
  • Some of the references need to be cleaned up a bit such as 3 and 15
  • I don't think we need to caps all the author names
  • I'm not sure about the quotes in the inline citations. Are these needed?
  • I think the dates in the inline citations should follow a standard format. We are using 3 or 4 different formats. If the format changes it should be because we are following the display of the article or paper but generally I would say use month day, year.
  • We use a lot of Newspaper articles like USA today, New york times and Wall Street journal in the article and it might be good to see if there is a book or 2 as well to subsidize some of these newspapers. Some could argue that the New York times and Wall street journal are not objective enough to offer unbiased opinions. --Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tomwsulcer has greatly expanded and improved this article since it was submitted to this Collaboration and I think if it is selected we should include that time and those edits as part of the improvement counted. ----

99 Percent Declaration (1 vote) for November 2011

edit

The alternative, Hope diamond, had only 2 votes and is cursed. The COTM had not been updated for two months. Dualus (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed nominations

edit

If you wish to renominate an article, please follow the instructions on the WP:USCOTW page. Please do not move votes from this page to the re-nomination.

Instructions for maintainers: Please add new removed nominations from Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW to the bottom of this page. At every ~20 nominations, or around 4 months, please create an archive by moving Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/Failed to [[Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/Failed/Archive #]], and add the link below in bullet form.

Archived nominations:


Bill Ritter (politician) (3 votes, stays until May 13)

edit
Nominated April 29; needs 4 votes by May 13 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Editor19841 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cornell Rockey 02:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cperko 05:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC) late vote[reply]

Comments:

  • I think that the Bill Ritter article has improved a lot since it's first several edits, and has potential to become one of Wikipedia's greats. The only issue the article has in my opinion, is it's lack of a photo of Bill Ritter himself. I myself, have not had success with uploading in the past, but someone who'd be willing and able could help us (contributors to this artilce) out by uplaoding (a) pic(s) from his campaign site. Editor19841 23:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Yorktown (5 votes, stays until May 18)

edit
Nominated April 27; needs 7 votes by May 18 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AndyZ 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jmlk17 03:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --πᎠᏢ462090λE=mc² 16:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nightfire 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    68.190.33.139 14:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Flag of the United States (3 votes, stays until May 17)

edit
Nominated [May 10]; needs 5 votes by [May 24] (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 04:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caponer 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Flag of Australia, Flag of Hong Kong, Flag of Mexico, and about five other flag articles are FAs. Perhaps it is time for the Stars and Stripes to join that group. PDXblazers 04:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac River (11 votes, stays until May 19)

edit
Nominated April 7; needs 11 votes by May 19 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Caponer 01:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 71Demon 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bpiereck 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Avala 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --G Clark | Talk 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ThuranX 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Coby2 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hezzy 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. youngamerican (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Eisenhower (at war or at peace) (Project) (UTC) 17:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    68.49.26.168 16:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm renominating the Potomac River for USCOTW. Below are the comments left at the previous nomination:

For a river that is supposedly "the Nation's River" its article is sure scanty.
Upon first glance, this looks like a fairly good article. What do you see that still needs to be done? Cmadler 12:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through it, the references are missing, the lead is a bit short, and some of the other sections are a bit short (like the forks). AndyZ 12:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The South Branch Potomac River section is alright although it could use more of a history section, an idea I've been toying with. I put in little stub mentions of the forks so they definitely need a good paragraph on each. I feel the overall history of the main branch Potomac could be a lot more in-depth, too. The North Branch and tidal portions of the Potomac could also use more information. It would be a wonderful featured article if it were to be a U.S. collaboration of the week. I've personally contributed a lot to the page, but would need some assistance to make it top notch :) --Caponer 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Andrew Jackson (4 votes, stays until May 21)

edit
Nominated April 30; needs 7 votes by May 21 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Wikipedical 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Coby2 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PDXblazers 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tytrain 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Very important US President whose article needs reworking. On its way to being Featured status, just needs some help.

Richmond, Virginia (2 votes, stays until May 21)

edit
Nominated May 14; needs 3 votes by May 21 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Caponer 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    68.190.33.139 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. MPS 21:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Florham Park, NJ (1 votes, stays until May 24)

edit
Nominated May 17; needs 3 votes by May 24 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. MEMMEM votes for F. p., N. J. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Memmem (talk • contribs) .

Comments:


  • I fail to see why the whole United States should collaborate on a minor town of 8000 people. Generally, USCOTW topics should be something of national attention. Previous attempts for collaborations on even fairly large cities such as Denver, Colorado have netted very minor results, whereas collaborations such as Music of the United States or Mount Rushmore, ones that have substantially more national appeal, have become featured articles. PDXblazers 04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American football (7 votes, stays until May 26)

edit
Nominated May 5; needs 7 votes by May 26 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 05:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AndyZ t 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jaranda wat's sup 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NoseNuggets 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    66.229.27.46 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Sims2789 06:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gully Juice 02:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

129.174.184.3 06:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • American Football is the most popular sport here. Baseball is already a featured article. American Football should be as well.
  • I'm concerned about attracting too many new editors to this article. The biggest problem with this article has been preventing people from adding needless complications irrelevant to a basic understanding of the sport -- things like one-point safeties and free-catch kicks. We need to keep this article short and simple for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the game. I don't know if it is not the best subject for a collaboration. -- Mwalcoff 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


United States (6 votes, stays until June 3)

edit
Nominated May 6; needs 9 votes by June 3 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AndyZ t 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PDXblazers 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 23:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ryz05 t 16:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hezzy 03:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Eisenhower (at war or at peace♥ with himself HAPPY EDITING!) 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Our country definitely deserves to be a featured article. As of now, it doesn't look like it will pass it's WP:FAC - but some more concentrated effort would allow it to become FA quality. AndyZ t 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree Andy that this should be of the highest quality. However, my understanding of the FAC is that people are concerned about the stability of the article. That being said, a collaboration to improve would still be a good thing. PDXblazers 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just wondering how the US article failed the nomination. It was up for less than two weeks; a shorter time than most other articles. Also, I don't understand how this article can be improved, since I don't think the last nomination gave much details on how to go about improving it. People say that it needs a copyedit, which I'm sure many of you have checked to see if there are any problems, and corrected some typos. Other than that, some people call for expansion, others call for omission, so I don't see we can do either without some discussion. That being said, this article is just the way it is for now.--Ryz05 t 15:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Montana (4 votes, stays until June 12)

edit
Nominated [May 28]; needs 6 votes by [June 12] (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Lorty 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Chipka 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 11kowrom 12:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • State articles should clearly be in good condition. This article isn't. But, with a little work, it could be FA material.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (9 votes, stays until June 20)

edit
Nominated May 23; needs 11 votes by June 20 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 04:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 21:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AndyZ t 14:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maximusveritas 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lorty 01:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Erawl 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Erica.Brunt 05:54, 01 June 2006 (ETC)
  8. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JKQ 00:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Smithsonian Institution (7 votes, stays until June 26)

edit
Nominated 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC); needs 8 votes by June 26 (minimum 3 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    67.138.222.48 13:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. gren グレン 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --User:wwjdfkb
  5. Iuio 02:03, 15 June 2006
  6. Caleb Osment 12:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lubar 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I agree. It's a mess. And there's good history to be had out there. We should work on it. I think alot more can be added to describe the parts of the museums and the secretaries and Smithsonian himself(I realize there is a full article on him) Sorry if I messed up the code on here, I'm still working on writing code.

Hollywood (1 votes, stays until July 1)

edit
Nominated 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by July 1 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Moulder 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I've seen several suggestions and future expansion plans floating around about making an article about Hollywood as a generic term for the American film industry rather than a simple redirect to the area of Los Angeles. As with the freedom of speech article I nominated above, the information is in various other articles. To those who may be opposed to the creation of the article, whether because of potential confusion/disambig work for the neighborhood or because it is or can be covered elsewhere, think of it this way: we need something to counter Baliwood. ;) Moulder 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech in the United States (4 votes, stays until July 22)

edit
Nominated 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC); needs 6 votes by July 22 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Moulder 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CG 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Skinnyweed 21:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Narco 23:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This may be a controversial topic, but you'd never guess it from looking at the article. I think part of the problem is likely that the substantive information is spread across various other articles. This article would be not only FA material but also a topic I'd be genuinely interested in reading about from a holistic, historical and political perspective. Moulder 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi River (2 votes, stays until July 16)

edit
Nominated 06:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by July 16 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. PDXblazers 06:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Patricknoddy 11:33am July 9, 2006 (EDT)
  3. Desalvionjr 19:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Peter Pace (1 votes, stays until Date in 7 days)

edit
Nominated 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by Date in 7 days (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Hal06 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • General Peter Pace is currently the Charmain of the Joint Cheifs of Staff. This is an incredibly important role, and I feel that it could be a great candidate for a featured article. Hal06 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals in the United States (1 votes, stays until July 24)

edit
Nominated 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by July 24 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Independence Hall (4 votes, stays until October 7)

edit
Nominated 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by October 7 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AZ t 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --South Philly 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --evrik 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- Alphageekpa 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Liberty Bell (4 votes, stays until October 7)

edit
Nominated 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC); needs 2 votes by October 7 (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. AZ t 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --South Philly 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Support --evrik 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- Alphageekpa 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Again, I picked up this article from WP:PR. As stated, The Liberty Bell is perhaps one of the most prominent symbols associated with early American history and the battle for American independence and freedom. AZ t 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll (3 votes, stays until TBA?)

edit
Nominated 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC); needs 2 votes by TBA? (minimum 2 votes per week)

Support:

  1. Narco 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zginder 12:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SNIyer12 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I realize the collaboration has been labeled as inactive, but in case it becomes active in the future, the prominence of straw polls (every "minor" presidential candidate has won at least a dozen it seems) in the recent presidential nomination cycle leads me to believe this should have more coverage. See my comment at Talk:Texas Straw Poll. Narco 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawton, Oklahoma (1 vote)

edit

Comments

  • I believe the article on Lawton, Oklahoma should become the new USCOTW because the town and it's surroundings has a huge historical importance. It needs a lot of work on referencing and expansion. ((User:Moviemad/Moviemad)) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

California (3 votes, stays until February 14)

edit
Nominated 08:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC); needs 1 more vote by February 14 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JJ98 (Talk) 05:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Designate (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • California is the most populous US state - should be easy for lots of editors to help out as much of the material is general. It's already been to FAC once (the review can be looked at). Might be a good one to divide up workload. Anyway, just an idea...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article (as of Jan 17th 2011) looks (to my eyes) to be in pretty good shape. If people decide to focus on this one, I'll help if people can point to what needs work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think getting all U.S. presidents and states to GA is an admirable goal, toward which some progress has been made. George Washington and California are low-hanging fruit. —Designate (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review:

Here is a partial review of the California article. I will go and work on some of these as well later. I think that we are pretty close to getting this to GA quality also and whether it actually makes it to collaboration article of the month I think we should try and work on it too as we find the time of course. I also think we need to notify the California related projects and let them know this one is on the docket.
  • Inline citations shouldn't be in the lede
  • Needs a little prose and grammer work. There are some choppy sentances, run-on sentances and things of that nature.
  • There are some very short sections like Cities and regions that need to be expanded
  • I recommend adding a table for regions with some facts about each if possible like population or what the region is known for. There are huge differences between them and we don't really explain it very well.
  • I think there are too many images on the right and I think it would look better if we shift them around a little more
  • There are several places that need a reference such as the section titled Geography, Ecology and Climate to name a few
  • I think some sections like Ecology and Climate need some expansion
  • It needs a few more pictures such as the section for Flora and Fauna and Cities, towns and counties
  • There is a section for Cities, towns and counties and a subsection above it under Demographics for cities and nI think we should combine them
  • There is a huge military presence in California and I think we need to expand this section a little with more of a prose layout than bullets
  • The Racial and ancestral makeup has several bullets of information and I think we need to rewrite this to be in more of a prose format
  • Some of the references need to be cleaned up a bit such as 8, 36 and 93
  • I think the dates in the inline citations should follow a standard format. We are using 3 or 4 different formats. If the format changes it should be because we are following the display of the article or paper but generally I would say use month day, year.
  • If we are using a shortened reference format for the references like we do with reference 15 then we should be consistent and do it for all of them
  • If we are going to use the shortened reference format then the Long version of the reference being shortened should be under a reference section, not Further reading. --Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party (United States) (2 votes, stays until July 6, 2011)

edit
Nominated 01:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC); needs 3 votes by 1 votes, stays until July 6, 2011 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. JJ98 (Talk) 01:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Kumioko (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Good choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States/Collaboration/Nominations&oldid=1142556257"